The motion to dismiss the indictment and quash charges against the individuals was filed on the 25th of June 2016 by the defense team but state lawyers delayed in responding through a resistance motion, an act which was considered as a gross violation of the law of the country by the defense counsel.
The defense team, represented by Cllr. G. Moses Paygar, prayed the court to take judicial notice of the record of the court, adding that since the prosecution has failed and neglected to file a motion of resistance after a long period of time, the court should give additional time in order to have them peruse the resistance to prepare for argument.
“The filing of the motion and the service of same, to the respondent on the same June 25, 2016, respondent failed and neglected to file a resistance to the motion until at 2:00 PM, on the 17th of August 2016, the exact same time that the motion was scheduled for hearing,” the defense counsel stated.
“The failure and neglect of counsels for respondent to have filed and served or interpose a resistance to movants’ motion at least 24 hours prior to the assigned date and time of the motion, respondent is in gross and serious violation of the law,” counsels noted.
However, the claim made by the counsel representing the Global Witness indicted officials was also resisted by the government represented by Cllr. T. C. Gould who mentioned that there is no law that controls the filing of resistance, noting that the defense counsels have confused the requirement of filing and disposition of motion governed by the rules of court.
“The rule says a motion can only be heard when it is filed 24 hours before it is noticed to be heard, and conversely, a submission may be made on the record of court by permission of court when the case is called,” Cllr. Gould countered.
He considered the defense counsel statement as erroneous and inconsistent with the practice of law; and the statement requesting the postponement of the hearing due to unpreparedness was not supportive.
Moreover, prosecution also prayed the court in its resistance that the motion filed by the defense counsel to dismiss the indictment against their clients was lacking the elements that constitute a ground for the dismissal of an indictment and as such the court should ignore and deny the motion of the defense.
Meanwhile, Judge Emery S. Paye, the assigned judge at the Criminal Court “C” has granted the defense counsel’s request to postpone the hearing in order to have adequate time to peruse the motion.
Judge Paye said the argument raised by the defense counsel was proper and noted further that it was fair and proper to grant the movant ample time to study the resistance since movant motion was filed about two months ago and its content should be well studied and digested by the respondent.
“The postponement of the hearing of the motion is hereby granted and the hearing of the motion of resistance will be heard on Tuesday 23rd August 2016 at the hour of 10:00 AM and it is hereby so ordered, matter suspended,” Judge Paye noted.