One
Yerro Saidy, a police officer, yesterday revealed the findings of an audit
report during investigation of the criminal case involving Ebrima Jawara,
former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, and three others
before Justice E.O. Dada of the Banjul High Court.
The
other accused persons are Dr Alasan Bah, former project coordinator of the
Rural Finance Project, Sulayman Manneh, former project accountant of the Rural
Finance Project, and Hassan Jallow.
Continuing
his evidence, officer Saidy said their investigation was centred on the audited
report received from the National Audit Office.
According
to the witness, the report raised various issues. However, before he could
finish talking, defence counsel Mene objected to the piece of evidence, arguing
that the witness could not give evidence on a document that was not before the
court.
Lawyer
Hawa Sisay-Sabally also adopted the objection of lawyer Mene, and further
submitted that the witness was not the maker of the said report and that, even
if the document was before the court, they would not be able to cross-examine
the witness on it because he was not the maker of it.
Responding
to the objections of the defence counsel, state counsel Lamin Jarju argued that
the objection was “misleading” because the witness was part of the
investigation team, and that he was stating facts based on the report.
He
further argued that the witness was giving facts that transpired and he was not
going through the content of the document.
He,
therefore, urged the court to overrule the objection.
Lawyer
Mene said his learned friend had misconceived their objection, saying they were
objecting to the witness going through the content of the audit report, not his
evidence.
In
her ruling, Justice Dada sustained the objection of the defence counsel and
ordered the prosecuting counsel to guide the witness on the report.
Responding
to questions from prosecutor Jarju, the witness adduced that during the
investigations, the accused persons were asked questions based on the queries
on the audited report.
Asked
whether there were findings, the witness responded in the positive.
He
said that during their investigation, it was discovered that the former project
coordinator, Alasan Bah (2nd accused person), received advanced fuel allocation
of D100,500.
“The
panel found out that he handed over only D19,000 to Ebrima Jawara (1st accused)
leaving the balance of D81,500.”
The
panel further found out that Mr Bah had paid tuition fees for non-project
staff, and one of them was found to be his nephew,” said the witness.
Officer
Saidy further told the court that D130,000 was allocated to the project
coordinator (Mr Bah) for his monthly fuel allowance, while D80,000 was
allocated for Sulayman Manneh (3rd accused) for his monthly fuel allowance.
He
further told the court that the accused persons claimed that it was approved by
the project steering committee, but they did not substantiate this.
Under
cross- examination by lawyer Mene, the witness was asked whether their finding
was contained in a report and the witness responded in the positive.
Asked whether he had a copy of the said report
in court, he responded in the negative.
When
further asked whether his oral evidence in court was contained in the said
report, he responded in the positive.
At
this juncture, lawyer Mene urged the court to order the witness to provide the
defence with a copy of the said report.
Subsequently,
the case was adjourned until 18 October 2016, at 11am for continuation of the
hearing.
The
witness was ordered by the court to produce the said police report.
