The sham trial of the United Democratic Party leadership and supporters Monday continued before mercenary judge Eunice Dada at the High Court in Banjul, with defendants maintaining their defiance to participate in their preconceived conviction.
The first witness today was Fatoumata A Bah who lives at Kerr Sering, a security officer by profession and a sergent at the police headquarters.
I was task to take a cautionary statement from 4 people: Ousainou Darboe, Nfamara Kuyateh, Kemeseng Jammeh and Yaya Bah. I first ask them their names and I read the cautionary warnings to them at the best of their understanding. I then asked them what happen and they explained. I wrote it in English and after recording i then signed the document with my name and rank. I took a cautionary and a voluntary statement from them.
The prosecution then tendered some papers to her to confirm whether the documents are the one she wrote and signed. She confirm that they are all correct and she wrote them.
The documents were then taken to Darboe, Nfamara Kuyateh, Kemeseng and Yaya Bah to confirm but they all remain silent.
The judge said in the absence of any objection the document are then attended as Exibit 1, 2, 3 and 4. Immediately after that, Darboe stood up and condemned the statement made by the judge that there was no objection because they were silent. The prosecution witness was then discharge. Two minutes later the witness came back for possible questions from the accused persons. Darboe again stood up asking under what authority is the witness operating after already being discharged by the judge. Darboe ask the judge to justify under what section of the criminal procedures is that justified.
The other acussed persons were asked by the judge whether they have any questions for the witness and they all remain silent.
The judge make a statement saying that the reaction made by the 1st accused is noted.
The second witness today is Lamin L Jammeh a resident of Brikama Nyambai and a police officer at the Banjul Headquarters, a first class. Asked whether he recognised any of the accused He said he recognised some of the accused. He said he recognised Massaneh Lalo Jawla,
I was at the office when I was assigned by my senior to go to the NIA Headquarters to cautioned some of them and upon arrival, I was asked by my Senior to take a cautionary statement from Masaneh jawla. I then took out the cautionary statement and read it to him . I ask Massaneh whether he can write and Massaneh ask me to write his statement for him. I then took Massaneh’s statement and I later read it to him. After reading it, Masaneh accepted what was read and he signs and I endorsed it.
Ask by the prosector whether he will recognise the document and he answered positive. The document was showed to him and he confirmed. The document was then taken to Massaneh but no respond from him as he preffered to remain silent.
In the absence of any word from the accused the document is filed as exibit 13 said the Judge.
The judge then ask Massaneh Jawla whether he has any question for the witness but he remain silent.
Another witness was then called upon.
My name is Omar K Jammeh a resident of Jambanjelly. I am a police officer and a constable. Asked whether he recognise the accused. I recognised two people and they are Momodou Sanneh And Yaya Jammeh. The witness was ask by the prosecution about what transpired on the 19 April. I was at the office when I was assigned by my boss to take statements from the two. I asked them there names and address and I read the cautionary statement to them. I then ask them what happen and they explained. After taking the statements, I read the statement to them in the language that they understand. They understood and signed and I also signed.
I also took voluntary and cautionary statements from them.
Asked by the prosecutor whether he can identify the said documents. “Yes I will recognise them because my name and signature is on them”.
The documents were shown to him and he confirmed that they are the documents.
The accused persons were later asked whether the documents can be filed as exibit but they choose to remain silent.
The document was then admitted as Exibit 14.
Momodou Sanneh and yaya jammeh were then asked if they have any question for the witness but they choose to remain silent.
My name is Dodou Jobe living at Mbolet Bah. I am a police officer and a first class.
I was at the office and I was then asked to go to the Kanifing PIU, upon arrival I found the accused persons there. Two of them Lamin Dibba and Babucarr Camara. I read the cautionary warnings to them. I then asked them what happened and I wrote. After writing, I then read the statement to them and they sign and I also sign.
I then took a voluntary statement from them.
He was then asked by the prosecutor whether he can identify the document and he answered in the positive. He was then showned the documents and he confirmed it.
The documents were then taken to the accused for confirmation but they preffered to remain silent.
The judge then filed the documents as exibits.
The accused were then asked whether they have any question for the witness and again they remain silent.
The witness was then released and the cased is adjourned till tomorrow at 12:00pm for continuation.
It is only a Nigerian mercenary juge whose veins are filled with dalasis that can continue such a shameful case. Take the money and go home but Ousainou will be the next president of the the Gambia Inshallah.
As for Mama Singnateh, you have signed your route to jail or exile.
Nigerian judges must be targeted for extra-judicial punishment. These judges have destroyed so many Gambians lives and they continue to do so . Jammeh rely on them to eliminate Gambians .
A layman in law and court procedure like myself, cannot argue with the strategy of silence adopted by the UDP leadership because of the pedigree of Lawyer Ousainou Darboe in that department, but one just have to express the hope that it is the right strategy.
I do not know the weight of the legal parlance, “silence in court amounts to admission of guilt”, in Gambian Courts but if has any relevance in our courts, then the wisdom of the strategy of silence is questionable.
I think if the accused don’t want to treat the case against them as criminal charges to defend, then they can turn it into a political trial by exposing the malgovernance of the regime and catalogue all the injustices directed against the UDP since 1996.
This is an opportunity to put the state under the type of scrutiny that is not possible outside of the courts, because documents and officials can be subpoenaed as witnesses for examination and cross-examination.
The strategy of silence, unfortunately, suits the regime very well because they could achieve their sinister aim of incarcerating Mr Darboe, through the law courts, with very minimal damage suffered to their already battered reputation, and the hands of the international community would have been tied, because the regime can claim that they are merely carrying out the decision of the court. Just a layman’s view.