Jan 13, 2009, 6:47 AM
Prosecutor Sowe asked him whether he was a member of staff at Kombo Beach Hotel, and he answered in the positive.
Asked his responsibility, he said he is a restaurant supervisor responsible for breakfast services.
It was put to him that on 14, 15 and 16 November 2014 he received guests from Bakotu Hotel.
In response, he said he did not receive guests on 14 November 2014, but received guests on 15, 16 and 17 November 2014, adding that 14 November 2014 fell on his day-off.
Asked at what time he goes to work, he said as early as 7a.m. until 5p.m. except on Fridays.
It was put to him that the guests came to the hotel purposely for breakfast. They came for breakfast on 15, 16 and 17 November 2014, but he was off-duty on 14 November 2014, the accused replied.
Asked whether the guests paid their bills after they had breakfast, he said they paid on 15, 16 and 17 November 2014, when he was on duty but on 14 November he was not on duty.
It was put to him that he said he was a restaurant supervisor, and that he was responsible for all payments done when he was on duty. He answered in the positive.
At this juncture, prosecutor Sowe said she has finished asking questions, and the case was adjourned until 13 June 2016.
When the case resumed, Lamin Jallow asked Almami Ceesay whether he (Almami) was alone at the police station for parade identification, but he said there was no parade identification between him and the other accused persons.
Asked whether he was alone at the police station, he said he was with the other accused persons.
Asked whether the guests identified him as the one they paid to, he said that they identified him as the one they paid to on certain days, adding that he paid the money to the reception.
Asked whether the guests identified another person after he was identified as the one they paid to, he responded that there was no identification parade.
Asked whether the chief security officer, Kebba Gomez, was at the police station, he said Gomez was not there.
Maimuna Touray also asked him whether Amie Conteh was present when they were paraded at the police station. In response, he said there was no parade, but Amie was there.
Still under cross-examination, Gibril Jatta asked him whether he agreed when the whitemen identified him as the one they paid to. He replied that he agreed they paid for three days.
It was put to him that he told the court that the whitemen paid to him on 14, 15 and 16 November 2014. He was asked where he paid the money.
Almami Ceesay replied that this was not true. He said he told the court that he paid on 15, 16 and 17 November 2014 to the reception for three days, adding that it was later confirmed by the head of the investigation team at Kotu Police Station.
He said he had tendered one of the receipts at the court.
Asked whether he paid the money once or he paid separately, he responded that he did not pay once because payment was made on a daily basis, adding that they never kept hotel sales.
Asked whether he was issued with a receipt for any payment, he said receipts were issued at your request, because the money was accompanied by a form called cashier’s sheet which was signed by himself, and that the money with the cashier’s sheet to which the paid bills were attached were received by the reception.
He further stated that the cashier’s sheet was sent to the Control Department for the controllers, where all records were kept.
He was asked which day’s receipt he tendered, and said it was the receipt for the 15 November 2014.
It was put to him that, in his own words, he said that receipts were requested. Then he was asked why did he request for a receipt for only one day.
In response, he said it was your choice, adding that on 16 November 2014, which was a Sunday, he was in charge of doing many jobs at the time.
He stated that on Monday 17 November 2014, he did not also request for the receipt after paying the money, adding that it was at his discretion to request for the receipt.
It was again put to him that what he said was not true, because any day or time payment was made a receipt was issued. He answered that this is not true.
The case continues today.