Defence counsel objects to state documents in health officials corruption trial

The document indicated the different account numbers of the Health Promotion and Development Programme (HePDO), which two of the accused and other members were signatories to. 

Defence counsel Lamin S. Camara argued that the document had not been listed on the list of exhibits nor was it served. 

Counsel L.S. Camara said the document was not admissible and was not in compliance with sections 175 B &C of the Criminal Procedure Codes, adding that the document transgressed section 24(3) (c ) of the 1997 Constitution. 

Defence counsel further argued that criminal litigation was mandatory and constituted fair hearing principles. “The accused have a legal right to be served with every document to the custody of the state. What is about to happen here is a trial by ambush by trying to tender documents that have not been served to the defence. We urge the court to reject the document,”LS Camara pointed out. 

During her testimony, the witness Fanta Jatta Sowe explained that she was a vice chair of HePDO board of directors from 2018 to 2021 when she became a board chair. 

She said she had never come across a contract signed between HePDO and the consultants, whose contractual documents were tendered in court. 

She further explained that HePDO had maintained two bank accounts with Ecobank which included a malaria project account, adding that the organisation also maintained an account with BSIC bank and two accounts with Access Bank, one of which was a UNICEF fund and the other was for the TB research programme. 

The witness further testified that the signatories to the accounts were she, one Lamin Manneh, Omar Ceesay (the 2nd accused), and Balla Kandeh (the 1st accused).

Asked if she had the Access bank account numbers in respect of the TB-related programs and UNICEF, the witness responded that she would not be able to read them off-head but would be able to identify them because of the account name and the project the account was serving, the account number and the signatory. 

When the document was shown to the witness to identify whether it was the account number and the DPP also asked if she had seen the numbers, the witness confirmed to the court that it was the account number.

The DPP applied to tender the documents but the defence counsel objected and urged the court to reject the application of the DPP. 

The case was adjourned until 15 July 2024.