Senior
Counsel S.M. Tambadou yesterday challenged the testimony of the first
prosecution witness, in the GNPC case involving former Petroleum Minister, Sira
Wally Ndow-Njai and 8 others, before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal
Court in Banjul.
The
accused persons are Sira Wally Ndow-Njai, Momodou O.S. Badjie, Fafa Sanyang,
Cherno Marena, Seedy Kanyi, Muntaga Momodou Sallah, Momodou Taal, Louie Moses
Mendy and Noah Touray.
When
the case was called, DPP S.H. Barkun appeared for the state alongside Ade and
A. Yakubu.
Senior
Counsel A.A.B. Gaye, S.M. Tambadou, O.M.M. Njie, C. Gaye, L.S. Camara, A.N.D.
Bensouda, H.S. Sabally, R.Y. Mendy, B. Conteh, Y. Senghore, B. Bouye, E. Chimmeh,
C.E. Mene, S. Taal and S. Sillah appeared for the defendants.
Continuing
his testimony, Bakary Darboe, a police officer and the first prosecution
witness (PW1), said they received a contract document from GNPC and a
tabulation which explains it.
The
document was a contract signed between GNPC and March Trading, adding that the
tabulation explains the losses incurred during the implementation of the
contract.
He said the above-mentioned are the two main
documents he could remember.
Under
cross-examination, counsel S.M. Tambadou asked the witness how long he had
served the police force.
“25
years, 8 months,” he said.
“Was
there any investigation team set up for the investigation of this case?”
counsel asked.
“Yes,”
Darboe answered.
“How
many people were on the team?”
“The
number is four.”
“Were
you part of the team?”
“Yes.”
“Were
you the head of the team?”
“I
was not the head of the team.”
“Apart
from obtaining cautionary statements, what other role did you play?”
“I
did not play any other role apart from taking cautionary statements.”
“Were
you the only one taking cautionary statements?”
“No,
Sir.”
“The
members of the team - were they all police?”
“No,
Sir.”
“Can
you tell the court the names of the members of the team?”
“Bakary
Darboe, Baba Danso, Dawda Ndure, and Yankuba Kinteh.”
“How
many statements did you obtain from the 1st accused?”
“I
obtained one statement from her.”
“Who
obtained the other statements?”
“I
wouldn’t know that at this time.”
“Who
has custody of the other statements that you obtained from the 1st accused?”
“As
far as I know, the statement is in the custody of the state prosecutor.”
“You
will agree with me that two other cautionary statements were obtained from the
1st accused.”
“There
is a possibility. My statement, the one I obtained, was an additional
statement.”
“Two
other cautionary statements were obtained from the 1st accused, on 1 and 28
June 2016.”
“I
am not denying it.”
“Can
you produce those statements?”
“I
cannot; they are not in my possession.”
“Look
at exhibit A. This paragraph is answering to questions?”
“Yes.”
“Now
you recorded the answers. Why don’t you record the questions?”
“The
statement was recorded by the 1st accused.”
“You
will agree with me that the 1st accused was recording answers.”
“Yes.”
“Where
is the questionnaire that you gave to the 1st accused, from which questions she
gave these answers to?”
“The
questionnaire must have been in the case file.”
“Can
you produce the questionnaire in court?”
“I
cannot produce it.”
“Why?”
“Because
I’m not in custody of the document”
“Where
is the case file for this case?”
“The
case file was sent to the AG Chambers.”
“When
did the first investigation into this case start?”
“I
can’t remember.”
“When
did the second investigation start?”
“I
still can’t remember exactly. I think it was late June.”
“When
did the 3rd investigation into this case start?”
“I
don’t know of any 3rd investigation in this case.”
“Where
is the report of the 1st investigation?”
“I
cannot tell that in court.”
“Why
can’t you tell the court where the report is. Who has it? Who kept it?”
“I
was not part of the 1st investigation team.”
“Which
investigation team did you belong to, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?”
“2nd
team, my lord.”
“Where
is the report of your 2nd team?”
“It
was sent to the AG Chambers.”
“Do
you remember the date of the report?”
“I
can’t remember the date.”
“Who
wrote the second report?”
“It
was written by the panel.”
“Is
it your report that alleged the loss of 12 million dollars and 9 million
dollars?”
“No,
Sir.”
“How
much loss did your report allege?”
“If
my memory serves me well, it is little over 7 million dollars.”
“You
referred to a tabulation, do you have it?”
“Yes.”
“Is
it the tabulation that you used to arrive at the loss at this stage?”
“Yes.”
The
tabulation was given to the witness, and he said he recognised it.
“Your
investigation team relied on this tabulation?”
“Yes.”
Counsel
then applied to tender the tabulation documents; the DPP objected, but it was
tendered in court and marked in evidence as an exhibit.
Hearing
continues today.
