Meanwhile, the defence counsel Bory Touray informed the court they would file a no-case submission.
Ebrima Dibba, an executive member of the United Democratic Party (UDP), has alleged said via a WhatsApp audio that President Barrow’s actions do not align with his words.
“You have two tongues. If you say this you say that,” Dibba said in an audio transcribed by a court staff and tendered in court yesterday by police prosecutor Commissioner A Sanneh and his team before Magistrate Krubally of the Banjul lower court.
Dibba was charged with seditious intention under section 51(1)(a), punishable by section 52(1)(b) & (c) of the Criminal Code Volume One, Laws of The Gambia 2009.
The IGP alleged that in May 2024, Dibba recorded and published a WhatsApp audio accusing the President of being “greedy, immature, rude, and foolish”, aiming to incite contempt against the President or the Government.
During her evidence-in-chief, Haddy Jagne, 3rd prosecution witness, explained that she received a file requesting a transcription, which was accompanied with a flash drive.
After she received the file and flash drive, an instruction was given for the audio in the flash drive to be transcribed, she said, adding that the instruction came from the office of the Attorney General.
“Upon receiving the audio, I listened to it, and it was in Mandinka language,” she told the court. Since I was not fluent in Mandinka, I had to invite a court interpreter called Mamadou Huma to assist.”
PW3 also said the interpreter listened to the audio, which was in Mandinka language, and she transcribed it into English language. When the transcription of the audio was done, she signed it as the transcriber, along with the court interpreter, Mamadou Huma, she testified.
In the alleged WhatsApp audio of Ebrima Dibba, transcribed by PW3, he stated the following: “The sons of UDP are not like other sons. The farming system is destroyed. The corruption in his government - the debts that this country has, when you add up the debts of Sir Dawda and Yahya Jammeh, his debts are higher because of corruption; everything was stolen.”
The transcribed audio of Ebrima Dibba further states: “Let him stop saying my hospitals, my roads, and let him be grateful to the Gambian people. What an ignorant statement. President Barrow acts like someone who is aware and knowledgeable. He should recognize his rank and value his position.”
The audio and the flash drive were presented before the court by Commissioner A Sanneh, who asked the witness to confirm if it was the same audio and flash drive she received, and the witness confirmed both.
However, defence counsel Bory S. Touray asked the witness if there was any label on the flash drive to confirm that was exhibit A admitted in court.
But the prosecutor objected to that and said the witness never described the flash drive before the court. “She said the flash drive, and so I submit that the objection should be made on the content and not the flash drive,” the commissioner pointed out.
Counsel Touray replied that the objection by the prosecution lacked merit, and urged the court to overrule it.
After hearing the arguments of both parties, the court overruled the objection raised by the prosecutor and relied on section 202 of the Evidence Act, which states that the cross-examiner may ask any question to test the accuracy of the witness as well as test his or her credibility and “this is what counsel for the accused is doing. So the objection is overruled”.
The witness then replied that there was no label on the flash drive, and the flash drive with a file was presented to her officer by a master, Omar Cham, and the register of the High Court.
The witness mentioned that the accused was speaking in Mandinka and she could identify his voice but the defence counsel asked if she was trained in voice identification and she said “no”.
She was then asked if she had ever interacted with the person in particular or had ever spoken to the peer of that voice, and she also said“no”.
Defence counsel then asked: “Do you agree with me that being an IT technician in this day and age the world is confronted by artificial intelligence is a challenge?”
Prosecution Commissioner Sanneh objected to this question of the counsel, saying it was an opinion and that the witness never said she was an IT technician. “Even though the sky is the limit, it must be within the borderline of the rules,” the Commission said.
The court again ruled that the question raised by the defence counsel was relevant and thus within the confines of section 202 of the Evidence Act. “The question is relevant, which requires the witness to answer. Objection by the prosecution is overruled. The witness shall answer and cross-examination shall continue,” court ordered. The witness therefore said “yes” to the defence counsel’s question.
The prosecution stated in court that they intended to close their case at that stage and would not present any other witness. And Counsel Bory Touray informed the court they wished to make a no-case submission.
The case was adjourned till 11 September 2024, for a no-case submission by counsel for the accused.
