Mar 11, 2010, 1:08 PM
Faal, a former member of the National Assembly and a member of the newly-formed
political party, Gambia Democratic Congress (GDC), yesterday confirmed to
lawyer Tambedou in the courtroom at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court that she had
Tina Faal was rearrested and detained at Mile 2 Prisons after she was granted bail by the Banjul Magistrates’ Court.
Her arrest and detention did not go down well with her counsel, Combeh Gaye, who told the court that the detention of her client was a violation of her constitutional right.
Tina Faal’s release followed the statement made by Magistrate Omar Cham that court orders must be obeyed, and that courts do not make orders in a vacuum.
During yesterday’s proceedings, the police prosecutor, Sarja Sanyang, told the court that he was representing the IGP along with Sergeant Jaiteh.
Lawyer Combeh Gaye announced her representation for the accused.
The witness, Ebou Badjie, who had testified earlier, yesterday continued his testimony.
The witness was asked by the prosecutor to explain the procedures there are, when the witness’s office sends a power of attorney to the Registrar General.
Mr Badjie said that in such instance, the registrar would review it and if he is satisfied, he would endorse it.
He stated that the Registrar General had endorsed the power of attorney, which is the subject matter of the case.
He was asked if he would be able to recognize it, if the said power of attorney with serial number 196/2014 volume 33 PA was shown to him.
He said he would, because it bears the serial number 196/ 2014 volume 33PA.
At this juncture, he was given the document to look at, which he did.
He then said he recognized it, and that a certified copy was registered in their office in 2014.
The prosecutor applied to tender the document.
The defence counsel then told the court that there were two copies of the power of attorney the prosecution sought to tender.
She said the prosecutor should identify the one he wanted to tender.
The prosecutor then identified the one he sought to tender, and the defence counsel did not raise any objection.
Magistrate Cham admitted the document, which was marked as an exhibit.
Under cross-examination by the defence counsel, the witness was asked to take a look at the back of the document, which he did and read what was written at the back.
He was then asked when the document was certified, and he said it was certified yesterday, 23 August 2016.
He was asked whether he would ask for the original copy when someone comes to register at the Registrar General’s office.
He answered in the positive.
He was again asked whether the power of attorney was the original document that was registered in 2014 bearing the serial number 196/2014 volume 33PA, and he said this was correct.
The defence counsel asked him where the original was.
The original was in their custody, but was missing and they could not find it, he told the court.
He was asked whether he was telling the court that there was no original.
He said they did not keep the original, but the duplicate.
It was put to him that it was the original that was registered in his office, and he answered in the positive.
He further said the duplicate looked like an original, but it is a duplicate of the original which did bear the duty stamp at the end of every registration.
It was put to him that it was the original with the duty stamp that was kept in his office.
He answered in the positive, and said he could not remember that practice.
It was also put to him that the original bearing the serial number 196/2014 volume 33PA was given to the investigators; that was why he did not get the original.
He said he could not recall all that transpired when the matter came to his office.
Asked whether the document tendered by the prosecutor was the original, he answered in the negative.
It was put to him that he told the court that the power of attorney was registered on 7 May 2014.
He said this was correct.
“It is correct that the Registrar General endorsed the back to confirm that it was delivered to him for registration on 7 May 2014,” the defence counsel told him.
He answered in the positive.
He was asked to look at the document and tell the court whether the said document was endorsed, and he said it was not.
Lawyer Combeh Gaye challenged him that he was not consistent, but he said he was.
The case was adjourned until 25 August 2016.