Gambiaj.com – (KANIFING, The Gambia) – The prosecution has closed its case in the trial involving members of Gambians Against Looted Assets (GALA) at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, bringing the proceedings closer to a decisive phase.
The case, presided over by Magistrate Sallah Mbye, took a dramatic turn when police prosecutor Commissioner Sanneh applied for a bench warrant against one of the accused, Omar Saibou Camara, who was absent when the matter was called.
Appearing on behalf of the Inspector General of Police alongside Prosecutor Trawally, Commissioner Sanneh told the court that Camara’s absence was the second during the trial and urged the court to order his arrest and detention to protect the integrity of the proceedings.
“We are applying for a bench warrant to be issued for Omar Camara’s arrest and detention,” Sanneh submitted.
However, defense counsel L.S. Camara opposed the application, informing the court that he had received information that his client was on his way. He urged the magistrate to allow the proceedings to continue temporarily in his absence, noting that the matter involved a misdemeanor.
“I cannot lie to this court; I do not know exactly why he is not here on time as I expected him to be. However, I ask the court to proceed in his absence for now,” Counsel Camara said, adding that the court could later decide on a warrant if the accused failed to appear.
Magistrate Mbye granted the defense’s request and allowed the hearing to continue while reserving her decision on the warrant.
The prosecution then called its fourth and final witness, Sub-Inspector Ousman Colley of the Kairaba Police Station Criminal Investigation Department. Colley testified that he was part of a police panel tasked with interviewing three GALA members following an alleged attempt to stage a protest at the National Audit Office on September 15, 2025.
According to Colley, the group was asked to disperse by Superintendent Dawda Jallow and later by officers of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU), but they refused, resulting in their arrest and charges for protesting without a permit.
Under cross-examination, however, Colley admitted he was not present at the National Audit Office during the incident and relied entirely on information provided to him by others.
He confirmed that he did not witness the arrests, did not know who arrested the accused, and had no direct knowledge of their actions on the day in question.
As the cross-examination ended, Omar Camara entered the courtroom and took his place in the dock, rendering the prosecution’s earlier application for a warrant unnecessary.
Commissioner Sanneh later attempted to re-examine the witness, asking whether the accused had produced any permit during police interviews. Defense counsel immediately objected, arguing that the prosecution was improperly attempting to introduce new evidence during re-examination.
Counsel Camara cited provisions of the Evidence Act, arguing that re-examination is limited to clarifying ambiguities arising from cross-examination and cannot be used to reopen the prosecution’s case.
In her ruling, Magistrate Mbye upheld the defense’s objection, finding no ambiguity in the witness’s testimony and disallowing the prosecution’s question.
Following the ruling, Commissioner Sanneh formally closed the prosecution’s case.
The matter was adjourned to March 9, 2026, when the defence is expected to open its case. Defense counsel indicated that they intend to file a submission of no case to answer, a legal move seeking dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to establish sufficient evidence.
