The trial involves the former managing director and former operations manager of Gam-Petroleum, Saihou Drammeh (1st accused) and Lamin Gassama (2nd accused), respectively.
The duo face varied charges that sum up to 8, including 3 counts of economic crimes.
Abdoulie Tambedou, a prosecution witness, confirmed while under cross-examination that some members of the board embarked on a technical visit to a particular petroleum storage company in Dakar, Senegal, sometime in November 2021 on a study tour.
The letters which were sent to the company in Senegal to seek their consent for the visit and the response were both placed before the witness, who confirmed both documents.
The witness later disputed the challenge by the Defence Counsel Christopher E. Mene that it is a result of the shortage that he (the witness) and the board realised that they were deficient in their handling of petroleum products that they came to conclude that they needed to acquire more knowledge.
The witness further adduced that it is not up to his knowledge that when the 2nd accused was appointed operations manager, there was discrepancy between the book records and the physical stock at Gam-Petroleum, as asserted by Lamin Touray, PW2. According the defence counsel, PW2 even went further to note that the discrepancy on gas oil went up to over 8, 000 to 9, 000 metric tons.
Mr. Tambedou further acknowledged that there was an interim report that was drafted by the taskforce that was set-up to investigate the shortage of products at Gam-Petroleum, which blamed both Public Utility Regulations Authority (PURA) and the Gam-Petroleum board of directors partially responsible by not adequately performing their oversight functions over the management of Gam-Petroleum.
Defence Council Christopher E. Mene applied to tender the documents for admission as evidence, which was granted by Justice Haddy C. Roche.
The witness told the court that none from PURA or the board of directors were in anyway held liable for failure on their part; thus, on that basis, the defence argued that the accused persons were just used as scapegoats, which the witness vehemently disagreed.
The witness told the court that the duo currently standing trial is because of their operational responsibility.
Defence Counsel Christopher Mene put to the witness that this was a collective responsibility and that all should have been held responsible.
The case continues.
