Senior Magistrate Kumba Sillah Camara of the Bundung Magistrates Court, yesterday, refused a request for the withdrawal of a theft case against one Ebrima Jallow.

The plaintiff, Bakary Singateh, forwarded three reasons for his intention to withdraw the case, citing his busy schedule as a businessman, and that he had been advised to withdraw the case from court by his brother whom, he said, wanted to assist him to travel abroad. He also said that the parents of the accused person, being his neighbours, had also pleaded with him to forgive the accused.

But the magistrate was unconvinced, saying that the first two reasons presented by the plaintiff were not tangible enough to make her withdraw the case. She argued that if it were based on the third reason, it would be acceptable. And she went on to say that “the case shall continue because it is a criminal case”.

It could be recalled that in his previous appearance before the magistrate, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him.

During his cross-examination by the prosecutor, the plaintiff explained to the court that in the early hours of 27th May, 2008, between the hours of 00:00am and 01:00 am, Ebrima Jallow, the accused, and a friend paid him a visit at his home. He said he told them that it was late and that he wanted to go to bed. He further informed the court that he left the visitors outside with his brother, Sadibu Singateh.

Continuing his cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the plaintiff about the state of his door when he went to bed and how he had gotten to know that his items were missing. To this, Bakary answered that he had left his door ajar when he was going to bed, adding that it was his brother who woke him up and asked if there was anything missing. “It was then that I realised that some of my items were missing,” he said.

The accused asked the plaintiff what time he had arrived at his house. He also put it to him that he was not the one who stole the items.

Bakary responded that his brother, whom he had left with them [the accused] at the veranda, had informed him that he had left the accused and gone to the toilet. But because he did not meet them there, he suspected that something might have gone missing.
At this stage, the case was adjourned.
Corporal 134 Sambou represented the IGP.