The fourteenth prosecution witness, Momodou Sillah, on Monday testified in the criminal trial involving Ibrahim Bun Sanneh and four others at the high court in
Ibrahim Bun Sanneh, former NDEA Executive Director, Karamo Bojang, former Deputy Executive Director, Ousman Sanneh, former Commissioner of Operations, Seedou Bojang, the agency’s accountant, and one Marie Sanneh, were indicted by state prosecutors under a 30-count charge.
The alleged offences include conspiracy to commit felony, stealing by person in public service, aiding and abetting, unlawful possession of fire arm, unlawful possession of live ammunitions, concealment and destroying of evidence, official corruption, abuse of office and committing economic crimes, obtaining money by false pretence, among making document without authority, among others.
He told the court that he could recorgnise the second accused person, Karamo Bojang, and had once asked him for the licence of his gun, and that Karamo told him he could remember having the licence the day he bought the gun, but had misplaced it.
“We took the inventory of the gun, which was a single barrel Russian made gun and cartridges,” he added.
He identified the gun and cartridges, which were tendered and admitted as exhibits.
The witness further adduced that they handed over the gun and cartridges to their senior officers for analyses, and a report was issued.
He also identified the report, which the prosecution applied to tender, but this was objected to by defence counsel Pap Cheyassine Secka, on the grounds that no link was established between the gun and the report.
He added that the witness did not take the analysis of the report, and he did not identify the gun by it serial number, adding that all guns have a serial number.
“The witness did not mention how he came to have the report, and there was no proof that the report came from a proper custody,” he further submitted.
The deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, S.H. Barkun, responded that the office of the witness made the report, which is relevant and that the witness was one of the investigators.
The defence counsel objection was subsequently overruled, and the report was admitted and tendered as an exhibit.
The witness continued to adduce that he obtained a cautionary statement from the accused person, and the statement was written by the accused himself, which he signed and the witness also signed.
He also identified the said statement in court, which was tendered and admitted as an exhibit.
The case at that juncture was adjourned till 31 March 2011.
