Tuesday, May 30

Witness Confirms Purported Operational Plans Of Alleged Coup Plotters Has No Signature

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Arrival Of The Alleged Coup Plotters In Court.

By Landing Ceesay

The court heard from Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Jally M.I. Senghore, who under cross-examination agreed with Counsel L.S. Camara that the alleged coup plotters’ plan had no signature.

Mr. Senghore, a Police Officer from the investigative panel that the Gambia government formed to look into the alleged coup attempt in December 2022 said that they found a plan of operation during their inquiry.

Under cross-examination, he confirmed to the court that the alleged coup plotters’ operation was unsigned.

“Look at exhibit P11 (Operational Plan) and show us the name of the 1st accused person on that document. Is there anywhere the name of the 1st and 5th accused persons written on it,?” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“No my lord,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Can you show us the signature of any of the accused persons on exhibit P11 (Operational Plan)? Is there any signature of the accused persons,?” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“No, my lord,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Can you show us the name of any of the accused persons as the author of exhibit P11 (Operational Plan),?” Counsel LS Camara asked again.

“No, my lord,” ASP Senghore responded to Counsel LS Camara.

ASP Senghore further told the court that he does not know who printed out the operational plan.

ASP Senghore further told the court that he does not know when the operational plan was printed out.

On the last adjourned date, the Prosecution (State) tendered to the court the mobile phones of the alleged coup plotters in their treason trial before Justice Basiru B.V.P Mahoney of the High Court of the Gambia.

The treason trial involved four members of the Gambia Armed Forces and one member of the Gambia Police Force.

On the issue of the mobile phones that were recovered by the panel from the accused persons, ASP Senghore told the court that the mobile phones were recovered by the arresting team.

“You were not one of them,” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“No, my lord except for the 5th accused person,” ASP Senghore responded.

“These mobile phones were not in your custody,” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“They were kept by one of the panel members,” ASP Senghore responded.

ASP Senghore told the court that he knows where the mobile phones were kept.

However, ASP Senghore said he doesn’t know whether anything happened to the mobile phones where they were kept.

The Four (4) Soldiers and one (1) Police Officer are accused of an attempted alleged Coup and been charged with 5 counts including treason.

The Soldiers and a Police Officer charged are; Lance Corporal Sanna Fadera (1st accused) Private Officer, Gibril Darboe (2nd accused) Corporal Ebrima Sannoh (3rd accused), and Corporal Omar Njie (4th accused), Fabakary Jawara (5th accused) is the Police Officer charged alongside the Soldiers.

ASP Senghore told the court that the panel has no text messages or messages in their custody between the 1st and 5th accused persons concerning the charges they are facing before the court.

ASP Senghore also told the court the panel has no audio conversations between the accused persons concerning the charges they are facing in court.

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

You Might Also Like

“No, my lord, except the conversations between the 1st accused and Karamo Jatta our source,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Do you have anything in your custody audio conversation between the 1st accused and Karamo Jatta,?” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“Yes we have the audio transcription and handed it over to the prosecution,” ASP Senghore told the court.

About his presence at the panel, ASP Senghore told the court that he was not present every other day when the panel sat.

“May I be correct to say that you would not be privy to what happened between the 1st and 5th accused and the panel,” Counsel LS Camara asked?

“Correct my lord,” ASP Senghore responded.

Counsel LS Camara: “I am putting it to you that you were not at the panel when the 1st accused spoke to them.”

ASP Senghore: “I was there, though I did not complete his testimony.”

ASP Senghore told the court that he was not with the panel when the 5th accused (Fabakary Jawara) appeared before them.

“ASP Senghore most of the time that you interact with the accused persons is to give them their meals,” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“That’s not correct,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Apart from what you may have read or heard, you do not know what the 5th accused told the panel since you were not there,” Counsel LS Camara asked.

“That’s correct my lord,” ASP Senghore responded.

ASP Senghore said it is correct that he was not the lead investigator in this matter.

On the issue of the call recordings of the accused persons printed out from Africell, Counsel LS Camara asked ASP Senghore whether he has qualifications in telecommunication.

ASP Senghore told the court that he has basic qualifications in telecommunication on 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)?

“About the analysis, I can do that,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Is that all you can do with exhibits P9 and P10 (call recordings of the accused persons)?” Counsel LS Camara.

“Yes, my lord,” ASP Senghore responded.

“Does that analysis transit what transpired between the caller and the person he called,” LS Camara asked.

“No, I can’t tell what they spoke about,” ASP Senghore responded.

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

ASP Senghore told the court he can actually tell the court who called who and what they discussed.

“Tell the court who called who and what they said,” Counsel LS Camara asked ASP Senghore.

State Counsel, L. Jarju raise to object to Counsel LS Camara’s question.

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

Justice Mahoney overruled his objection and asked the witness to answer the question.

The case has been adjourned to Thursday for continuation.

Share.