Major Bah later admitted making a statement on 26th November , and another statement on 5th May , when counsel further quizzed him. The witness added that he cannot remember saying in his statement that it was Col Ndure Cham who told him that he was going to overthrow the government of the Gambia , when counsel posed another question to him.
He said he did not mention in all his three statements that Modou Jatta orderly to the 1st accused spoke to him at 2 am, when further questioned by counsel. Counsel pointed out that he was charged with concealment of treason, but did not give evidence in his defence, and asked, "why? In reply, the witness said "because my lawyer was advising me not to testify".
When further asked, by counsel, why he did not call the orderly, Modou Jatta, to give evidence, since he has told the orderly that Colonel Ndure Cham was not a loyal officer, Bah responded that Modou Jatta, as an orderly, had no way of testifying. Bo Badjie called him, and said there was no need for him to call witnesses, when counsel Tambedou further asked why he did not call Bo Badjie to testify as a witness, at the court martial.
Bah said Tamba was not a member of the panel at the court martial, which convicted and sentenced him, when counsel asked. PW1 Major Bah also said he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by court martial, even though Bo Badjie told him that the 1st accused would help him.
He said he had spent three years and eight months in prison, when counsel asked how many years he spent in jail before being released. When counsel put it to him that he was not disappointed but was angry, Bah said was disappointed with the 1st accused.
He also insisted that both Bo Badjie and Lt Solomon Jammeh had told him that Tamba will help him out, when counsel said the two never told him that the 1st accused will help him out of the case. Asked by counsel, whether he was still serving his sentence, Bah replied, 'No'. He further testified under cross-examination that he did not know who released him from jail, when counsel put the question.
He said he did not know whether, after the foiled coup, the 1st accused person Tamba was promoted and decorated, as the CDS of the Gambia Armed Forces, when counsel asked. Bah also could not remember the name of any person who testified at the court martial implicating the 1st accused, when counsel asked. In reply, Major Bah said he met the 1st accused, and told him what Ndure Cham said to him. Then the case was adjourned to 16th August Darboe identified Sarjo Fofana in court when state counsel asked him whether he recognised the accused persons.
However, Darboe said he did not know whether there was an attempted coup on 21st March in The Gambia. He also denied any ample knowledge about the alleged coup plot, in response to a question by the prosecutor. Under cross-examination by defence counsel L. Darboe also said, under cross-examination, that he had no knowledge that he would be coming to court on Tuesday, when counsel Mboge asked him whether he had fore knowledge of coming to court.
At that juncture the case was adjourned till 6th December for continuation. Ndure Cham. Edition: Thursday, January 13, at PM. Share Article.
Article Archive. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Gibou Janneh said the appellants were arraigned at the high court on a four-count charge of conspiracy to commit treason, treason, and concealment of treason before Justice J. The appellants were then convicted by the said court and sentenced on count one, which was conspiracy to commit treason, to 20 years in prison and on count two, which was treason, to another 20 years in prison.
Lang Tombong Tamba was also sentenced to 10 years in prison on count three, which was concealment of treason, and another 10 years in prison on count four, which was treason. The appellants, not happy with the judgment, through their counsel filed an appeal separately at the court of appeal, which was dismissed.
The appellants further filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The prosecution in counts one and two relied on the corroborative evidence of its witnesses, Justice Janneh went on, adding that in his view the trial judge was speculative in his decision. The trial judge recorded that PW5, Yahya Darboe, was not sworn when testifying and the defence applied for the witness to be treated as a hostile witness.
He said the trial judge missed two legal principles regarding a person to be sworn.
0コメント