Lawyer Mboge made this revelation during Thursday’s court session as he applied for fresh re-examination of Dr Bah as a clash ensued between him and the state counsel, Mansour Jobe who had objected to a series of questions posed to Dr Bah by his attorney.
Prosecutors charged that Dr Bah appointed one Ms Jainaba Jobarteh as The Gambia’s representative to the United Nations in New York while serving as secretary general without following due procedure. Dr Bah however denied the allegation maintaining that the posting was a proposal from Personnel Management Office.
When counsel asked Dr Bah whether Yusupha Dibba, the then PS at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did complete his term as an ambassador, he replied in the negative.
“Do you know the reason why he did not complete his term?”Mboge inquired.
Replying, Bah said: “Yes.” But before he could expound further, the state prosecutor, Mansour Jobe objected arguing that the question was irrelevant. Jobe argued that cross-examination cannot be done in isolation with the provision of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and urged the court to disallow the question.
Reacting, the attorney, Mboge said: “In light of the answer given by the accused, who is charged, is in the box to defend the allegation preferred against him and he has the right to a fair hearing. And I therefore apply for fresh re-examination to enable my client to defend the allegation against him.”
He added: “The reason for my application was due to the outcome of the ruling delivered by the court, that is to leave the question for address which was not and could not be foreseen by the accused as he is not a saint to predict the outcome of the ruling of this court and I urge your worship to grant my prayers.”
The prosecutor did not object to the application but observed that it was misconceived and misplaced. Jobe submitted that the right of the accused as provided by the constitution has been observed and enforced. He however, recommended for the defence to strictly follow the rule of re-examination as provided in Section 192 Sub-Section {3} of the Evidence Act.
Principal Magistrate Momodou Jallow at that point adjourned the matter to today for re-examination by the defence.
]]>
