The Charges
Kebbeh, Chief Executive Officer and majority shareholder of Win-Win Oils (Gambia) Limited, faces four counts: economic crime, theft, obtaining goods by false pretences and cheating.
Counsel for Kebbeh, K. Jallow, submitted that there was “no case to answer,” arguing: Win-Win Oils is a separate legal entity, shielding Kebbeh from personal liability; no funds were paid directly into Kebbeh’s personal accounts; The prosecution had not proven personal causation of loss.
The Court’s Ruling
Justice Jaiteh rejected the no-case submission, citing the Galbraith test which requires dismissal only where there is no evidence or where evidence is so weak that no reasonable tribunal could convict. He emphasised that: Kebbeh’s 90% shareholding and CEO role made him the “directing mind and will” of the company; documentary evidence, including signed correspondence with the World Food Programme, showed Kebbeh personally represented rice shipments that never materialised.
His written request for a 45-day extension to deliver rice consignments raised serious factual questions about the fate of government funds.
The judge concluded that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, meaning Kebbeh must now present his defence.
Justice Jaiteh noted that the corporate veil cannot be used “as an instrument of fraud or economic crime.”
The court also noted the need for explanation as to why assurances and extensions were sought without proof of procurement or shipment, why the outstanding consignments were never delivered, and why the minority shareholder appeared unaware of these transactions despite the company being presented as collectively managed.
These, the judge stressed, are not matters for the prosecution to resolve at this stage but are quintessential issues for the defence case.
For obtaining goods by false pretences, the representations regarding rice stock and shipment, coupled with non-delivery, may satisfy the elements of false representation, intent to defraud, and obtaining property.
In relation to cheating, the government’s payments induced by alleged misrepresentations raised triable issues of fraudulent inducement. On theft, the link between funds paid for rice and the subsequent non-supply suggested possible dishonest appropriation, meeting the threshold for a prima facie case.
The court emphasised its limited role at the no-case stage, warning against conducting a mini-trial. Defence submissions, which invited the court to conclusively determine intent, causation, and corporate attribution, were deemed contrary to established principles.
Justice Jaiteh concluded that the prosecution had adduced cogent and credible evidence on each essential element of the offences. The evidence was neither speculative nor so tenuous that no reasonable tribunal could convict if believed.
The accused’s dominant control of Win-Win Oils (Gambia) Limited, his written representations regarding procurement and shipment, the unexplained failure to deliver 41,404 bags of rice, and the absence of evidence that the promised consignments ever arrived, all raised serious and substantial issues demanding explanation.
Accordingly, the submission of no case to answer was dismissed.
