Email Gambia News to a friend
Print version
Comment on This Gambia News

Gambia: 'Fatou Jaw Manneh, Dame of the Flaming Pen' Says Witness

The NIA officer, (name withheld) testifying in the much publicized sedition trial of Fatou Jaw Manneh, has told the court that the article extracted from the internet, bearing Fatou Jaw Manneh's names states, "Fatou Jaw Manneh, dame of the flaming pen."

The NIA told the court that on the 29th of March 2006, the accused herself printed the article from her postings at the (google) internet. He said that the article contained her own name as the author. He said that the accused has also visited her email address to check for some of her articles but that there was no article there. He said that the same article was given to him as part of the case file. He noted that he downloaded the same laptop and compared the hard copy with the others and later certified it by himself.

He recognised the said article in court. The prosecution wanted to tender the article but defence objected.

Counsel Lamin Jobarteh, said that his objection was based on a view of non compliance. He quoted section 22 of the Evidence Act concerning statements printed from computers. He argued that a proper foundation has not been laid before the court with regards to the said articles. He cited sections 22 (1) and 22(2) of the Evidence Act. He said that a foundation shall be laid to certify the documents from a computer or any other devices. He argued that there was no proper foundation and the conditions about the articles has not been fulfilled. He therefore urged the court to reject it outright.

The State Counsel Emmanuel Fagbenle reminded the court that the witness testified that the accused person herself downloaded the document from the computer of an investigating officer. He said that the document was certified by the witness and recognised it in court. He explained that an item recovered during the course of an investigation is admissible. He added that the document was acknowledged by the accused person that it was downloaded from a functional computer. "The objection lacks strength," he challenged. E.O. Fagbenle lamented that the testimony from the witness has complied regularly to section 22 of Evidence Act. He said that there are manners of information that comes from a computer, either they are letters or emails and that all those manners are of professionals. He added that it does not apply to make sure that all documents from the computers are to be certified. He emphasised that yahoo and google were functioning and that was why the information was loaded from there. He asserted that the manner of the document sought to be tendered confirms the original course of transactions, that computers are the means to access internet, either by yahoo or google. "The document sought to be tendered was certified and stamped and it has complied with the law and it is relevant. The witness is a competent person. I urge this court to accept the document as an exhibit" he lamented.

Defence Counsel Jobarteh also cited the Law of Evidence Justice H. Jallow. He said that the witness cannot certify the document apart from either a notary public or Commissioner for Oath. Jobarteh said that under the exclusive rule of interpretation, where a rule under a certain issue intended to form part, a law needs to certify a document. He said that if certain issues are exception, then law makers must have said so.

"There is no where in the law, especially under the jurisdiction, even from the commonwealth, that overrides a statute. The only known law that can override the statute is the supreme law. The document sought to be tendered needs to be rejected," he urged.

Magistrate Jawo ruled that under section 3 of Evidence Act 1994, documents concerning computers need to be certified. He said that there were no doubts that the document sought to be tendered is relevant to the procedure of the trial. He therefore admitted the document and marked it as exhibit B.

Continuing his testimony, the witness told the court that, he at one point struck out the words, "I reserve my opinion till I consult a lawyer, on one of the exhibits. He said that he was asked by the accused to do so because, according to him, the accused told him that she did not know whether to consult a lawyer or defend herself. When asked about his knowledge of the Deyda Hydara incident, the NIA officer said that their office received information that Deyda Hydara was gunned down by unknown gunmen. He said that an investigating panel was setup regarding the incident. He noted that during the investigation somebody was suspected whose house was searched. He also said that the April 10-11 2000 incident was also investigated. At this point hearing was adjourned till Friday 20 April, for further hearing.