Saturday, May 27

Defence cross-examines witness in alleged coup trial

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

The alleged coup plotters are: Lance Corporal Sanna Fadera, Sergeant Gibril Darboe, Corporal Ebrima Sannoh, Corporal Omar Njie of the Gambian army and Police Sub-inspector Fabakary Jawara, who are facing 5 criminal charges that includeing treason.

Testifying under cross-examination, the witness told the court that none of the accused person’s name or signature on the purported operational plan.

On the issue of the mobile phones that were acquired by the investigation panel from the accused persons, Senghore told the court that the mobile phones were obtained by the arresting team, which he was not part of.

He further told the court that the phones were not under his custody but were kept by one of the panel members, confirming that he knows where the phones were kept.

Asked whether there was anything done with the phones, he told the court he did not know whether anything had happened to the mobile phones at where they were kept.

The witness adduced that they obtained no text messages between 1st and 5th accused persons and also obtained no audio conversation between the accused persons concerning the charges for which they have been indicted.

“Do you have any transcription of the conversations between any of the accused persons concerning the charges they are facing?” Counsel LS Camara asked, and the witness replied in the negative.

LS Camara asked the witness whether he had any qualifications in telecommunication.

The witness replied that he has basic qualification in the analysis of call logs.

“Is it correct that you are not in any position to give the context of exhibits P9 and P10 (call recordings of the accused persons)?” the defence counsel asked.

“About the analysis, I can do that,” the witness answered.

“Is that all you can do with exhibits P9 and P10 (printout of call recordings)?” the counsel asked again, and the witness answered in the affirmative.

“Look at the documents and tell the court whether the analyst talks about what exactly transpired between the caller and the person called,” Counsel LS Camara asked.

The state witness told the court he could actually relate to the court who called who and what they discussed.

Defence counsel then asked Senghore to do so by telling the court, but State Counsel L. Jarju objected to that.

“That’s not a fair question to the witness and it should be disqualified,” Counsel L. Jarju contended.

The objection was, however, overruled by Justice Bassirou V.P. Mahoney.

The case resumes today.