Abuse of office case continues

The abuse of office case, among others charges, involving Jerreh Jarju and Samba Camara, recently continued at the Brikama Magistrates’ Court with the continuation of cross-examination of the sixth prosecution witness.

Continuing his testimony under cross-examination, Mbye Njie, Director of Operations at the NDEA, said PW1, Nabi Jarju, was released on bail by the first accused, Jerreh Jarju.

Bail condition was a national identity card, he said in response to counsel’s question as to what was the bail condition.

As to how he knew the bail condition came about, the witness said it was through information.

“You are saying that the release of Nabi Jarju was not recorded in the diary book of Sibanor Police Station,”counsel asked. In response, the witness said he did not inspect the diary whether the case was recorded.

“You will agree with me that all investigations on drug offences should be recorded in the station diary,” counsel again put it to the witness, and the witness answered in the affirmative, saying all movements should be recorded in the station diary.

When it was put to him that the arrest and release on bail of Nabi Jarju were recorded in the station diary, in response the witness said he did not inspect the station diary whether it was recorded or not.

Counsel again put it to the witness that when Nabi Jarju was moved to Sibanor to weigh the suspected cannabis, it was recorded in the station diary but the witness said he could not tell because he was not there.

When it was further put to him that the accused persons had recorded the voluntary and cautionary statements from Nabi Jarju, which were tendered in court as defence exhibits, in response the witness said he never saw Nabi’s criminal file in his office and he did not know whether he was cautioned or not.

Asked that during his investigation whether he found out whether there was any criminal record against Nabi Jarju from any of the accused persons, the witness said he did not investigate, adding that he was assigned by the director for a fact finding at Jakoi Bintang.

Asked again that when he was assigned on a fact finding whether the statement was recorded before or after the arrest of the accused persons, the witness said the statement was recorded after the arrest of the accused persons.

“Did you say in your evidence that when a person was arrested with drug trafficking, he should be released on bail with title deed and ID card,” counsel asked and the witness answered in the positive.

“Look at the voluntary and cautionary statements of Nabi Jarju. Was he charged with drug trafficking,” counsel enquired and the witness said he was charged with being in possession of drug.

The case at that juncture was adjourned till 11 April 2012.