Jun 6, 2016, 1:39 PM
The second prosecution witness, Sulayman Gaye, yesterday continued his testimony under cross -examination, in the treason and sedition trial involving Dr Amadou Scattered Janneh and others at the Special Criminal Court in
Gaye told the court that Africa Liberation Day was on 25 May, but the accused persons were arrested on 6 June 2011, adding that it was 12 days in between their arrest and African Liberation Day.
Mr. Gaye added that, on 25 May 2011, he was at work on some personal business.
When asked by the defence counsel whether anything abnormal happened on 25 May 2011, the witness told the court that nothing happened in The Gambia on that day.
He adduced that by looking at exhibit A, the T-shirts, it was not written on it ‘contempt’, nor was the word ‘hatred’ or the word ‘disaffection’ written on the T-shirt.
He stated that the word “Coalition for Change” referred to The Gambia, adding that the word ‘President’ was not written on the T-shirt, but to say The Gambia refers to the President of the
Still testifying under cross-examination, Gaye told the court that he votes, because The Gambia is a democratic state, and there is freedom of speech.
He said the wording on the T-shirt was meant to incite violence in The Gambia, and that “End to Dictatorship” was referring to the President.
The next prosecution witness to testify was Muhammed Idrish, a businessman living in Kololi, who trades in garments and textiles.
He told the Special Criminal Court that he knew the 4th accused.
He stated that on 23rd May 2011, the 4th accused came to his shop and purchased 70 T-shirts from him at the Banjul Ferry Terminal and, on 24th May 2011, the 4th accused again purchased 30 pieces of T-shirt.
The witness added that there are features on the T-shirts and their trademarks, and that he had two samples at his disposal.
At that juncture, the defence counsel objected to the samples on the grounds that the said T-shirt was not listed on the list of exhibits, and they are not relevant to the facts of the case.
However, the defence objection was overruled, and the witness continued to inform the court that he could recognize the T-shirt, as it was a plain white T-shirt without any writing on it.
Under cross-examination, the witness told the court that he could recognize the T-shirt by its quality black line and quality brand, adding that the T-shirts were manufactured in
He said he had exclusively rights over the sale of this T-shirt in The Gambia, but that people purchased it on retail basis, and there is no shop in the
He said he did not know the reason why the 4th accused purchased the T-shirts. He added that he made a statement to the police.
Defence counsel at that juncture applied to tender the witness’s statement, and it was admitted as a defence exhibit.
Hearing continues on 8 November 2011.