Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
" /> Voice Out Digital
Published On: Wed, Jul 10th, 2024

PW2 Continues Testimony in Alleged Seditious Trial

The second Prosecution witness Ousman Jibba on Tuesday 9th July 2024, before Presiding Magistrate Krubally of the Banjul Magistrate Court continues with his testimony in the alleged seditious trial against Ebrima Dibba of the UDP.

The witness said the audio was in Mandinka language, to which he is fluent in. Adding, when the accused was seated in his office, his conversation with him was in the Mandinka Language as well. After the audio was played, he stated that he could recall the words used in the audio. Noting that hence he listened to the audio, he knows some of the wordings. Commissioner Sanneh further went on to ask Jibba about the content of the audio, to which Lawyer BS Touray objected, as he argued the witness should give evidence on the content of the document. Adding the witness had already hinted that certain parts of the audio in its entirety must be given to the Court in the Mandinka language.

Counsel added, if the witness is allowed, they would be compelled to ask the witness the translation of the audio from the Mandinka language to the English language. Noting what the Prosecution should have done is translate the audio and tender that so that the witness would be allowed to speak on the content. `

In response Commissioner Sanneh highlighted, the audio he referred to was played in the Mandinka language in opened court as Exhibit A. Adding the witness who is the IPO clearly said that he is fluent in Mandinka, which he spoke to the accused person in, noting that lawyer Bory Touray did not object to it. He further said, the audio was never said to have been in English but in Mandinka. Adding the witness was only going to explain what he heard from the audio in Mandinka, noting they have not reached there as they would have a witness who would transcribe from English to Mandinka.

Magistrate Krubally in his ruling, said he heard the witness attempting to explain or give evidence of what he heard in the audio in Mandinka, to which Counsel for the accused objected to. Adding in his opinion, since the witness is the IPO, he should explain what he heard either in English or Mandinka, which will not have any prejudicial effect in the case.

He then overruled the Defense and stated the witness could continue with his evidence, Commissioner Sanneh proceeded to ask the witness Ousman Jibba, that since he listened to the audio, would he be able to tell the court what he understands, to that he replied, “in the audio first of all I’m Ebrima Dibba, am here to respond to the president’s speech, he is clueless and knows nothing and will make him know something if he knows nothing which means in Mandinka or translated in Presidan sondomo mamfuta, toleywlong.” He said.

Commissioner Sanneh also asked him, if he confronted the accused with the audio, to that he said yes, when asked what was the accused person’s reaction, the witness responded, the accused when confronted with such confirmed that those wordings as stated in English and Mandinka were his words. Noting, thereafter a statement was obtained from him in that regard, to which he signed that statement obtained from him.

He further explained, the alleged audio was transferred from his phone to ASP Mamberry Touray’s phone, who is attached to the police IT Unit to download the audio from his phone to the Flash drive. Adding, they sent the audio through their office to the Ministry of Justice for the audio to be transcribed at the national transcribed office so that they can have a certified version of the said audio.

When asked if he knows his number and the number of Mberry Touray, he answered yes, he knows the numbers but for security reasons, he can write it down. Court ordered him to write the numbers down and serve both to the Defense and Court. Commissioner Sanneh further asked him about the statement he obtained from the accused and where it was. To that he answered, the statement he recorded from the accused is in the case file of the Prosecution.

That was all the Prosecution had for the witness, the witness was then cross-examined by Lawyer Bory Touray. He first asked the witness if he had known the accused, before this incident to that he responded yes. He was further asked if it is right that he had never interacted with the accused via phone, to that he said they haven’t.

Lawyer BS Touray inquired from the witness if the conversation he had with the accused while he was in detention, was reduced to writing, to that he answered it was not a signed one but they did take jottings. When also asked if he is to produce those jottings would he be able to do so, he said no he cannot. Lawyer BS Touray asked him if it is right that he does not have any complete records of writing during his conversation with the accused to that he replied, he has a complete record of the conversation he had with the accused.

The witness was told by Lawyer BS Touray that he is not referring to the cautionary statement but about the conversations he had with the accused, he answered those jottings he did not keep them. He was further asked if it correct that he does have complete records of conversation with the accused, to which he said that is incorrect.

The Case is adjourned to Tuesday 6th August 2024 at 10:00am

About the Author

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

unemployment tax management