Bensouda stood firm under intense questioning, insisting that she was appointed in her personal capacity not as a representative of her law firm, Amie Bensouda & Co, despite using the firm’s official letterhead in her acceptance letter.
The hearing, chaired by Hon. Abdoulie Ceesay, heated up when lawmakers questioned the credibility and propriety of Bensouda’s engagement letter, which bore her firm’s name and seal, despite her claims that the appointment was purely personal.
“I was appointed in my personal capacity,” Bensouda maintained firmly, her voice unwavering. “The appointment letter of 12th July 2017 made it clear that the appointment was to me, Amie Bensouda, not to my firm, not to a corporate entity.”
Hon Kebba Lang Fofana, member of the committee, however, pressed further, highlighting that the acceptance letter she wrote was on the official letterhead of Amie Bensouda & Co, a limited partnership in which she serves as managing partner.
“Your signature appears under the firm’s name: how do you reconcile that with your claim of personal engagement?” he queried.
“That’s the letterhead of the firm in which I work,” she explained. “It was the only letterhead available to me at the time. But that does not change the fact that the engagement was personal. The firm is a separate legal entity. I acted as Amie Bensouda, not as Amie Bensouda & Co.”
The exchanges grew increasingly sharp when Hon. Fofana pressed her on the significance of using the firm’s branding in an official correspondence. “It portrays that you were acting on behalf of the firm,” he argued.
“That is not correct,” Bensouda said. “You are entitled to your opinion, but I am here to give evidence of fact. I was appointed personally, I accepted personally, and I executed my duties personally. Whatever interpretation you may have is your own.”
This prompted the Hon. Omar Jammeh, also a member of the committee stating: “Let’s remember, the witness was summoned, not invited. We are here to clarify facts, not to argue opinions.”
Despite repeated attempts to corner her into admitting that the firm’s letterhead implied corporate representation, Bensouda held her ground, reminding the committee that “even in court, a counsel’s word is their final answer” unless contradicted by evidence.
“I don’t have to satisfy anyone,” she declared. “My answer stands. The appointment was in my personal capacity. The letterhead is of no consequence.”
Counsel assisting the committee later clarified that Bensouda’s presence was not adversarial but meant to assist the committee’s fact-finding process, acknowledging her “extensive experience and institutional memory”.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
