During cross-examination, the witness, Landing Nasso, said the accused was not present at the recovery of the body because, at that time, there was no identified suspect.
Counsel for the accused, Samuel Ade, from the National Legal Aid, asked the witness whether the body of the deceased, Sakina Chinedu, was discovered by his team. The witness said the body was discovered by a team of investigators, complainants, friends of the deceased, and the Brikama Fire and Rescue Services.
The witness further indicated that he did not know when the deceased died, but they received information on 16 February 2024 that the deceased was missing, and the body was recovered on 17 February 2024.
The defence counsel referred to the bill of information, which indicated that the offence was allegedly committed on 14 February 2024. “That is three days after the deceased died,” counsel Ade deduced from the date the body was recovered.
The witness responded he did not know when the deceased died but confirmed they received the missing person’s report.
Counsel Ade pointed out that during those three days, the deceased’s house was unprotected, but the witness said that was not to his knowledge.
The defence counsel also mentioned the first prosecution witness, Modou Badjie, who told the court that when the matter was reported to the police, he went to the deceased’s house and jumped over the fence to gain access.
The counsel further suggested to the witness that any member of the public could have jumped over the fence with the intention of stealing. The witness replied that he did not know what the public might have done.
Counsel Ade also suggested to the witness that thieves would usually visit a property to steal when they know the occupant was not present, but the witness stated he was unaware of such circumstances.
During the investigation, the witness told the court, seven properties were found in the possession of individuals other than the accused. The witness said recoveries were made from these individuals, who claimed that the properties were either given or sold to them by the accused.
He added that those individuals did not provide receipts to prove that the accused sold the properties to them, but they confessed and provided evidence that the properties had been sold by the accused.
The case was adjourned till 5 November 2024.
