#Article (Archive)

PW2 cross-examined in former top NDEA officers’ case

Mar 5, 2014, 9:42 AM | Article By: Malamin L.M. Conteh

The second prosecution witness, Musa Jarju, a narcotic officer, was recently cross-examined in the trial involving Benedict Jammeh, former director general of the NDEA, at the Banjul High Court before Justice Malilou Abdoulah.

The other accused persons are the former agency’s PRO, Abdoulie Ceesay, former Commissioner of Administration, Yusupha Jatta, and the former director of intelligence and investigation, Foday Barry.

They are being tried under a 21-count criminal charge which included economic crime, giving false information, fabricating evidence, abuse of office, negligent of official duty, theft, among others.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel, E Jah, the witness adduced that the 2nd accused was the head of the prosecution unit and also the PRO of the agency.

He added that he did not record any statement from the 2nd accused and he did not have any interaction with the 2nd accused during the course of the investigation and since he had no interaction with him, he knows nothing about his case.

Responding to questionsby counsel Ozuma, the witness adduced that they investigated the material information,and later obtained both cautionary and voluntary statements of the 3rd accused, Foday Barry, based on the information on the cautionary statement.

He added that at the time of obtaining the statement there was an independent witness.

It was put to the witness that at the time of recording the statement there was no independent witness, but the witness maintained that there was independent witness present.

The witness after going through the statements said the name of the independent witness was Foday Sanyang, but currently he did not know the wherebout of Foday Sanyang.

Under cross-examination by defence Sunmbo Akinbo, the witness maintained that he obtained a cautionary statement from the 4th accused, and read the cautionary wording to him and the 4th accused wrote his own statement.

“I cannot remember the name of the independent witness and I cannot also remember the reason why the name of the independent witness did not appear on the statement,” the witness said.

The case continues.