Defence Continues Cross Examination of PW10 in Sabally’s Trial

By Rohey JadamaModou Sabally SG

Mr. Alhassan Ndoye, the tenth prosecution witness (PW10), in the ongoing  trial of Mr. Momodou Sabally, the former Secretary General, Head of the Civil Service and Minister of Presidential Affairs, has continued his cross-examination before  Justice Emmanuel  Amadi of the Banjul High court yesterday 11th June 2015.

Mr. Ndoye while responding to counsel Gaye’s questions told the court that the second time he went to state house he met with General Badjie, Lieutenant Colonel Ansumana  Tamba and one Dibba. He said he parked the vehicles there and he gave the keys to Ansumana  Tamba.

“PW2 told the court that you never discussed any price with the accused”, asked Barrister Gaye. “I was not in court when he was testifying but in America at the time,” responded the witness.  The same question was emphasized to the witness and he responded that “PW2 said at the NIA that he did not hear about any price.”

“I‘m putting it to you that the accused never discussed any price of the vehicles with you?“ said the defence lawyer. “Of course we talked about the price,” said the witness.

“You told the court that the accused offered you 50million CFA, I put it to you that, that is not true?” insisted the defence.  The witness maintained that it is true.

Mr. Ndoye told the court that PW1 came to his house in Dakar and told him that he was sent by the accused and added that the accused had three projects which he wanted he Mr. Ndoye to choose from. Counsel Gaye said, “I put it to you that the accused person did not send PW1 to you?”  “PW1 was the one who introduced me to the accused so whatever he tells me that is what I am going to believe,” said the witness. Counsel Gaye told the witness that the evidence before the court was that PW1 went to his own business. “I am not sure,” responded the witness.

The witness was asked by the defence counsel whether he owns a Bank and he responded that is his private life.” This prompted the judge to intervene and told the witness to answer the question. The witness responded in the positive and he was asked to tell the court the name of the Bank. The witness responded that he doesn’t own a Bank but that he has a Bank account. The judge remarked as saying “You are confusing me”.

“You told this court that you heard a conversation with the president and you asked him whether he heard about your cars and he told you that he did not see them but heard about it?”, enquired Barrister Gaye. The witness responded in the positive. ”Your  piece of evidence is concoction”, said the defence lawyer.

“You also told the court that you spoke to the president about urban development and that you want to help the Gambia and that the president responded to you that if you help the Gambia you are not going to regret it?” the witness responded in the positive. “I’m putting it to you that, that statement of yours is figment of your own imagination?” insisted the defence lawyer. “It’s not,” said the witness.

“During a conversation with the president I told him that I want to help the Gambia but that I don’t want a back stabber,” Mr. Ndoye told the court. He continued, “ I finished the conversation  with the president about 8 minutes ago and if you ask the president he will tell you.” The presiding judge reacted exasperated towards the witness and said to him “I should go and ask the president. I don’t see anywhere in the world when a case is going on and a witness will tell the judge to go and ask the president,” remarked the judge.

Counsel Gaye asked the witness whether he forgot to include the above mentioned piece of evidence that he told the court on his statement at the NIA. The witness told the court that may be it is there on the statement. This prompted the judge to tell the defence lawyer to hand over the said statement to the witness to read it and tell the court whether it is in his statement or not.

After going through the said statement the witness admitted that he did not state that in his statement at the NIA.

The case was adjourned till Monday 15 June at 11am for continuation of cross-examination.