The
presiding judge, Justice O. Ottaba of the High Court in Banjul, yesterday
discharged Bakary Darboe, a security officer and the first prosecution witness,
after the defence finished cross-examining him in the ongoing trial involving
the state against the former petroleum minister Sira Wally Ndow-Njai and nine
others.
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, Noah Touray and Madun Sanyang.
When
the case was called, DPP S.H. Barkum appeared for the state alongside the DDPP,
M.B. Abubaccar, and A. Yakubu.
Senior
counsel A.A.B. Gaye, S.M. Tambadou, O.M.M. Njie, L.S. Camara, A.N.D. Bensouda,
A.S. Sabally, Badou Conteh, Y. Senghore, B. Bouye, Emmanuel Chime, C.E. Mene,
S. Taal and S. Sillah appeared for the defendants.
The
prosecution witness was then called into the courtroom and entered the witness
box, and lawyer Awa Sisay-Sabally, counsel for the 4th accused, and lawyer
Emmanuel Chime, counsel for the 6th accused, told the court they have no
questions for the witness.
However,
counsel for the 7th accused, lawyer Christopher E. Mene, told the court he had
some few questions for the witness, Bakary Darboe.
The
witness, he said, had earlier informed the court that he was among the panel
that prepared exhibit G as a result of the team’s investigation.
To
this the witness replied in the affirmative.
He
was then given the said exhibit G to peruse, and was asked if he was conversant
with the exhibit, to which Darboe also replied in the affirmative.
The
witness was then asked to read exhibit G to the hearing of the court, which he
did.
Lawyer
Mene said the words in paragraph two, in the report, referred to a report on a
due diligence mission that was conducted by the 7th accused and several of the
other accused persons in Dubai in Match Petroleum, between 4 and 13 July 2015.
Lawyer
Mene then asked him if he had seen the report he referred to in paragraph two
of exhibit G. The witness replied in the affirmative.
At
this juncture, lawyer Mene applied to tender the said report, and it was
admitted as an exhibit.
“Apart
from the due diligence that was conducted in Dubai by the 7th accused and the
other accused persons, was there any other due diligence that was conducted in
Qatar to your knowledge?”
“Not
to my knowledge,” replied Darboe.
“It
is correct that the due diligence was a fact-finding mission, and to also
determine the capability of Match Petroleum to continue to supply petroleum
products to GNPC,” lawyer told the witness.
At
this juncture, the DPP objected to the line of questioning, stating that lawyer
Mene was reading from the document.
“The
contract between GNPC and Match Petroleum has been terminated?” counsel then
asked the witness.
“I
cannot confirm.”
“Take
a look at paragraph 7 of the exhibit, which was prepared by the investigation
team, and read it to the hearing of the court.”
“Do
you still maintain your earlier answer to whether you don’t know that the
contract was terminated?”
“I
don’t know.”
“As
at the date you came up with the question about the contract between Match
Petroleum and GNPC, had it already been terminated?”
“I
cannot confirm, as we don’t have any official document.”
“When
was the contract terminated?”
“I
don’t know when the contract was terminated.”
“Who
terminated the contract between the Match Petroleum and GNPC?”
“I
don’t know, as it is beyond my knowledge.”
“Do
you still maintain your statement that the panel carried out a thorough
investigation?”
“Yes,
Sir.”
“When
you came up with question 7 on exhibit G, did you know whether or not the
contract between GNPC and Match Petroleum had been terminated?”
“No,
Sir.”
“Then
where did question number 7 come from?”
“It
came from the panel.”
At
this point, Lawyer Mene rephrased his question.
“As
at the date the panel came up with question number 7, did the panel know that
the contract had been terminated?”
“I
don’t know, because there is no official document regarding the termination of
the contract.”
“As
at the time you concluded your investigation, did you know whether GNPC was
still receiving supply from Match Petroleum?”
“I
don’t know.”
At
this juncture, defence counsel Mene informed the court that he was done with
the witness, and the witness was then discharged by the presiding judge.
The matter was then adjourned until 23
November 2016, for the hearing to continue.