Mr Anyah, it appears to be an argument concerning your conduct in court. I think in the circumstances I'd like to get this ruling out of the way and then we will deal with the conduct issue.
The Court has considered the applications and submissions of both parties. The Court has a duty to balance the rights of the accused and the public to be aware of a public trial against their duties to security of witnesses and with that in mind we have considered the applications. We note that the documents do not identify the witnesses by name, some of them by name, and certainly there are signatures which do, and the documents do not clearly identify the witness in question. We do not see any threat to the witness from the public nature of these documents and accordingly we refuse the application to have them made confidential.
We would add by way of observation that the Court Management services should not take it upon themselves to make documents confidential if no order has been made and, secondly, that an application of this nature should be made appropriately and timeously and the appropriate time to make such an application is when the documents are tendered. Accordingly the application is refused.
Now Mr Bangura has raised an issue of the use of terminology by counsel for the Defence. I use the word "conduct" very broadly. I don't imply that it - but you've heard the allegation and I invite you to reply.