Addressing the court after winding up their evidence on torture allegation, the defence urged the court to reject the statements sought to be tendered by the prosecution on the grounds that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses under cross-examination were contradicted especially the independent witness, Fabakary Kinteh who admitted that he never saw the accused person until the day he signed the documents.
Barrister Jobe further submitted that the 2nd prosecution witness, Jali Senghore has told the court that he has cautioned the accused before obtaining statement from him in the presence of an independent witness but during cross-examination it was very glaring to the court that the witness refused to answer the question and was asked when the statements were obtained but he said he could not remember.
Lawyer Jobe protested that the evidence of the said witnesses was contradicted by the defence as how the said statements were obtained but the prosecution has failed to controvert the evidence of the defence, noting that the question before the court is whether the prosecution has proven beyond doubt that the said statements were obtained voluntarily in the presence of an independent witness.
The defence contended that it is the duty of the prosecution to give evidence that shows that the statements were obtained voluntarily while citing Section 33 of the Evidence Act to back up his submission.
He further submitted that Sections 31 and 32 of the Evidence Act has set out rules for the confessional statement to be admitted arguing that confessional statements cannot be admitted if it is not done in the presence of an independent witness.