Presided over principal magistrate Dawda Jallow, the clash came after Mr Mboge began re-examination of his client (Dr Njogu Bah) to enable him substantiate evidence he adduced during his testimony.
In his re-examination, Mboge asked his client to clarify what he meant by, ‘the length of services of PS Yusupha Dibba depends on his experience.’ However, the state prosecutor, Mansour Jobe, raised objection to the question and contended that the purpose of re-examination was to clear ambiguity.
He argued that there was no ambiguity to the answer Dr Bah gave in respect to Mr Dibba and that the answer was already given by the witness. He said there was no ambiguity which he (Mboge) intended to clarify and urged the court to disallow the question. Jobe cited Section 192, sub-section 3 of the Evidence Act to give weight to his objection.
Reacting, Barrister Mboge urged the court to allow the question as the objection raised by the prosecution was baseless and misconceived in its entirety. After listening from both parties’ argument on point of law and their citation from various sections of the law, the trial magistrate, Dawda Jallow adjourned the matter to April 16 for ruling.
Meanwhile a question asked by the defence regarding the ability of PS Dibba as ambassador was discountenanced by the court. Dr Njogu Bah is being tried by the state on a charge of abuse of office for appointing one Ms Jainaba Jobarteh as The Gambia’s representative to the United Nations in New York while serving as the then head of civil service and presidential affairs minister without following due procedures, a charge he denies.]]>