Montserrado County District #10 Representative YekehKolubah has filed a motion at the Criminal Court “A” in Monrovia, requesting the court to acquit him of multiple charges due to prosecutors’ alleged failure to make up a prima facie case against him.
Through his lawyers, Kolubah opines that prosecution presented seven witnesses throughout the trial of the case who have failed to establish a prima facie case of aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit murder, kidnapping, criminal solicitation and criminal facilitation which he is indicted for.
Rep. Kolubah prays the court to grant him a judgment of acquittal in line with Section 20.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which according to him allows the court to take such action if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offenses after the evidence on either side is closed.
“In other words, the allegations in the indictments were not proven beyond all reasonable doubts based on the insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction of the charges or offenses against Movant,” he claims.
Mr. Kolubah, a staunch critic of President George Manneh Weah, insists that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses varied in material facts which according to him render the charges or offenses dismissible.He argues that none of the witnesses told the court during examinations that he did assault or cause bodily injury on the body of Emmanuel Freeman.
Mr. Kolubah was jointly indicted with his former security guards and supporters for allegedly beating one Emmanuel Freeman who had allegedly rejected a leaflet and T- Shirt printed for a protest planned for June 7, 2019 by the Council of Patriots (COP), a pressure group he resigned from last week.
Prosecution dropped charges against Mr. Kolubah’s former security personnel and supporters in person of Abu Keita, Johnson Kpor, Oliver Kanneh, Levi Blackie, Mohammed S. Kabah, Mohammed A. Kabah and Frank O. Morgan and subsequently used them as state witnesses against the lawmaker.
Kolubah was earlier granted separate trial by the court based on his own request to the Court to enable him to attend legislative functions, among others.
He lost a motion in which he wanted the court to rescind its decision of granting a nolleprosequi requested by the state in favor of his co – indictees who had become state witnesses.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]
Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie disagreed with the lawmaker, ruling Tuesday, 14 April that the prosecution had the legal right at any time to file a nolleprosequi for any of the two sets of defendants, if the State so desires.
By Winston W. Parley
