The trial involving members of the Gambians Against Looted Assets (GALA) at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, reached closer to ending as the prosecution closed its case following the testimony of its fourth witness.
The proceedings, presided over by Magistrate Sallah Mbye witnessed an attempt by Commissioner Sanneh to secure an arrest warrant against Omar Saibou Camara.
When the case was called Commissioner Sanneh, appearing for the Inspector General of Police alongside Trawally, observed the absence of Omar Saibou Camara in the dock. While Alieu Bah and Kemo Fatty were present, Commissioner Sanneh moved an application for a bench warrant.
“We are applying for a bench warrant to be issued for Omar Camara’s arrest and detention,” Sanneh submitted. “This is the second time the accused has been absent from the trial, and the court must ensure the integrity of the proceedings.”
Counsel L.S. Camara, representing the accused, immediately rose to mitigate the situation. He informed the court that he had received information from Kexx Sanneh that Omar Camara was on his way to the court. Counsel Camara urged the court to exercise patience rather than punitive measures.
“I cannot lie to this court; I do not know exactly why he is not here on time as I expected him to be,” Counsel Camara admitted. “However, I ask the court to proceed in his absence for now. This is a misdemeanor offense. If by the end of today’s hearing he is still not present, then the court may decide on the warrant, as I would be unable to defend him further.”
Magistrate Sallah Mbye granted the defense’s request for indulgence, allowing the trial to continue with the testimony of the next witness while reserving a final ruling on the warrant until the close of the proceedings.
The prosecution then called Sub-inspector Ousman Colley of the Kairaba Police Station CID Unit. Sworn in as the fourth prosecution witness (PW4), Colley testified regarding his role in the investigation following the 15th September, 2025, incident.
Sub inspector Colley told the court he was part of an investigative panel led by then-Demba J. Bah (now Deputy Superintendent). He recounted that the panel was tasked with interviewing the three GALA members who had allegedly attempted to stage a protest at the National Audit Office.
According to Sub Inspector Colley, the group had been ordered to disperse by Superintendent Dawda Jallow and later by a PIU team led by one Landing, but they refused. This refusal, he claimed, led to their arrest and subsequent charges for protesting without a permit.
The weight of Colley’s testimony was immediately tested by Counsel L.S. Camara. Through a series of pointed questions, the defense highlighted that the witness had no first-hand knowledge of the events at the National Audit Office.
Counsel Camara: Is it correct that you weren’t on the ground at the National Audit Office on that day?
Sub-inspector Colley: That’s correct.
Counsel Camara: It is correct that since you’re not on the ground, you didn’t know who arrested the accused persons?
Sub-inspector Colley: That’s correct.
Counsel Camara: Because you weren’t on the ground, you wouldn’t know what the accused did unless what you were told?
Sub-inspector Colley: Correct.
Counsel Camara: And because you weren’t on the ground, you didn’t know where they were arrested individually?
Sub-inspector Colley: Correct.
Counsel Camara: You told this court, and I quote: “I was asked to be part of the investigation panel to interview three GALA members who wanted to stage a protest… they were first approached by Superintendent Dawda Jallow but they refused.” So, is it correct that you were given this information?
Sub-inspector Colley: That is correct.
Counsel Camara: You later said a team of PIU officers led by Landing Bojang came and asked them to leave but they refused. Is it correct you were informed of this because you weren’t there?
Sub-inspector Colley: Yes, that’s correct.
Counsel Camara: You told the court: “The reason is that they didn’t have a permit and this is why they were arrested.”
Sub-inspector Colley: That’s correct.
As the cross-examination concluded, the absent Omar Camara, entered the courtroom and took his place in the dock, effectively settling the warrant issue.
Commissioner Sanneh attempted to re-examine the witness. Sanneh asked: “During your interview, did they produce any permit?”
Counsel Camara jumped to his feet, objecting vehemently. He argued that re-examination is only permitted to clear up ambiguities created during cross-examination, not to introduce new evidence.
“Under cross-examination, nothing was said about the permit except what was in the witness’s evidence-in-chief,” Camara argued, citing Section 197 of the Evidence Act. “There is no ambiguity to clarify. The prosecution is attempting to reopen their case.”
Commissioner Sanneh countered by citing Section 3 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the question was necessary to clarify “doubt” regarding the permit issue. He maintained that the witness had given two different answers regarding the arrest and that Section 192 supported his right to ask.
Counsel Camara fired back on a point of law, asserting that Section 3 is a general rule that does not override the specific restrictions of re-examination procedures.
In her ruling, Magistrate Sallah Mbye upheld the defense’s objection. She found that the witness had not provided contradictory statements during cross-examination and that the prosecution’s question was an improper attempt at re-examination.
With the question disallowed, Commissioner Sanneh informed the court of the closure of the prosecution’s case.
The case adjourned to 09th March 2026, at 09:30 AM for defense to open its case. Counsel Camara informed the court that they will file a no case to answer.
