The Banjul High Court, under the presiding authority of Justice Jaiteh, has ruled to admit drug substances—described as “small blocks and powder”—into evidence in the ongoing drug trafficking and money laundering trial involving Paulo Djabi, Nadine Periera, and Muhammed Neto Djabi.
The ruling followed a contentious dispute between the prosecution and defense over the chain of custody and the admissibility of the drug evidence. The issue arose during the testimony of Baboucarr Ngum, a military officer involved in the arrest of Paulo Djabi, who detailed the seizure of the substances during the operation. The prosecution sought to introduce the substances, which were allegedly recovered at the time of the arrest, through Ngum’s testimony.
Senior Counsel Tambedou, representing the defense, raised strong objections to the introduction of the evidence. He argued that Ngum had failed to establish a clear and consistent chain of custody for the seized substances.
Tambedou pointed out apparent inconsistencies in Ngum’s account, noting that the witness initially described the substances as solid blocks but later referred to them as a mixture of “part block and part powder.” He further stressed that the prosecution had not shown who had custody of the substances from the moment of arrest to the point of analysis.”The witness has not stated who had custody of the substance from the date of arrest or where it was kept. In fact, it is the custodian of the substance who should come to court and tender it, not this witness,” Tambedou asserted.
In response, Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) A.M. Yusuf dismissed the defense’s arguments, contending that no strict legal requirement existed for proving a continuous chain of custody in this instance. The DPP emphasized that Ngum, as a member of the investigative team, was a competent witness and urged the court to disregard the objections.
Justice Jaiteh, while acknowledging the defense’s concerns, ruled that the issues raised would be addressed in the trial, not as grounds to exclude the evidence at this stage. The judge clarified that Section 130 of the Evidence Act, which concerns “proper custody,” primarily relates to documents rather than physical evidence like drugs. He also examined two critical questions: whether Ngum was a suitable witness to tender the evidence and whether the substance was relevant to the charges at hand.
Regarding the first issue, Justice Jaiteh concluded that Ngum, having been directly involved in the arrest and recovery of the substances, was a qualified witness. Despite acknowledging some discrepancies in Ngum’s description of the substances, the judge determined that these details could be addressed during the trial.
On the second issue, Justice Jaiteh affirmed the relevance of the drug substances to the case, given that the accused are facing charges related to the possession and distribution of prohibited drugs. Citing Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1994, which establishes relevance as the primary criterion for admissibility, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution.
“In light of this analysis, I hereby resolve the second issue in favour of the Prosecution as well, affirming that the substance is relevant to the information pending before the Court,” Justice Jaiteh stated.With the defense’s objections overruled, the court admitted the drugs, described as “small blocks and powder in black plastic nylon,” as Exhibit P15. Justice Jaiteh clarified that the weight and significance of the evidence would be assessed later in the trial under Section 96 of the Evidence Act.
The case has been adjourned until May 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.