The witness told the court during cross-examination that Gam-Petroleum has a licence to import petroleum products and that the fuel imported by the different traders is commingled in the tanks.
He said the OMCs that fully paid Gam-Petroleum are not taken to court, while adding that it's true that some of the OMCs have been paying either in cash or products even after the crisis and that reduced the negative balance they are owing Gam Petroleum.
He said apart from exhibit P8, he did not know whether Gam-Petroleum made any other agreement with Satugura Company Ltd., noting that he also did not know whether P8 was renewed.
However, the defence lawyer CE Mene, put to the witness that he would agree with him (lawyer) that exhibit P8 was not signed in the tenure of the first accused person.
In response, Mr. Keita maintained that he did not know the year that the agreement was signed as there was no date on the said document.
PW1 affirmed that he could recognise the signature of the first accused person but that he is not sure whether he would recognise the signature of the second accused person.
Gam-Petroleum's senior finance manager admits he could not tell whether ADAX was overpaid 2.4 million dollars.
He said the trader made their claims through the board and the board authorised them to pay as it is and quantity claims are documented in the settlement agreement and that board is dissolved.
However, lawyer CE Mene told the court that SATUGURA requested that the insurance coverage be increased but PW1 said he was not aware of any such thing.
Pw1 said he did not know the reason why the board did not claim the 25 million dollars. He added that at the time of the crisis, he only saw the agent of SATUGURA and was not aware of the presence of ADAX at the time of the crisis.
Pw1 said he did not know whether ATLAS is owned by ADAX but the defence lawyer, Mene insisted that it's common knowledge.
CE Mene asked PW1 whether he was aware that STAR Oil Gambia limited had written a letter dated 2020 showing interest in taking over the job of the second accused at Gam-Petroleum but PW1 told the court that he was never aware of such a letter.
He pointed out that there are instances where Gam-Petroleum exercises discretion in allowing depositors of petroleum products to uplift fuel but he could not say whether they can uplift quantity over their entitlement.
