|
Momodou
Denmark
11734 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Dec 2006 : 01:15:47
|
Abdoulie Sowe Testifies Against Captain Bunja Darboe
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
Detective First Class 1580, Abdoulie Sowe, on Thursday 30th November 2006, testified as the first prosecution witness (PW1) in the case of Captain Bunja Darboe.
Detective Sowe told the court that when Captain Bunja Darboe was brought before the panel that was setup by the state to investigate into the March 21st coup plot, a document was found on him. He said that the document is called “Preamble.” He said the document was prepared to be read out to the general public, if the coup succeeded. He posited that Captain Darboe told the panelists that the document is kept in the drawer in his office. Detective Sowe indicated that he, together with Nfally Jabang and Detective Corporal 1203, Boto Keita, escorted Captain Darboe to his office to retrieve the said document. He said that Captain Darboe admitted to the panel that he was asked by the then Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Colonel Ndure Cham, to prepare a written document to be read out to the general public, as his role and involvement in the foil coup. Mr. Sowe also indicated that a document containing the names of those involved in the coup, those to be arrested and released, a document containing a list of charities and a document written in Arabic were found. Sowe added that, upon the request of the accused person to speak to the general public and to the commander in Chief of The Gambia National Army, a video tape was recovered from GRTS. He said a radio tape (cassette) and a micro radio tape with a small cassette were also recovered. Sowe then identified the said document, “Preamble,” and added that it contained Captain Darboe’s signature. At this point, the prosecution wanted to tender the said document but the defence raised objections.
Defence Counsel Lamin Jobarteh objected that the accused person is not the maker of the statement, (Preamble). He said even if the accused was the maker, it was made in front of the panel under severe duress. He said:” This document is at no time recovered at the drawer of the accused person’s office. There is nothing to show that the accused is the maker of that document nor to say that he was supposed to read it to the public. I therefore urge this court not to accept it.” The prosecutor, Emmanuel Fangbele, said there is no doubt that the accused is the maker of the document because the witness has identified to the court the signature of the accused on the document. He added that there is no evidence of duress before the court. “I therefore urge the court to admit it,” he concluded. The Judge advocate Justice Agim, ruled that the accused is the maker of the document. He said that the witness has testified that he and two other officers went to the office of the accused person and found the document in his drawer. He dismissed that the document was made at the panel. “There is no evidence to show that the recovery of the said document is illegal. I therefore agreed with the prosecutor that it is relevant to tender the document in court,” Justice Agim ruled. The said document was later tendered and marked as an exhibit.
Detective Sowe further stated that he, detective 1203, Boto Keita, and Nfally Jabang accompanied Omar Keita (alias Omar Faal) the marabout of the accused person to his house. He said they found a document bearing a list of items as charities and a document written in Arabic. At this point counsel Jobarteh objected that the issue about Omar Faal Keita is not the case before the court and that Omar is standing trial at another court. He indicated that the witness is saying that the document was recovered from Omar Faal and not any one of the accused persons in this court. He said that the document that contained the items to be used as charity is “nothing,” because that charity could be for any use. Jobarteh added that Omar Faal is not the accused before this court, so the issue about him should be laid to rest. He also urged that Omar Faal should not be treated as the marabout of the accused person. Jobarteh appealed to the court to ask the press not to write anything on that issue because Omar Faal faces trial at another court. But Justice Agim ruled that, “Even though Omar Faal is before another court, the newspapers are likely to report what happens here.” The document was later tendered and marked as exhibits.
On Friday 1st December 2006, Detective Sowe continued his testimony. He told the court that the video cassette that was recovered at GRTS has a green mark and that he would recognise it, which he did. But defence counsel Lamin S. Camara objected that the witness did not lay a proper foundation about the cassette and that there is no evidence as to where the cassette was recovered and that the witness is the recorder of the cassette, but rather GRTS. Camara argued that only GRTS can tender the said cassette and that the witness has not testified that the accused is the maker of the cassette. Counsel Jobarteh also objected that the witness did not indicate that he went to GRTS to recover the video cassette by himself. Jobarteh argued that the witness never conducted any search at GRTS to recover the cassette. He said that the witness did not say he recovered the cassette but that during the cause of their investigation they recovered the cassette at GRTS “Moreover, the cassette was not marked, but it was labelled “coup plotter’s video,” the Police officer did not understand the differences between “Mark and label,” said Jobarteh. He further stated they are very disappointed by the prosecution, because the summary of evidence that was given to them is practically different. In his submission, the prosecutor Emmanuel O. Fangbele pointed out that Detective Sowe has mentioned two Police officers including himself who went to recover the video cassette, a tape cassette and a micro cassette. He said the witness did not say the cassette was recovered by any person but that he recovered it in the cause of their investigations. Fangbele argued that the defence cannot prove that the witness did not conduct any search at GRTS. “The defence cannot say the cassette is not marked, labelled and marked are all the same and whether it is a stroke or writing they are all the same.” Judge advocate Agim ruled that there is no doubt that the investigating officer who recovered the cassette can tender it. At this point, the cassette was tendered and marked as an exhibit.
Going further, Sowe indicated that during their investigation, one Corporal Mbye Gaye was brought to the panel upon information that he were having a micro radio tape and a small cassette of which he said was recorded from the coup plotters. Detective Sowe said he recovered the said materials from Corporal Gaye. He identified the material which was tendered and marked as an exhibit.
Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 108/2006, 4-5 December, 2006
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
Topic Locked
