Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – In the ongoing high-profile trial involving three senior health officials accused of various crimes, including Economic Crimes, Official Corruption, Disobedience of Statutory Duty, Conspiracy, Forgery, and Theft, the Banjul High Court adjourned proceedings. The case, which has garnered significant public attention, saw heated exchanges between the defense and prosecution over the voluntariness and admissibility of statements obtained from the accused.

The accused, Muhammadou Lamin Jaiteh, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Balla Kandeh, Programme Manager of the Malaria Control Programme, and Omar Malleh Ceesay, Executive Director of HePDO, are facing eighteen criminal charges. The charges stem from an investigation into the National Malaria Control Agency’s audit report, which uncovered discrepancies leading to the current legal battle.

Testifying in court, Modou Gaye, a seasoned policeman with thirteen years of service, provided detailed accounts of how he obtained cautionary statements from the accused. Gaye explained that the statements were taken following proper procedures, including reading cautionary wordings, ensuring the accused understood their rights, and having the statements signed in the presence of an independent witness.

Gaye identified the statements he obtained from the accused, which were presented to him by the Director of Public Protection (DPP) Abdurrahman Maitama Yusuf for verification. The DPP moved to tender the statements as evidence, a move met with strong objections from the defense counsel, F. Jallow.

Jallow argued that the statements were not obtained voluntarily and were taken in the absence of an independent witness. She also contended that the defense had not been provided with all the statements the prosecution intended to use as evidence, which is crucial for preparing a robust defense.

In response, DPP Yusuf asserted that all relevant documents had been served to the defense and that objections to the admissibility of the statements were unfounded, referencing Section 175 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He suggested that the defense should delay cross-examination until they received the statements rather than objecting to their submission.

Justice Jaiteh, presiding over the case, ordered the prosecution to provide the defense with all necessary statements, emphasizing the importance of transparency and fairness in the trial process. He noted the absence of copies in the court’s possession and directed the prosecution to furnish both the court and the defense with the required documents.

The trial was adjourned to allow the prosecution to comply with the court’s directives. The defense is expected to return prepared to argue against the voluntariness and admissibility of the statements, setting the stage for what promises to be a contentious legal battle.