Kerr Fatou Online Media House
with focus on the Gambia and African News. Gambia Press Union 2021 TV Platform OF The Year

Defence Lawyer Cross-Examined PW5 In GP Corruption Scandal Trial

683
Gam Petroleum Storage Facility Depot in Mandinary

By Landing Ceesay

The Defence Lawyer Christopher E. Mene cross-examined the former Chairman Board of Directors of Gam Petroleum, Abdoulie Tambadou in the Company’s corruption scandal trial.

Mr. Tambadou appeared in Court as the Fifth Prosecution Witness (PW5) in the trial at the High Court of the Gambia involving two staff of Gam Petroleum.

The 2 staff namely Saihou Drammeh (1st accused), former Managing Director and Lamin Gassama (2nd accused), former Operations Manager of the institution are charged with 8 counts (3 counts of economic crimes and 5 other counts) in the alleged corruption scandal trial.

The eight counts are levelled against the two in their maiden court appearance at the High Court in Banjul on 4th April 2022 presided over by Justice Haddy Roche.

Their appearance in court followed their arrest regarding their alleged involvement in the alleged corruption, malpractices and the missing of fuel products worth USD 20 million at the depot.

During the cross examination, Mr. Tambadou said he did not remember being a board member at Gam Petroleum outside that scope of 2011 and 2012.

The witness said he could not remember who the General Manager at Gam Petroleum and the Operations Manager were between 2011 and 2012; before being appointed as board Chairman of GP.

Below is the details of Lawyer Mene’s cross-examination of the former Chairman Board of Directors of Gam Petroleum, Abdoulie Tambadou as fifth prosecution witness 

Lawyer Mene: “You told the court that the international traders ADDAX ENERGY and TRAFIGURA have storage agreement with Gam Petroleum?” The witness responded in the affirmative

Lawyer Mene: “Have you ever seen the storage agreement between Gam Petroleum and TRAFIGURA?” The witness responded in the negative.

Lawyer Mene: “What about Storage Agreement between Gam Petroleum and ADDAX?” The witness responded in the affirmative.

The Defence lawyer Mene asked the witness whether he would be surprised to know that no storage agreement between Gam Petroleum and ADDAX has been tendered before the court. The witness said he ‘cannot’ comment on that.

Lawyer Mene then asked the witness whether it is correct that Gam Petroleum has a throughput agreement with various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). The witness responded in the affirmative.

Lawyer Mene: “You will agree with me that the relationship between Gam Petroleum and the OMCs are contractual.” The witness responded: “Yes.”

The Defence Lawyer told the witness that either of the parties has a right to sue, if it’s violated.  The witness responded in the affirmative, adding that it is normal in an agreement, but does not know what is provided in this agreement. 

Lawyer Mene: “Look at exhibit P8; it is the storage agreement between Gam Petroleum and TRAFIGURA. Article 7 of exhibit P8 provides how losses of product storage at Gam Petroleum is to be calculated under the terms.” The witness confirmed: “Yes, it is for losses of Petroleum products.”

“In your settlement agreement with the international traders, did you apply that formula of what was paid to TRAFIGURA?” Defence Lawyer Mene asked. “No,” the witness responded.

The Defence Lawyer then asked the witness whether he was aware of that formula of calculation of losses with TRAFIGURA, and the witness responded in the negative

The Defence asked the witness whether the board approved payment to TRAFIGURA on the basis of the settlement reached. The witness responded in the positive.

Lawyer Mene then put it to the witness that TRAFIGURA was overpaid, contrary to what they were entitled to. But the witness denied knowledge of the overpayment to TRAFIGURA.

Lawyer Mene: “I also put that if the formula has been applied, the payment for TRAFIGURA would has been far more less than what has been paid.” The witness disagreed with that.

Lawyer Mene: “Are you aware that the terms and conditions of the throughput agreement allows the OMCs to uplift fuel on negative balances? The witness said “yes”.

Lawyer Mene: “The OMCs that are allowed to uplift fuel on negative balance are supposed to replenish the fuel before the end of month.” Again, the witness denied knowledge of it.

“Do you agree that, if an OMC is allowed to uplift on a negative balance and fails to replenish the fuel,  that would be a breach of the agreement?” The Defence lawyer asked. “Yes, that’s correct,” The witness confirmed.

Lawyer Mene: “When the shortage occurred, as a result of the negative balance, police were invited. Is that correct? The witness responded in the positive.

“Most of the OMCs on negative balance have either replaced or paid the product or the value that they took,” The Defence lawyer put to the witness. “I am not aware,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene then put it to the witness that, that is what exactly happened. But the witness insisted that he was not aware.

Lawyer Mene: “Those OMCs have taken products on negative balance who either did not pay or have been taking to court to recover their monies with interest.” The witness said he is not aware.

“Is it not the case that the board authorized legal action against those OMCs?” The Defence Lawyer Mene asked. “Yes” the witness responded.

The Defence Lawyer Mene asked the witness whether he was the chairman who authorized those OMCs to be brought before the court; and the witness responded in the affirmative.

Lawyer Mene: “In fact, the legal action authorized by the board has been complied with and those cases are pending in court.” The witness said: “I am not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “I’m telling you that they are in court and most of them are paying.” The witness claimed no knowledge of it.

Talking about the reconciliation that took place at Gam Petroleum, the witness said during the reconciliation exercise between Gam Petroleum and the traders, the information the 1st and 2nd accused persons gave them is what they used to arrive at that point.

“During that reconciliation the 1st and 2nd accused persons were acting as General Manager and Operations Manager respectively,” The Defence Lawyer said. “Yes, they were acting within the dictates of the storage agreements,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene: “Is it not the case that there is a dispute within the balance stock. The throughput agreement provides that the position of Gam Petroleum is taken as the correct one.” The witness responded in the positive.

“Why did you not use the balance of the product that was given by Gam Petroleum, but rather you opted for the one provided by the traders?” The Defence Lawyer asked. “The figures used during the reconciliation were provided by the 2nd accused person,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene then told the witness that the 1st and 2nd never provided or accepted the figures that were used for the settlement of the traders. But the witness insisted that the accused person do.

“Did the final figure you paid to ADDAX different from the physical stock?” Lawyer Mene asked. “I would not know if the final figure agrees with it unless the settlement agreement is provided,” the witness responded.

The Defence lawyer then asked the witness whether the board paid arrears for PMS to ADDAX; and the witness said ‘yes’. Then the Defence lawyer said, ‘that is wrong because there are releases for ADDAX in favour of Atlas that covers the entire 721. 9 of PMS stated in exhibit P47. And said they insisted that that is not correct.

Lawyer Mene: “The stock management for 30th June 2021 would not reflect the releases that were issued by ADDAX for the entire month of July.” The witness responded in the positive.

Lawyer Mene: “The difference between the stock reports dated 30 June 2021 and 31st July 2021. Exhibit P51 will be the total release for the month of July 2021.” The witness said that is not correct.

Lawyer Mene: “The difference between the stock statement for 21st August for exhibit P49 and the stock statement dated September 2021 P48 should reflect the total releases by ADDAX for the period 21st August 2021 to 2nd September 2021.” The witness said that is not correct because there were new vessel arrivals in the intervening period.

Lawyer Mene: “Please you don’t know, each certificate covers the entire vessel delivery for the entire month,” the Defence lawyer asked. “Each of the certificates do not cover the entire period for that month. But the vessels whose stock were in hand at the end of that particular month,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene: “Mr. Tambadou, look at exhibit P51 for the period 1st June to 30 June 2021. Please tell the court when did ADDAX make delivery or name any vessel that made delivery and do not reflect?” “I cannot tell because if a vessel delivery in the month of June was released wholly at the end of the month that vessel would not appear,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene: “That is not correct, look at exhibit P50, is the closing stock for ADDAX held by Gam Petroleum as arranged 21st July 2021.” The witness responded in the affirmative.

Lawyer Mene: “The difference between these closing stocks and the stock as at the beginning of the month and various vessels receipt in the course of the month should be the total releases for that month.” The witness responded affirmative.

Lawyer Mene: “Do you agree that, to know a closing stock held for ADDAX as at 31st October 2021, you need to have a record for all the delivery made for the month of October as well as the delivery made for ADDAX for the month of October 2021.” The witness agreed.

Lawyer Mene: “Do you have a closing stock for Gam Petroleum as at the month of 31st October 2021.” The witness said he did not have it in this batch of documents. 

Lawyer Mene then asked him whether he had it in the other bunch of documents tendered before the court? “No, I do not see the stock statement for the 31st of October,” the witness responded.

Lawyer Mene: “Do you know why it was not tendered.” PW5: “I do not know why it was not tendered, if at all it was not tendered.” 

Lawyer Mene: “Is it correct, that the 2nd accused was part of the office and out of the jurisdiction between January 2021 and October 2021?” PW5: “Yes, I am aware that he has been on leave for some period for how long, I do not know.”


Lawyer Mene:” Did your board authorize the depot supervisor to sign exhibit P52 and P53 i.e. Mr. Lamin Touray.” PW5: “No, that is an operational matter under the General Manager”

Lawyer Mene: “Mr. Ousman Bah, (PW4) has told the court that the 1st accused was away most of the time and he sometimes comes late and the work has to go on that is the reason they signed.” PW5: “I am not aware of that.”

Lawyer Mene: “Would it have made any difference if you were aware?” PW5: “Yes, I would have instructed the General Manager to ensure that he comes to work on time and on time means not to have any gap in the approval and documentation processes. I did instruct the Gam Petroleum when I became aware that the 2ndaccused was on leave of absence and was being paid fuel coupons and was having his utility vehicle at his residence. So, Yes I would have made a difference by inviting the 1staccused with Mr. Bah and going through the veracity of those documents signed and ensuring corrective actions are taken as it is the right measures.”

Lawyer Mene: “When the issue of shortage arose was a long time ago. Why was administrative action not taken instead of criminal proceedings?” PW5: “The very night I knew of the shortage, the following morning I visited the depot and called a senior management meeting. The reason for this criminal proceeding is because of the fact that the 1st and 2nd accused persons carried out actions outside of their respective mandates.”

Lawyer Mene: “Do you know the basis of these charges are the same documents signed by other people like Ousman Bah and Lamin Touray different from the 1st and 2nd accused.” PW5: “I do not know.”

Lawyer Mene: “To be clear, the depot supervisor signed exhibit P52 and P53 in the ordinary course of his duty as depot supervisor.” PW5: “Yes that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “Exhibit P54 and P55 were signed by the 2nd accused in the ordinary course of his duty as Operations Manager of Gam Petroleum. PW5: “Yes that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: Both exhibit P54 and P55 have the respective releases from the trader attached.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “As at 5th November 2021, the problem was already on and the police were involved in an investigation and they already had the 1st and 2nd accused persons in their custody. PW5: “I do not know the dates when they were in custody.”

Lawyer Mene: “Exhibit P63 to P67 are all holding certificates for TRAFIGURA.” PW5: “Yes that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “Now all these holding certificates of exhibit P63 to P67 are all dated the same date 21st October 2021.” PW5: “Yes.”


Lawyer Mene: “They were all signed by somebody different from the 1st and 2nd accused.” PW5: “Yes that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “The signatures on them P63 to P67 is that of the depot supervisor who signed on the ordinary course of his duty as depot supervisor.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it that exhibit P63 to P67 were signed much later than the dates indicated in this letter at the time when the 1st and 2nd accused were at the police station. In other words, it is backdated.” PW5: “I’m not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “Are you aware that 21st October 2021 was on Sunday.” PW5: “I do not know off-hand, unless I verify.”

Lawyer Mene: “Would it have made any difference if you knew that it was on a Sunday?” PW5: “No, I wouldn’t have made any difference.”

Lawyer Mene: “The last working day in the month of October was a Friday which is 29th October.” PW5: “Unless I confirmed that I cannot say, yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Sunday is not a working day at Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “That’s not correct; Gam Petroleum handles vessels on all days of the week.”

Lawyer Mene: “There are famous people in this case including Abdou Rahman Barrow.” PW5: “Yes, I know him.”

Lawyer Mene: “Also, what of one Ebrima Njie?” PW5: “Yes, I know him too.”

 Lawyer Mene: “These Barrow and Njie are directors of Star Oil.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “It is the same Barrow and Ebrima that you reported to him and you summoned an ordinary board meeting at which you read out their complaints against Gam Petroleum in which you said the 1st accused refuted.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Barrow’s complaints were on negative balances of the OMCs i.e. supplying OMCs on negative balance.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Are you aware that Star Oil in which Abdou Rahman Barrow and Ebrima Njie are, are the owners of Petro Gas in which Abdou Rahman Barrow is the managing director.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Will you be surprised to know that Petro Gas owned by Star oil had in the past taken and uplifted huge oil from Gam Petroleum on negative balances over a period of time.” PW5: “Yes, I will not be surprised.”

Lawyer Mene: “And in fact, Abdou Rahman Barrow is aware of the existing practices at Gam Petroleum of allowing OMCs to uplift fuel on negative balances and have been in the practice on many occasions.” PW5: “Yes, I will be surprised.”

Lawyer Mene: “Because it will be a surprise on Petro Gas because Abdou Rahman Barrow has taken products on a negative balance and you will be surprised by the motive.” PW5: “Yes, I would doubt the motive.”

Lawyer Mene: “You see, Amadou Keita, PW1 told this court that the claim of TRAFIGURA and the holding certificate was sent to him by Abdou Rahman Barrow. Are you aware?” PW5: “No, I’m not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “Is it not surprising that Barrow called you to complain of supply fuel on a negative balance and the complaints were put forward at the board meeting? Is the same Barrow who forward TRAFIGURA claim to the acting Gam Petroleum General Manager Amadou Keita (PW1).” PW5: “Abdourahman Barrow called me on fuel shortage, so no surprise.”

Lawyer Mene: “TRAFIGURA has an agent at Gam Petroleum and Mr. Keita (PW1) confirmed it here in the court.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “In the storage agreement between TRAFIGURA and Gam Petroleum, the contact addresses are both indicated.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “TRAFIGURA had been dealing with Gam Petroleum for 10 years since 2012.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “That was years before Barrow or Ebrima Njie became members of Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “Yes, correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “Over the years, TRAFIGURA has been dealing with Gam Petroleum and has exceeded communication with Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “They also have the official email address of Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Mr. Tambadou are you still not surprised that the trader of TRAFIGURA and the holding certificates were not sent directly to Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “No, I am not surprised.”

Lawyer Mene: “You are not surprised because at the material time, you were hand in glove with Barrow (Abdourahman Barrow)”. PW5: “No, I do not agree.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it that, what would have been normal is TRAFIGURA to communicate to Gam Petroleum General Manager or through board Chairman i.e. you.” PW5: “Yes, I would have been the normal case. But the board didn’t receive any claim from TRAFIGURA and did not have their contacts as both the 1st and 2nd accused were busy with the stock reconciliation.”

Lawyer Mene: “You confirmed that TRAFIGURA has agents on the ground and the story that the 1st and 2nd accused is something you are hiding and something to be wrong.” PW5: “Yes and that is not correct, it was the board that requested any of the board members to have contact for the International traders that we came to know of the claim from TRAFIGURA.”

Lawyer Mene: “So it was the board that initiated the process of writing to TRAFIGURA that board sent their claims to TRAFIGURA.” PW5: “No, the board was to contact all the International traders.”

Lawyer Mene: “Before the Board directed members, did you receive any claim from these traders.” PW5: “Yes, I explained that ADDAX submitted their claims in the Minister’s office.”

Lawyer Mene: “There was no claim received before you directed that any of the board members should direct their claims.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it that, it was the contact made by Barrow to these traders informing them that their stocks are missing in The Gambia, that’s what triggered the shortage.” PW5: “That’s not correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “It triggered the shortage because a vessel was already confirmed to be on the verge of arrival to discharge product which was cancelled at the last minute on receipt of the notification which was not true.” PW5: “That’s not correct because the shortage preceded the phone call and the extraordinary board meeting.”

Lawyer Mene: “Lamin Touray (PW2) has told this honourable Court that as of 31st October 2021 that they were expecting a vessel which was canceled at the last minute.” PW5: “Yes, the cancellation was true.”

Lawyer Mene: “There is another vessel ‘ETA ‘that was scheduled for 17 to 25 October 2021 and later changed for the 5th of November.” PW5: “Yes, it is possible.”

Lawyer Mene: “And the agents of TRAFIGURA in Dakar confirmed that they were receiving calls from Gambia that their products were missing and that this rescheduled was cancelled.” PW5: “It’s possible.”

Lawyer Mene: “You may agree that there was a problem with the store in late October 2021 and it was exaggerated by Abdou Rahman Barrow contacting these traders that their stocks in Gambia were missing.” PW5: “I do not agree to that because the shortage preceded the call of Barrow and before the extraordinary board meeting.”

Lawyer Mene: “Are you aware that there is no storage agreement either with ADDAX or with PSTV.” PW5: “I’m not aware, as it is an operational matter under the General Manager.”

Lawyer Mene: In the settlement agreement with ADDAX, you said you were involved in that. PW5: Yes

Lawyer Mene: “There was a reference to the storage agreement between Gam Petroleum in the settlement agreement in ADDAX.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it to you that the storage agreement doesn’t exist.” PW5: “That’s not correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “Barrow represented TRAFIGURA in the settlement negotiation.” PW5: “TRAFIGURA flew in their representative from Dakar who submitted their claims to the board of directors.”

Lawyer Mene: “Would you be surprised that the claim of TRAFIGURA is the claim that was sent to Amadou Keita (PW1) by Abdou Rahman Barrow.” PW5: “No, I am not surprised because the board decision was for all the traders to be contacted.”

Lawyer Mene: “Are you surprised that the claim submitted to the court is not the claim from the TRAFIGURA representative who came from Dakar.” PW5: “Yes, I would be surprised.”

Lawyer Mene: “ADDAX owns Atlas Petrol Station.” PW5: “I am not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “Amadou Keita (PW1) Keita said this court settlement agreement with ADDAX was signed at old Jeshwang at Atlas.” PW5: “Yes, correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “Amadou Keita, (PW1) said he went there to sign the statement agreement because the then Minister of Trade called him at Atlas to come and sign the settlement agreement.” PW5: “I am not aware of the Minister calling to meet him at Atlas.”

Lawyer Mene: “Did you sign the settlement agreement.” PW5: “Yes, I signed the settlement agreement with ADDAX at Old Jeshwang witnessed by Mr. Amadou Keita (PW1) after the board gave approval and a power of attorney from Atlas by Baboucarr Njie.”

Lawyer Mene: “Minister of Trade, did he sign the agreement as a witness in the office of Atlas at old Jeshwang? PW5: “No, I said Amadou Keita Acting General Manager and myself.”

Lawyer Mene: “Was the Minister of trade present at Atlas in old Jeshwang for the signing at any point.” PW5: “No.”

Lawyer Mene: “Why did Amadou Keita say the Minister asked him to meet and sign the settlement agreement? “PW5: “I do not know.”

Lawyer Mene: “Are you aware that Star Oil had always been interested in taking over the position of the 2nd accused at Gam Petroleum.” PW5: “No, I am not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “If the OMCs stopped their application from taking any product on negative balances as has been the practice for many years now. It would affect the operations of the OMCs.” PW5: “I am not sure because the OMCs in permanent stock should have other sources of financing their operations and not relying on the OMCs and the International traders.”

Lawyer Mene: “Do you know of any OMCs who are of perpetual or permanent negative stocks over the years.” PW5: “I do not know of any.”

Lawyer Mene: “You see, the truth of the matter is that there is no OMC operating which has not taken fuel on negative balance.” PW5: “That one, I do not know.”

Lawyer Mene: “In fact, Lamin Touray (PW2) has told this court that the practice of giving OMCs fuel products at Gam Petroleum had been an existing practice at GP long before the 1st and 2nd accused assumed as General Manager and Operations Manager respectively. Do you know when this practice started?” PW5: “No, I do not know when this practice started.”

Lawyer Mene: In 2011, 2012 when you told the court that you were a board member, will you be surprised to be told that this was a practice then.” PW5: “Yes I will be surprised.”

Lawyer Mene: “You said as of when that the 1st accused told the reason for the shortage was because of the price structure that was introduced by the Ministry of Finance at the time.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “You said that was the price structure introduced on 30 September 2021.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “You said the 1st accused said because of this price structure the international traders refused to bring in fuel.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “I am putting it to you that, what the 1st accused in fact told you is that, because of a new price structure that was introduced by the Ministry of Finance on the 30th September 2021 that the OMCs who were on negative balance were refusing to import fuel to replenish their negative stock taken and refusing to do so because of the huge losses. They will sustain because of the price structure that was introduced. ” PW5: “No that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “The new price structure introduced on 30 September 2021 reduced the price of Gas oil and EMS while in the International market, the price of these products were rising and that was the problem.” PW5: “Yes during the crisis, the price went down as a result of the new price structure.”

Lawyer Mene: “While the price was reduced in The Gambia, in the international market the price was increased.” PW5: “Yes, as at the end of September 2021, the price in The Gambia was reduced and the International market increased after the end of September 2021.”

Lawyer Mene: “Do you agree that all the OMCs operating in The Gambia did not have import licence for Petroleum products.” PW5: “Yes, that’s correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “The traders TRAFIGURA, Addax do not have import licenses from The Gambia.” PW5: “Yes, correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “If the price in The Gambia has been reduced and the price in the International market going in the opposite direction the OMCs were refusing to import fuel at a higher price into the country to sell at the reduced price that was introduced which will result in great loss to them. That is why they stop importing and that’s what caused the shortage.” PW5: “No, I do not agree that that was the cause of the shortage as the shortage preceded the price chain.”

Lawyer Mene: “That is an absolute falsehood; the shortage came after the review of the price structure and not before.” PW5: “I do not agree.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it that the shortage was precipitated by the arbitrary downward review of the Gas Oil and gasoline.” PW5: “No.”

Lawyer Mene: “The call you had from Barrow and you heard about the report was towards the end of October 2021.” PW5: “Yes, it is true.”

Lawyer Mene: “You see Mr. Tambadou, do you agree that it doesn’t make sense for the OMCs to import fuel at an increased price and sell the same products for less than their importation cost.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “At that material time, many of the OMCs were threatened to go on strike unless the price structure was reviewed upward.” PW5: “I’m not aware.”

Lawyer Mene: “Mr. Tambadou, you told this court that at some point the 1st accused confessed that he had supplied oil to the local OMCs on negative balances.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “Is it the 1st accused who told you that he was confessing or you who characterize his statement as a confession.” PW5: “Yes, I am the one characterizing it as a confession.”

Lawyer Mene: “The 1st accused only told you what was obtained at Gam Petroleum as a standard procedure and you are characterizing it as a confession.” “PW5: That’s not correct.”

Lawyer Mene: “The 1st and 2nd accused persons have consistently repeated over and over to you, the board, the police that the practice of allowing OMCs to uplift fuel on negative balances even before into office and you only characterized it as confession to castigate him.” PW5: “No.”

Lawyer Mene: “Lamin Touray (PW2) told this court that allowing fuel on negative balance has been a practice. Do you also take one as a confession?” PW5: “No.”

Lawyer Mene: “You would not take that as a confession because you do not want the position of Lamin Touray (PW2).” PW5: “No.”

Lawyer Mene: “In November, after this whole problem you and other members travelled to Senegal and familiarized yourself with the procedure of operations of the depot.” PW5: “Yes, true.”

Lawyer Mene: “This was about 17 November 2021.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “How long were you in Senegal to learn?” PW5: “3 days.”

Lawyer Mene: “Before this time, you were board chairman, have you ever familiarized yourself with the Operations of Gam Petroleum in The Gambia.” PW5: “Yes.”

Lawyer Mene: “When was this?” PW5: “It was a few weeks after I took over as chairman of the board.”

Lawyer Mene: “Who was the Operations Manager?” PW5: “It was the 2nd accused person when he was on leave of absence.”

Lawyer Mene: “I put it to you that’s not true. Who was part of the tour? PW5: “The 1st accused with most of his senior management team.”

Lawyer Mene: “Neither you or members of your board had never participated or went to Senegal before that venture.” PW5: “No, that’s not correct.”


Lawyer M.D. Mballow represented the State, while lawyers Christopher E. Mene, B. S. Conteh, S. Akimbo, Bakurin Pauline, and Sasum Sillah represented the 1st accused and 2nd accused persons in the hearing.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.