By Bruce Asemota
The fourth prosecution witness in the criminal trial involving the alleged PIU shooter’s case was yesterday absent in court. The witness was expected to testify before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh.
When the case was called, the director of public prosecutions AM Yusuf sought for an adjournment on the grounds that the witness he intended to call does not speak English and it was difficult for the witness to understand what he was trying to say.
Yusuf also said at the time he was communicating with the witness, there was no state counsel at the Attorney General’s Chambers.
The matter was adjourned to the 11 December.
Meanwhile, a day before, the third prosecution witness, Mama Jabbi, finished giving evidence under cross examination.
The witness told the court that she knew one Musa Camara’s mother and that the said Musa Camara works at the GRA.
She explained that Musa Camara’s mother Maimuna Barrow also called Korka shared the same mother and father with President Barrow.
She further explained that when she got hold of Ousainou Bojang in Djouloulou, she first contacted Musa Camara who transmitted the information to the Gambia police.
When the witness was asked about the relationship between Maimuna Barrow and the president of the republic, DPP Yusuf raised objection to the question saying that the witness’s answer would likely be an opinion or hearsay.
The court however overruled the objection and said that the question was relevant.
Moving on with his cross-examination, Defence Counsel Lamin J.Darbo reminded the witness that according to the court records, on the 30 September, 2023, she was physically present in Mankamang Kunda, the president’s home village but the witness replied that she cannot remember whether she was there or not.
Defence Counsel then told the witness that she fabricated her story and framed Ousainou Bojang, an innocent man, so as to collect the one-million dalasi promised by the president for any information about the killer of the two police officers.
The witness denied fabricating any story but defence counsel Darbo insisted that apart from the witness’s name, address and occupation, everything in her evidence was all fiction and that her story was fabricated.
The witness replied that all she told the court was the truth and nothing but the truth and that she was under oath.