GP Corruption Scandal Trial: Defence Lawyer Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Economic Crime Allegations Against Accused

By Landing Ceesay Last updated Jul 3, 2022

Gam Petroleum Storage Facility Depot in Mandinary

By Landing Ceesay

The lawyer representing the 1st and 2nd accused persons Christopher E. Mene, in his submission of ‘No Case to Answer’ in the Gam Petroleum corruption scandal trial at the High Court of the Gambia said prosecution failed to prove economic crime allegations against the accused persons.

Lawyer Mene is the lead counsel of the accused persons in the trial at the High Court of the Gambia involving two staff of Gam Petroleum.

The 2 staff namely Saihou Drammeh (1st accused), former Managing Director and Lamin Gassama (2nd accused), former Operations Manager of the institution are charged with 8 counts (3 counts of economic crimes and 5 other counts) in the alleged corruption scandal.

The eight counts are levelled against the two in their maiden court appearance at the High Court in Banjul on 4th April 2022 presided over by Justice Haddy Roche.

Their appearance in court followed their arrest regarding their alleged involvement in the alleged corruption, malpractices and the missing of fuel products worth USD 20 million at the depot.

In his submission, Lawyer Mene said the accused persons have no case to answer and should therefore, not be called upon to defend themselves.

He said the prosecution called twelve witnesses and tendered several documents.

Lawyer Mene said all the prosecution witnesses testimonies and the exhibits tendered through them, everything taken together, they did not show or prove that the acts or omissions of the 1st and 2nd accused person constituted the offences in counts 6, 7 and 8 (all dealing with economic crime).

“The Court is a serious place for serious business. It is not a place for rumour mongering or trivialities,” Lawyer Mene said.

Lawyer argued that most of the prosecution witnesses have testified that the 2nd accused person (Lamin Gassama) was most of the time out of office; and said the Prosecution Witness 4 (Ousman Jallow) said the 1st accused person (Saihou Drammeh) was not at office most of the time.

Lawyer Mene further argued that the philosophy of the entire prosecution case was encapsulated on sentiments carried by the Chairman of the Gam Petroleum Board of Directors Abdoulie Tambadou (PW5) that the mere fact that 1st accused person was the General Manager; while the 2nd accused person was the Operations Manager, so they are responsible.

“That is not (a) proof of the alleged offences. The allegations have to be proved. The prosecution has failed to lead evidence on the claimed missing stock.”

“No evidence has been laid before this honourable Court about any missing stock or any stock under the personal custody of the accused persons. All we have before this honourable court is hearsay upon hearsay,” Lawyer Mene said.

Lawyer Mene cited prosecution exhibit 96 states that the issue of missing stocks is inherited and there was a recommendation for a forensic audit to be carried out at Gam Petroleum from its inception in 2009 to 31st October 2021.

He said the report by the taskforce recommended a forensic audit to be conducted and PURA also recommended the same before the traders were paid.

“That has not been done and people are charged. If that is not done, why are we here? Is the entire case not premature? ” Mene asked.

Lawyer Mene argued that the only evidence of missing stock was mentioned by prosecution witness 1, Amadou Keita who said the Board Chairman (PW5) informed them at a meeting that there was missing stock at the facility.

“In fact, this is hearsay. He [Keita] did not say the 1st and 2nd accused persons are responsible for the missing stock. There is evidence before this court that the missing stock is inherited by the 2nd accused person,” Mene told the court.

He referred the court to the testimony of Lamin Touray (PW2), the depot supervisor, exhibit 96 and the testimony of prosecution witness 12 (Abdou J. Bah) under cross-examination.

Talking about the issue of the missing stock, Lawyer Mene referred the court to the testimony of Ousman M. Bah (PW4) who testified that in 2014, there was a vessel that used to come and uplift at the depot, and that he does not know where the records are and have never seen them.

Lawyer Mene said Momodou Hydara from Jah Oil (PW9) took time to explain to the court the rationale for allowing the local Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), to uplift fuel on negative balances in which he said was to ensure a level playing ground for all businesses because Gam Petroleum had a limited capacity.

“Why charge them for something all the OMCs and the Board say is normal. The missing stock cannot be attributed to the accused persons. There was no forensic audit. The issue of uplifting in the negative is normal. So what is the case?” Lawyer Mene asked.

Lawyer Mene reads Section 5 of the Economic Crimes (Specified Offences) Act, which provides the basis for the charges.

He cited the case of Mamburay Njie and The State in which the court came up with two conditions for economic crimes, One was the accused person was a public officer and the second was the willful act or omission of the accused person caused monetary loss to the Gambia.

Lawyer Mene said the entire case of the prosecution is based on the negative balances that the OMCs took or the missing stock cannot be attributed to the accused persons.

He said it is the duty of the prosecution to attach the two elements of the economic crimes established in the Mamburay Njie.

“I wish to submit that the prosecution has the responsibility to lead evidence to establish monetary loss to the Government of the Gambia caused by the acts of the accused persons not by venturing in vague concepts of operational responsibility,” he said.

Lawyer Mene further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses has adduced or shown this to the court.

He said the overwhelming evidence before the court is that the OMCs were furious when they were called to the police headquarters about their negative balances because, to them, that was normal.

Mene said the evidence before the court is that all the OMCs that were in the negative balances were ready to pay; and said some of the OMCs were taken to court by Gam Petroleum because they failed to repay the products they have taken.

“How can you say there was loss as a result of what was supplied to the OMCs? To what extent is the loss? They (the prosecution) did not lead evidence to show how much they recovered or not,” Mene said.

Lawyer Mene said PURA and the police both recommended for a forensic audit to be carried out on the facility before any payment is made to the international traders who supply them fuel; and that the 2nd accused person warned the Board Chairman not to pay the traders because they were overpaying them.

“They charged the accused persons for monies they overpaid the traders. If anybody is to take responsibility for the payment to the traders, it is the Board who agreed to pay without a forensic audit against the advice of PURA and the police,” Mene argued.

Lawyer Mene argued that there was no forensic audit and the Board ignored the advice of the 2nd accused person who told them to withhold the payment because the traders were making claims to monies they are not entitled to.

“It is in evidence in this case that the traders were overpaid. They were paid monies, which they were not entitled to. That is the economic crime, if any. It is clear from the evidence,” Lawyer Mene told the court.

Lawyer Mene told the court that Addax Energy overpaid 2,900 metric tons which they were not entitled to, but they included that in their claim; and said the 2,900 formed part of the 5919.60 metric tons settlement paid to Addax.

Lawyer Mene said from the testimonies of PW5, PW6 and PW12 that Addax were not entitled to and that this product was already released to Atlas and Atlas had already paid Addax the sum of money.