The case involving Ibrahim Bun Sanneh, former Executive Director of the National Drug Enforcement Agency (NDEA) and four others, yesterday continued at the Special Criminal Court with the cross-examination of Karamo Bojang, former deputy director of the NDEA.
Under cross-examination, Karamo Bojang stated that the 5th accused person, Seedy Bojang, in his testimony did not say anything about the D250,000.
Bojang also told the court that he bought the gun and ammunition the same day at Girigara and Sons Company, adding that he had a license for his gun.
He said the license went missing when the NIA officers searched his residence, adding that two of his bank books, and his passport were also missing.
He adduced that he did not inform the NIA that he got a license for his gun.
He did not recruit any informant, he continued, but the informant came voluntarily and disclosed information to the NDEA, further stating that the information which was given to him by Ousman Jatta, that some Nigerians in the
Still testifying under cross-examination, Bojang told the court that Ousman Jatta was never charged with giving false information.
He testified that when Ousman Jatta told the 3rd accused person, Ousman Sanneh, former director of operations at the NDEA, that he gave him cocaine for sale, he ordered for Jatta’s arrest.
He added that when Jatta was arrested and brought to his office, Ousman Jatta denied such allegation.
“I did not order Pateh Bah to release the lady who was under lawful custody, and who was, in fact, charged,” the witness went on.
He added that the only time he went to the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, was when the 4 kilos and 820 grams of cocaine were tampered with.
Bojang further told the court that the exhibit keeper had the ability to distinguish real drugs from fake drugs.
“The exhibit which was brought from the Banjul Magistrates’ Court by our exhibit keeper was ordinary cement that people use to build a house, and not cocaine,” he continued.
“When the cocaine were tampered with, we did not suspect any of our staff, and the court clerk did not accept that they tampered with the exhibits,” he went on. The case continues on 7 February 2012.
