D.P.P.: It’s difficult to charge uncooperative witnesses…

Earlier in the newscast we reported on the alarming number of cases that fail because of evidence tampering. In his opening speech at the Supreme Court on Monday, Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh urged the use of provisions in the law to deal with persons who threaten or intimidate witnesses and to also deal with witnesses who recant. But when we spoke to D.P.P. Cheryl-Lynn Branker-Taitt, she said bringing charges against witnesses who refuse to testify because they have been threatened is in itself a challenge.

Cheryl-Lynn Branker-Taitt, D.P.P.
“If a witness comes and says that he afraid to testify there is very little that we can do in order to convince him to testify. Even if we were to put him on the stand, our experience has shown that he would prefer to go to prison and remain alive than to testify against an accused person who he says has sent him threats.”

Marion Ali
“But at the end of the day, it’s your office that bears the burden of proof. You have to prove that someone is guilty and to say that witnesses are not willing to testify, is that enough? Is that a good enough reason to say why we have eighty-three cases that have had to be withdrawn?”

Cheryl-Lynn Branker-Taitt
“We have to prove the case but it is not as though we witness the incidents and therefore we can give the evidence. We have to lead what is available to us so that we depend on the witnesses; we depend on the public t assist us in prosecuting matters.”

To compound the problem, the D.P.P. contends that it is seldom the accused himself who makes the threat. Instead, it is usually done through a person who the witness is not able to name or otherwise identify.