Ebrima Dibba and Aji Yam Secka in Banjul during one f his court appearances (photo: Kex Sanneh)
By Landing Ceesay
Borry S. Touray, the lawyer defending Ebrima Dibba, an executive member of the United Democratic Party (UDP), has informed the court that his client intends to file a “no case to answer” application following the prosecution’s decision to close its case.
Ebrima Dibba is charged with sedition under Section 52, Subsections 1(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) alleges that in May 2024, Ebrima Dibba recorded and shared a WhatsApp audio accusing President Adama Barrow of being “greedy, immature, rude, and foolish” to generate contempt against the President or the Government.
The Prosecution has called three witnesses since the commencement of the trial. Moreover, after the testimony of Haddy Jagne, the Third Prosecution Witness, on Monday, Commissioner A. Sanneh, appearing for the IGP, informed the court that they would no longer call another witness to come and testify.
In response, Counsel B.S. Touray stated that, given the prosecution’s decision to rest its case, he would file a “no case to answer” submission on behalf of his client.
Commissioner Sanneh did not object to this, and the court subsequently ordered Touray to proceed with the submission.
Testimony of Haddy Jagne, the Third Prosecution Witness (PW3) Haddy Jagne, a court transcriber with the Court Audio Transcription System (CATS) Unit, informed the court that she has been working in the unit for over a decade. She went on to explain the events that took place on June 12th, 2024, while she was at her office.
“I received a file requesting a transcription, and it was accompanied by a flash drive. After receiving the file and flash drive, an instruction was given for the audio in the flash drive to be transcribed, and the instruction came from the office of the Attorney General. Thereafter, the same was transcribed, and upon receiving the audio, I listened to it, and it was in the Mandinka language.
Since I am not fluent in Mandinka, I had to invite a court interpreter called Omar Huma to assist me. The interpreter listened to the audio, which was in the Mandinka language, and I transcribed it into the English language. After the transcription of the audio, it was signed by me as the transcriber, along with the court interpreter herein, Omar Huma,” Haddy Jagne told the court.
Commissioner Sanneh then asked Haddy Jagne whether she would be able to recognize the transcription if shown to her and she responded affirmatively.
Haddy told the court that the transcription contained her name and signature.
“And also the audio which, according to you, you listened to, if played to you in court, will you be able to identify it?” Commissioner Sanneh asked.
“Yes, I will,” Haddy responded to Commissioner Sanneh.
Haddy testified that she would be able to recognize the audio because the person in the audio was speaking in the Mandinka Language.
“With due respect, your Worship, may the prosecution borrow the flash drive as in Exhibit A to be played in open court for the witness to tell whether she identifies it or not?” Commissioner Sanneh requested from the court.
The court then handed over the flash drive to Commissioner Sanneh.
The audio from the flash drive was played in open court in the presence of the prosecution, the clerk, the interpreter, the assistant registrar, counsel B.S. Touray representing the accused, and the accused, Ebrima Dibba.
Upon hearing the audio in open court, the witness, Haddy Jagne, confirmed to the court that it was the same audio she had transcribed.
“After the identification of the transcribed audio by the witness, we wish to tender the same dated 25th June 2024, signed by Haddy Jagne and Omar, to be admitted in evidence and be marked as Exhibit as the court pleases,” Commissioner Sanneh applied.
The document was subsequently presented to Counsel Borry S. Touray for review, with instructions to inform the court of any potential objections to its admissibility.
Upon reviewing the document, Counsel Touray raised no objections to its admissibility.
“You will agree with me that being an IT Technician in this day and age, the world is confronted with Artificial intelligence as a challenge?” Counsel Touray asked.