By Landing Ceesay
In the sedition trial of Mr. Ebrima Dibba, an executive member of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP), Ousman Gibba, a member of the Gambia Police Force, testified that the audio published by Dibba did not incite “disrespect” towards President Adama Barrow.
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.
Following the testimony of the First Prosecution Witness (PW1), the police called their Second Prosecution Witness (PW2), Ousman Gibba, to the stand. Under cross-examination, Gibba confirmed that Dibba’s audio did not lead to any demonstrations or disrespect towards President Barrow.
In his chief testimony, Gibba recounted his interactions with Dibba and detailed the events of May 31, 2024, concerning the audio circulating on social media. Gibba noted that the audio was in the Mandinka language, which he understands.
Gibba testified that when the audio was played, Ebrima Dibba was present in their office. He stated that he communicated with Dibba in the Mandinka language and listened to the audio together.
Counsel Borry S. Touray, the lead lawyer for Ebrima Dibba, objected, insisting that the witness should only provide evidence regarding the content of the audio.
“The witness has already hinted that certain parts of the document or audio in its entirety must be given to the court in the Mandinka language. So if we allow him (Gibba) to take that root, we will be compelled to ask him for the translation of that into Mandinka and then English.
“If we allow that procedure to unfold, we will be receiving the content of the audio before its formal translation and tendering the translated version before the court. There is a requirement that when the document is to be translated from one language into the English Language, it must be certified by the translator and certified to be received into evidence,” Counsel BS Touray argued.
Counsel Touray further submitted that the right thing the prosecution ought to have done if the witness is so material to them and wants to have the content of the document is to translate it and tender the translated version so that he can be allowed to speak on the content of it.
Counsel Touray also asserted that if the Prosecution Witness is allowed to continue like that, it will prejudice the case for the defence.
“If we allow this procedure to unfold, the defence will be allowed the element of prejudice in that the witness, being a prosecution witness and police officer for that matter, can give a distorted meaning to the words or phrases, and no amount of cross-examination can undo that. So it does not matter whether he is IPO or not, and the procedure of the court must be followed as in the current case of Supreme Court Alagie Madike Ceesay and others vs. Sheikh Tijan Hydara and others,” Counsel Touray submitted.
Counsel Touray further cited the ruling of the NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT OF; Ojengpede v. Esan 2002 FWLR PT 90 PG 1406. Lawson v Afani continental company NL 2002 FWLR PT 109 PG 1736.
In response to Counsel BS Touray’s arguments, Commissioner Sanneh, representing the IGP, told the court that the audio was played in the Mandinka language in an open court as exhibit A.
Commissioner Sanneh said the witness already told the court that he was fluent in the Mandinka Language and that he was communicating with Ebrima Dibba in the Mandinka Language.
“He (the witness) never said the audio was in English. He said the audio was in Mandinka. The witness was only going to explain what he heard from the audio in Mandinka. We are yet to reach there. We will have a witness who will transcribe from English to Mandinka. The ongoing case counsel referred to is incomplete. So he cannot rely on it.
“The second case he mentioned cannot be binding on us. A case in Nigeria cannot be binding on us. We refer this court to sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act about the document. On a final note, we urge this court to disregard the objection raised by counsel for the accused and allow the witness to continue his testimony,” Commissioner Sanneh told the court.
While relying on the point of law, Counsel BS Touray said sections 97 and 98, which the prosecution referred to the court as having to do with proof of evidence in document form.
In delivering his ruling on the arguments of the Prosecution and the Defence, Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally overruled the objection raised by Counsel BS Touray.
Magistrate Krubally said having heard the witness attempting to explain or give evidence of what he heard in the audio in Mandinka objected to by Counsel Touray for the accused (Ebrima Dibba) with lengthy arguments, and reply of Commissioner Sanneh the prosecution (IGP) as well as Counsel Touray’s reply on point of law.
Magistrate Krubally said in his opinion since the witness is the IPO, he should explain what he heard either in Mandinka or English which will not have any prejudicial effect in the case.
“Therefore, the defence is accordingly overruled, and the witness can continue his evidence. The reasons for such will be given in my judgement later,” Magistrate Krubally said.
Shortly after Magistrate Krubally’s ruling, Commissioner Sanneh continued asking the Witness about his interactions with Ebrima Dibba.
“Since you have listened to the audio, can you tell the court what you understand?” Commissioner Sanneh asked.
Gibba explained to the court what was said in the audio.
“First of all, I’m Ebrima Dibba, and I’m here to respond to the President’s speech. He is clueless and knows nothing, and I will make him know something if he knows nothing. Which means in Mandinka or translated in Presidango Sondomo mang Futa, tolewo leng,” Gibba told the court.
Gibba testified that he confronted Ebrima Dibba with the audio at the Police Station, and he confirmed to them that he was the one in the audio.
“What was his (Ebrima Dibba) reaction?” Commissioner Sanneh asked the witness.
“The accused (Ebrima Dibba), when confronted with such, confirmed that those wordings, as stated in English and Mandinka, were his words. Thereafter, a statement was obtained from him in that regard. He signed the statement he obtained from him.
“Thereafter, the alleged audio was transferred from my phone to ASP Mamberry Touray’s phone, which is attached to the police IT Unit, to download the audio from his phone to the Flash drive. We sent the audio through our office to the Ministry of Justice for the audio to be transcribed at the national transcription office. So that we can have a certified version of the said audio,” Gibba told the court.
Gibba also informed the court that the statement he obtained from Ebrima Dibba was put in the case file.
Under cross-examination, Gibba told the court that he knew Ebrima Dibba well before the audio incident, but they had never interacted.
“The conversation you had with the accused (Ebrima Dibba) while he was in detention, was that reduced to writing?” Ebrima Dibba’s Lawyer, Counsel BS Touray asked.
“It was not a signed one, but we do take jottings,” Gibba told the court.
When asked whether he would be able to produce those jottings in court, Gibba responded negatively and told the court that he could not produce the jottings.
“So you don’t have any complete records of writing during your conversation with the accused (Ebrima Dibba), right?” Counsel Touray asked
“I have a complete record of the conversation I had with the accused (Ebrima Dibba),” Gibba told the court.
Gibba told the court that he doesn’t keep the jottings.
“Is it therefore correct that you don’t have complete records of conversation with him (Ebrima Dibba?” Counsel Touray asked.
“That is incorrect,” Gibba told the court.
“Since the inception of the audio, have you not conducted an opinion poll to determine the impact of the audio?” Counsel Touray asked.
“As police, we have an Intelligence Unit that conducts the intelligence and gives the information. I personally didn’t do that, but we have a team that is the Crime Intelligence,” Gibba responded to Counsel Touray.
Gibba said the Investigative team of the Police has not conducted any investigation into the impact of the audio.
When asked whether it is correct that Ebrima Dibba is a Politician and a member of the United Democratic Party (UDP), Gibba responded affirmatively.
“Since the inception of the audio, has any demonstration taken place in the country as to the effect of the audio?” Counsel Touray asked the Police Officer.
“No,” the Police responded.
“Have you seen any publication in the newspaper in the Gambia where someone showed ill will against the President due to the effect of the audio?” Counsel Touray asked.
“No,” Gibba responded.
“Has any group of people presented any petition to the investigation team showing dissatisfaction against the President because of the audio?” Counsel Touray asked again.
“No,” Gibba responded.
“Has any movement or association been formed to bring disturbance to the country regarding the audio?” Counsel Touray asked.
“No,” Gibba responded.
Counsel Touray then concluded his cross-examination of the witness.
The witness was then discharged, and the case was adjourned to the 7th of September 2024 for continuation.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.