 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Jan 2011 : 17:21:58
|
Gamcotrap 2 case fails to proceed
By Fatou Sowe
Friday, January 28, 2011
The criminal trial of two Gamcotrap top officials yesterday failed to proceed before Acting Principal Magistrate Taiwo Ade Alegba of the Banjul Magistrates Court.
It could be recalled that the case involving Dr. Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang-Sissoho, the executive director and programme coordinator of Gamcotrap respectively was adjourned to yesterday for the witness from Spain to testify. When the case was called for continuation, the said witness entered the witness box and the prosecution led by Superintendent Joof told the court that his witness wants to testify in Spanish and he thought it wise to bring a Spanish-English interpreter to interpret for the court.
The defence led by Amie Bensouda objected to the prosecution's application on the grounds that the prosecution knows very well, the court's procedures, stating that if the witness wants to speak in Spanish, it is for the court to provide an interpreter and not the prosecution. She told the court that they don't know the interpreter and cannot make any comments to her sustainability. She further urged the court to disqualify the said interpreter brought in by the prosecution.
In his response, Prosecutor Joof informed the court that his witness can give evidence in Spanish and they found it important to bring an interpreter in order for the witness to give evidence to the best of her ability. According to him, the court can determine the neutrality of the interpreter, adding that the interpreter was in the court to interpret in the interest of justice.
Lawyer Amie Bensouda in her reply, submitted that the court is guarded by the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code. She stated that in her 30 years of experience, she has never known a court being in a position to test the neutrality of any interpreter or otherwise. She added that she was ready to learn it from the prosecutor.
The presiding Magistrate, in his ruling stated that there will not be justice if one party is allowed to provide the court with an interpreter. At that juncture, the said witness informed the court that she can speak English but not [fluently]. The presiding Magistrate later adjourned the case to the 29th January 2011 for the Spanish witness to testify.
Source: Daily Observer
Related topics:
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 21:12:15
|
ISATOU TOURAY & CO CASE
By Mamadou Dem on 31-01-11
Begona Ballesteros Sanchez, the Director of YOLOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD and the seventh prosecution witness in the case of Dr. Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang Sissaho of GAMCOTRAP, on Saturday 29th January, testified before Magistrate Alagbe Taiwo Ade of Banjul Magistrates’ Court.
When the case was called, Superintendent Sainey Joof announced his appearance for the IGP, while Amie Bensouda announced her representation for the accused persons along with Ebrima Jah.
In her testimony, Mrs Sanchez told the court that a total sum of 129,824.90 Euro was disbursed by her organisation to GAMCOTRAP in 2009 and 31,000 was earmarked for microfinance and alleged that that was not done. When she was asked what happened to the 31,000 Euro she told the court that it is up to the defendants to explain that. Under cross-examination, she was asked to produce the project proposal sent by GAMCOTRAP to Yolocamba, as the defence would like to cross-examine her on this document. Earlier on, she told the court that she was not sure whether a copy of the project proposal shown to her was the right one. The court will decide today, Monday 31 January, 2011, whether to grant the request of the defence. Read on for the details.
TESTIMONY OF BEGONA SANCHEZ
Miss Sanchez told the court that she lives in Madrid in Spain and she is the Director of an Organisation called YOLOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD which she said is a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) that works with International Organisations. She further told the court that they have been functioning for twelve years now and that some of the projects relate to development, which are five in number, namely, Gender Equality, Human Rights and Development of Citizens, the Environment and Development Aspects of Society, Economic Development and Productivity System of Works. She added that they also look into Vision of necessities in Development aspects of Society and they look for funding from Public Institutions by presenting a project to Public Institutions in order for them to fund other Institutions or projects in other countries. She added that these monies are public monies given to them (YOLOCAMBA) under strict conditions; that the monies are disbursed in accordance with mutual agreements which are obligations to be complied with.
When she was asked whether she recognised both accused persons she responded in the affirmative and added that Gamcotrap is an Organisation whose main function in The Gambia is to fight against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and that they have a written agreement with them (Gamcotrap) in order to complete a project in 2009.
She further testified that the community in which she lives i.e., Madrid has a project which was approved by the State and the said community, which she said is in a document, the original of which was with her. At this juncture Madam Bensouda stood up and argued that the witness cannot dwell on any document that was not served on her.
The Prosecution then asked the witness to read paragraph 2 on the second to last page of Exhibit B2 which she did.
Miss Sanchez then indicated to the court that they sent someone to GAMCOTRAP to execute a project in accordance with the agreement based on three preliminary conditions. She said one condition was training on FGM in The Gambia approved by the Region of Madrid which was to start on 3rd of February, 2009 and end on the 31st of January 2010. She added that she had the original documents with her and the accused persons knew about them, noting that the said documents were translated into English by Yolocamba. Another document dealing with planning matters and the budget was also translated into English.
She further told the court that the project had three objectives i.e. i. Enacting of laws relating to Female Genital Mutilation by motivating parliamentarians to enact laws against FGM, ii. Sensitising health workers on FGM and iii. Finding alternative employment for people involved in the implementation of FGM in order for them to stop the negative aspect of harmful traditional practices. She said this was to be done through Micro Credit for thirty six Women. She explained that each activity has a special budget which is restricted and cannot be changed, as contained in paragraph six of exhibit B2. GAMCOTRAP was to implement the Micro Credit component of the project because it is an obligation for them to implement the Micro Credit component in agreement with the community of Madrid. “I don’t know whether they carried out any Micro Finance because the agreement is not for all the projects,” said the witness. She told the court that the Micro credit was 31,000 Euro.
She further told the court that the budget was made by Yolocamba for the execution of all the projects and the direct cost is the total money sent to GAMCOTRAP for the implementation of all the projects is the sum of 129,824.90 Euro, adding that all expenditure should be indicated in the Budget.
When asked by the prosecution for the whereabouts of the 31,000 Euro she said she did not know and it is for the defendants to explain the whereabouts of the money. She added that it is the defendants who should supply them with documents but that they did not receive any document from the defendants furnishing them with information on how the money was spent. “For such amount of money it is important for us to be supplied with documents as verification and proof for the implementation of projects,” said Sanchez.
As an example she explained that if a woman was provided with help such as doing business in a shop, documents like registration of that business should be given to her indicating the type of business she is conducting and a document showing that the woman who has been provided with help has received the sum of money to do business so that the said employment provided to her will make her abandon the negative aspects of FGM. This, she said, is not only restricted to Micro Credit but to all projects world wide.
Sanchez said that since 2009 they asked the defendants to explain how the 31,000 Euro was spent but the defendants told them that they had spent 25,000 Euro on operation and not on micro credit and the 5,000 Euro to women as donation. She told the court that they believe it is not possible and all of them were supposed to respect the mutual agreement signed by both parties. “We are not given any document justifying expenditures mentioned earlier and the project ended on the 31st of July 2010 while it was supposed to end on 31st of January 2010. But we decided to extend the time to resolve the problem and we did inform the defendants that it is creating problems for us and the community of Madrid,” said Sanchez.
Continuing, the witness told the court that the reason for the extension was to know about the 31,000 Euro. She said the fundamental reason for the funds was to help poor people but that the defendants told them that they had given the poor people 5000 Euro, thought none of the defendants had ever shown them any woman who had been provided with such a help, noting that these people have a right to benefit from such projects in order for them to abandon FGM. She said the 25,000 Euro was not meant for operation but for thirty six women. She added that they were waiting for GAMCOTRAP to provide them a document showing how the money was spent and who benefited from it. She further said that they got in touch with the Gambian authorities and investigation was carried out and by virtue of the investigation the matter is now in court. She said failure to explain how the 31,000 Euro was spent the whole one hundred twenty nine thousand Euro should be refunded. The investigators she said did not speak to her but one Daniel whom she said is their local representative. She acknowledged supplying Daniel with documents which she said was demanded by Daniel.
At this juncture the prosecution asked her to examine Exhibit A and she said she saw Exhibit A1 before, an email correspondence from One Omar Dibba to John.
What was the email? Asked Joof.
Madam Bensouda objected to that question on the ground that it is hearsay because the witness has said that it is a communication from Omar Dibba to John. She therefore urged the court to disallow the question and expunge it from the records. Superintendent Joof, on the other hand, urged the court to admit the document as it is not a hearsay evidence.
Bensouda told the court that when proceedings started the court clerk asked the prosecution whether John is a witness in this case but the prosecution replied that the gentleman was not a witness and consequently he was not asked to go out of court hearing; that he was therefore present throughout and for that being the case he cannot be called as a witness.
At this juncture the trial Magistrate rose up for ruling and the objection of the defence was not granted, but the question asked by the prosecution was expunged from the records.
Continuing her testimony, Sanchez told the court the first payment was made on the 6th of March, 2009 amounting to 42,000 Euro; the second payment was on the 3rd April, 2009 equivalent to the amount of money that was paid on the 6th of March 2009. She said more than 129,000 was sent to Gamcotrap, adding that 31,000 Euro was sent to the same account of GAMCOTRAP at Access Bank.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS BENSOUDA
Under cross-examination the witness acknowledged that a project proposal was sent to them by GAMCOTRAP but she did not have a copy with her in court. When the defence showed her a document and asked her whether that was the proposal she said she is not sure because she has to compare it with her documents in Madrid.
“How can a document from the Gamcotrap be…? your signature?” Asked Mrs Bensouda.
“Of course my signature cannot be on that document,” the witness responded.
“I would like you to produce the project proposal submitted to you by Gamcotrap,” Mrs Bensouda requested.
“I will check in my Emails and produce it,” the witness responded.
At this juncture Bensouda applied to the court for the witness to produce the project proposal given to Yolocamba by GAMCOTRAP, pointing out that she would not object to a scanned copy.
The prosecution objected to the witness providing the said document as she is away from her office and she has indicated that the document is not in her possession in The Gambia; that she is to look for it in her office in Spain and ordering her to bring it will be ordering someone in Spain to bring the said document. He added that ordering the witness to bring the said document in a short period of time may not be possible.
Madam Bensouda stood up again and argued that the liberty of the accused persons is at stake and it is the witness who has said that they received a project proposal from GAMCOTRAP and it is in the possession of Yolocamba who, she said, is the only people who can produce the document. “She is a witness under the jurisdiction and the court has power to ask her to produce any document to enable a fair trial.” She said the submission of the prosecution is irrelevant and the witness must produce the document in their possession, adding that the witness cannot identify a document that was in their custody.
She finally submitted that she would like to cross-examine the witness on the said project proposal.
At this juncture, the trial magistrate adjourned the matter till Monday 31st January at 4 p.m. for ruling and possibly for continuation of hearting.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 21:27:41
|
Gamcotrap must justify €31, 000 expenditure Spanish prosecution witness tells court
By Sanna Jawara
Monday, January 31, 2011
Begonaballes Teros Sanchez, a Spanish national and director of Yalocomba Solidaridad based in Madrid, Spain, Saturday testified as Prosecution Witness Seven (PW7) at the ongoing trial of two top Gamcotrap officials at the Banjul Magistrates Court presided over by Magistrate Taiwo Ade Alegoba.
Dr Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang Susoso, Gamcotrap's executive director and programme coordinator respectively are facing theft charges filed against them by the state. Sanchez told the court that the Gamcotrap officials must explain and justify the circumstances surrounding expenditure of the sum 31,000 Euros meant for operating micro credit facilities for 36 Gambian women engaged in FGM related activities in the country. She said: "We want to be flexible, but Gamcotrap must explain how, where and when the 31 Euros was spent otherwise they will refund the whole 129,000 Euros given to them."
The Spanish witness was supposed to adduce her evidence on Friday January 28th 2011, but due to lack of an interpreter, the case was adjourned to Saturday. When the case resumed on the adjourned date, Doudou Manneh from the High Court of The Gambia took oath for interpreting evidence of the witness from Spanish to English. Sanchez's three hours evidence covered wider issues relating to a contract signed between Gamcotrap and Yalocomba, which she described as a Madrid community-based organisation working in the areas of gender equality, human rights and other numerous development programmes throughout Spain and beyond.
The Spanish PW7's evidence also uncovered issues relating to the budgetary allocation of the project signed between Gamcotrap and Yalocomba in Madrid in the sum of 129, 824.90 Euros, the extension of the project due to what she called lack of receiving documentary report from Gamcotrap in accordance with the spirit and letters of the contractual agreement between the two organisations. Her evidence did not leave out the follow-up exchange letters for Gamcotrap to send report or reports explaining in detail how, where and when the said 31 000 Euros was spent among others. She also informed the court about complaints made by the community of Madrid concerning their wanting to know how the said sum of money was spent.
The witness told the court that her organisation operates at both local and international level and has been operating for 12 years. She disclosed that the organisation operates five different projects such as gender equality, human rights, environment, development of citizens and socio-economic development through job creation among others. "Our organisation has foresight for development-related issues. We solicit finance for public institutions through presenting our project proposals to donor public institutions for support. We do acquire money through such programmes so as to support development projects in different countries across the globe and our projects operating in these countries are normally carried out under very strict terms and conditions, which are reduced into papers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement made," she said.
Asked whether she knows the two accused persons, who were standing in the dock right in front of her in court, the witness replied in the affirmative and gave their names as Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang, director and programme coordinator of Gamcotrap respectively. Further asked by police prosecutor Sainey Joof if she knows what is meant by Gamcotrap, Sanchez again replied in the affirmative, saying Gamcotrap is an organisation that campaigns against FGM in The Gambia. She then revealed that her organisation and Gamcotrap signed a written agreement in the year 2009, meant to carry out a project in The Gambia. She produced exhibit 2 which she alleged to be the contract document signed between the two organisations in Madrid, saying Isatou Touray signed it on behalf of Gamcotrap, while she (Sanchez) signed it on behalf of her Madrid-based organisation. She added that the document is tenable in both soft and hard copy.
However, the defence team led by Amie Bensouda said she did not have the said document in her possession and expressed the need to have it for the purpose of fair trial and in the interest of justice. Police prosecutor Sainey Joof at that juncture referred the court to Paragraph 2 of the said document with reference to bank accounts, which the witness read loud and clear to the hearing of all. The Spanish witness, further adducing her evidence said that her organisation and Gamcotrap made an agreement for executing a project in The Gambia based on three conditions such as the fight against FGM in The Gambia, creation of alternative employment for women engaged in FGM and establishing of micro credit for the women in The Gambia. She further told the court that the language of the project document was translated into English from Spanish and that the project aims among other things to change laws relating to FGM in The Gambia through engaging members of the National Assembly to enact laws against FGM, and to sensitise people about the negative impact of FGM among others.
She also revealed that stages of activities signed in the project document have a special budget and these budgets are subjected to restriction, which are not changeable. When asked by the prosecution as to who and who were supposed to carryout the said micro finance project for women, the witness replied that Gamcotrap is supposed to implement the project, because it is their obligation to do so in accordance with terms and conditions of the agreement signed. Further asked whether she has an idea as to Gamcotrap's implementation of the said micro credit project, she replied in the negative, saying she did not and the issue is the problem. She then identified the project budget document in court. Further commenting on the project budget, the witness explained among other things, that the budget is only limited to the micro credit, but implementation of the whole project and the total amount sent to that effect was 129,824.90 Euros. She said Gamcotrap was asked to supply all information relating to expenditure of the money to the community of Madrid, but this has not been done yet.
Asked about the whereabouts of the 31,000 Euros, the witness again remarked that she did not know where the money is, pointing out that it is only the two accused persons who can explain where the said money is. She said: "It's for the accused persons to explain where the money is and it’s for them to render account for it. It's also for them to supply document or documents indicating where and how the money was spent. The accused persons did not give us any documentary evidence about how and where the said money was spent. It's necessary and legal for documentary evidence to be provided where such an amount of money is spent in accordance with terms and conditions of the agreement signed between the two organisations. The documents to be supplied by Gamcotrap include invoices, legal contractual information engaged in for an example where a woman was given a micro finance, opened a business for so as to sustain her life and abandon FGM. Such types of business documents need to be supplied to the community of Madrid. Gamcotrap did not do this and the community of Madrid wants to know how, where and when the money was spent," the witness explained to the court.
Sanchez said the community of Madrid was told by Gamcotrap that they spent 25,000 Euros as operational cost and 5000 Euros as donation to women. She told the court that the community of Madrid did not believe Gamcotrap’s story considering the terms and conditions of the agreement signed. Further commenting on the project signed between Gamcotrap and Yalocomba Solidaridad, the Spanish witness said the said project, signed in 2009, came to an end on 31st January 2010, but was extended to 31st July 2010 so as to resolve the problem of receiving information from Gamcotrap about expenditure of the 31,000 Euros. She added that they are yet to give any documentary evidence. She continued: "We (Yalocomba Soliderity) received letters from the community of Madrid complaining that we failed to tell Gamcotrap to account for the 31,000 Euros and the main objectives of this money was to give support to the poor. Gamcotrap alleged that they gave out 5000 Euros, but we don't have any documentary evidence of such. We don't know of any woman who benefited from the project. The women have a right to benefit from the project so as to encourage them to abandon FGM and give them alternative employment. I personally cannot do anything about the issue except for Gamcotrap to justify the spending."
At this juncture, the defence counsel, Amie Bensouda came and asked the court for the witness to go straight to the point and avoid repeating herself. Continuing her testimony, the witness told the court that throughout the course of investigation she did not communicate with the investigators, instead they spoke to one Danial, their local representative in The Gambia. However, she acknowledged that she sent some documents to this Danial in connection to the issue. At that juncture she identified an email letter sent by one Omar Dibba to John, whom she described as her colleague at the Madrid Community organisation. Amie Bensouda objected to the witness reading the content of the said email letter on the grounds that such amounts to hearsay evidence, as the letter has nothing to do with the witness. She accordingly applied for the said letter to be disallowed. The police prosecutor Joof countered the submission of the defence counsel on the premise that such did not tantamount to hearsay. When the presiding magistrate asked the prosecutor if he intends to call the said John as a witness in the case, Amie Bensouda objected and drew the court's attention to the remarks made by the prosecutor that he will not call John as a witness since the inception of the trial.
Amie Bensouda recalled that when the case was mentioned for continuation, the court clerk asked the prosecutor whether he will call John as a witness and he replied in the negative saying he will not use him as a witness hence John did not step out of the court throughout the hearing. This development, according to Amie Bensouda served as barrier for the prosecution to call John as a witness to the case pursuant to the cardinal rules of criminal trial procedure, which provided among other things that all witnesses to a case must leave the court before commencement of the hearing. However, her objection was overruled by the magistrate on the grounds that a mere presence of witness in court cannot stop him or her from being called to serve as a witness. Still adducing her evidence, the Spanish witness said her organisation sent money in three instalments to Gamcotrap’s Access Bank account. She disclosed that the first payment of 42,000 Euros was made on the 6th of March 2009; the same amount was also sent on the 3rd of April 2009. She added that the three payments added up to 129, 824.90 Euros.
Cross-examination of the witness
Responding to series of questions posed to by Amie Bensouda, counsel for the accused persons, the Spanish donor said she will go back to Spain on Tuesday 1st of February 2011. This prompted the defence counsel to request for the witness to produce her air ticket for purpose of verifying her actual date of return, because according to the defence counsel, the witness had earlier on informed the court that she will return to Spain on Monday 31st January 2011, which prompted the court to sit on a Saturday and now she is telling the court that she will go back on Tuesday. The defence counsel said she believes the witness was misleading the court as she doubted which of the dates the witness is due back to her country of origin, hence the need to have her air ticket verified in court. The witness at first replied that she left her ticket in her room, as she has no reason to bring her ticket to the court.
The magistrate also said the witness was misleading the court, recalling that she earlier said she will return on Monday which made the court to sit on Saturday and now she is saying Tuesday. Asked how long she worked for her organisation Yalocomba Soliderity, the witness replied that it is now five years. She said Gamcotrap was introduced to her organisation by some individuals based in Spain sometime in 2007. She named the people that made the introduction as Patricia and Cristina. Asked again whether Gamcotrap sent a written project proposal to her organisation, she replied in the affirmative, but was quick to add that the said document was not in her possession at the court. She however, promised to look for the document.
When shown the said Gamcotrap proposal document for identification, the witness said she could not tell if that was the document as she was not having her copy. The witness further stated that she did not see her signature on the alleged Gamcotrap project proposal document, and as such she could not verify it. This made Amie Bensouda to ask the witness if it makes any sense for a document sent from Gamcotrap to bear her (witness’s) signature. The defence counsel then insisted that the witness produce a copy of Gamcotrap project proposal sent to her in the interest of justice. The prosecution objected to this application on the ground that the witness is away from her country of origin and was not in possession of the said document. The police prosecutor argued that the witness should not be pressurised to produce a document which she is not having as doing so will mean her relying on people back home to either send or bring it.
The magistrate adjourned the case to Monday for ruling on the application of the defence counsel and the objection made by the prosecution.
Source: Daily Coserver |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2011 : 18:34:59
|
GAMCOTRAP Officials’ Trial Progresses
By Baba Sillah
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Begonaballes Teros Sanchez, the director of Yalocamba Solidaridad, a Spanish based NGO yesterday continued to give evidence in the theft case involving the executive director Isatou Touray and programme officer Amie Bojang Sissoho of Gamcotrap, a local human rights NGO.
Madam Sanchez was cross-examined by Amie Bensouda, one of the lawyers representing the accused persons at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court presided over by Alagbe Taiwo.
Dr Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang Sissoho are accused of stealing 31, 000.00 Euros from the Spanish based NGO.
Continuing her testimony, Madam Sanchez said her organisation effected three installment payments to Gamcotrap. She denied that it was two, as claimed by the defense counsel.
“I put it to you that Gamcotrap received the 1st payment on the 6th of March 2009 and the last payment was made on the 9th of March 2009,” lawyer Bensouda pressed harder, producing a document entitled ‘condition of co-finance.’
“It could be true. I only received narrative report, but not financial report,” the Spanish replied.
She added that Amie Bojang Sissoho told her that they had a financial problem and they have borrowed money in order to run their projects.
She added further Madam Sissoho also promised to send her the financial report, but she never did.
However, when she was asked by lawyer Bensouda to show where it was indicated in the report that Amie told her she was going to borrow money, Madam Sanchez could not trace it in the report.
Madam Sanchez who looked furious after the lawyer accused her of lying against the accused persons, said, “I don’t have the financial report with me.
“I gave them the fund, but they never send the reports,” she argued. “ “You don’t know me so as to tell me what to say. when there is mutual understanding between two people they trust each other.”
Still under scrutiny, Mrs. Sanchez confirmed that by the time of the second interim report, there was no due mention of payment in that report.
“They were supposed to send the report in August 2009, after six months of payment,” said Mrs. Sanchez.
When lawyer Bensouda drew Madam Sanchez’s attention to the conditions of payment from the document where it is stated that it is the payment and not the report that was supposed to be made in August, the witness’s replied, “not exactly.”
The director of the Spanish based NGO further informed the court that she never knew that Gamcotrap neither has a micro finance institution nor to implement.
She said she has never seen a license of micro credit finance in the report, when further quizzed by the counsel, who put it to her that, Gamcotrap never spend on micro finance and has never implement it but rather spend money that is from micro finance credit.
She dismissed the counsel’s claim that she came here in 2010 to report the accused persons to the state authorities. Instead, she said, she was invited by the government, but did not mention to do what.
The witness recalled that two members from Gamcotrap visited Spain, upon their invitation, in November 2009.
She said the purpose of visit was to unveil to the Spanish communities the work of Gamcotrap, but her organisation also organised a fund raising activity.
Hearing resumes February 3.
Source: The Point |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 10:53:00
|
In Gamcotrap case, Spanish witness denies initiating the trial
By Bekai Njie & Fatou Sowe
Friday, February 04, 2011
Begonaballes Teros Sanchez, a Spaniard who is also the seventh prosecution witness (PW7) in the ongoing criminal trial involving the State and two Gamcotrap officials; Dr. Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang-Sissoho, the executive director and programme coordinator respectively, who are standing trial for alleged theft, yesterday told the court that she did not initiate their trial, but insisted that the two must justify how they spent the amount of euros given to them.
During her evidence during cross-examination by the defence counsel, Amie Bensouda, at the Banjul Magistrate Court presided over by the acting Principal Magistrate Taiwo Ade Alagbe, the witness made it clear that she did not say that the accused persons stole the said 31, 350 euros, when she was asked by the defence counsel whether she accused the two Gamcotrap officials of stealing.
Further cross-examining the witness, the defence counsel tendered the email printout of correspondence between Gamcotrap and Yolocomba Solidaridad as Exhibits, noting the documents were identified by the witness who is also the director of Yolocomba Solidaridad. The defence counsel added that the email contains series of information between officials of the two organisations [Gamcotrap and Yolocamba Solidaridad] and argued that they are not secondary documents.
Objecting to the said documents, police prosecutor Superintendent Joof, said that the documents are secondary ones that were sent by one Omar Dibba and one Emma who are said to be staff members of Yolocomba Solidaridad. The presiding Magistrate subsequently overruled the prosecution's point and the documents were admitted and marked as Exhibits. Continuing her evidence during cross examination, the witness [PW7] told the court that she has not received the report of the project sent by the Gamcotrap and she further made it clear that she had sent 1000 euros to the accused persons because she wanted them to send her the first report of the project and how it benefited the target beneficiaries.
When the defence counsel told her that she knew that the first project was successful and that was why she sent the said money, PW7 insisted that she only wanted to have the first report sent. She further admitted that when Yolocomba demanded the refund of 31, 350 euros and Gamcotrap replied that they never agreed to carry out any micro-finance project, then a dispute arose. PW7 said that she is also aware that alternative measures such as mediations and civil litigations are applicable all over the world. She noted that her action was not meant to jail or to punish the accused persons as put to her by defence counsel, but all she wanted was the justification of the money spent.
The Yolocamba director cum PW7 also added that her aim was neither to violate the fundamental rights of the accused persons nor did she start the whole process. She further told the court that she had visited some places in The Gambia such as Brikamaba in the Central River Region and Koina in the Upper River Region of the country, during her last visit. She added that the areas she visited were said to be the project sites of Gamcotrap, but she was quick to add that she is yet to receive any report from the accused persons.
Source: Daily Observer |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 11:11:51
|
"the two must justify how they spent the amount of euros given to them."
Sounds simple to do, I don't see a problem,but this matter is being tried in a Gambian court with lots of lawyers and high profile people.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2011 : 17:30:21
|
YOLOCAMBA DIRECTOR ENDS TESTIMONY IN DR TOURAY & CO CASE
“No I don’t want them to be convicted and go to prison and I don’t want them to be punished.”
By Mamadou Dem on 04-02-11
Begona Ballesteros Sanchez, the Director of Yolocamba a Spanish NGO based in Spain on Thursday ended her testimony after 6 p.m. in a crowded court room after four days of cross-examination at the Banjul Magistrates’ court presided over by Magistrate Alagbe Taiwo Ade.
When the case was called Amie Bensouda announced her appearance for the accused persons along side with Ebrima Jah and Lamin Mboge. Superintendent Joof announced his representation for the Inspector General of Police.
“I would like you to look at this document it is not in evidence. Did Yolocamba provide that document to Gamcotrap?”
The witness replied in the positive, adding that it was sent by email. The defence applied to tender the document which is an annual report from Gamcotrap for ID purposes and was later marked as defence Exhibit C.
Email correspondence between Gamcotrap and Yolocamba was also shown to the witness which she acknowledged to be correspondence between the two parties. When the defence asked her whether a document was not attached to the email correspondence and a format was provided by Yolocamba to Gamcotrap she said she did not know.
“I put it to you that John provided that document to Gamcotrap during a visit he made.”
“I don’t know,” reply witness, adding that it is possible that the document was sent via email.
“I agreed that there is email correspondence between Yolocamba and Gamcotrap,” said Sanchez. “The email correspondence indicates that that document (email correspondence) was sent to you by Gamcotrap through email.
Witness said possibly.
At this juncture the defence applied to tender the email correspondence as an exhibit in evidence and it was admitted and marked as defence Exhibit D.
The witness further testified that she thought that by the 5th of February 2009 all terms of project were agreed between the two parties.
When asked by the defence why it didn’t she know since she is the Chief Executive of Yolocamba, Sanchez said well I don’t have a calendar of mine.
“Did you have any document, either an email or a letter before all the agreements were concluded where the accused persons indicate that GAMCOTRAP are experts in micro finance?” Asked the defence.
“I don’t have any such document,” Sanchez replied. “With regards to the implementation of the project there were clusters in Koina and Brikama.” But was quick to add that she was taken to the said places by the defendants to visit people who had benefited from the micro credit.
She added that during the fifth visit to GAMCOTRAP one Santiago also visited both places to see people who were trained and benefited from micro credit. She said when Santiago came the first place they visited was Koina from there they went to Brikamaba and from Brikamaba down to Banjul where they were supposed to attend an international conference as planned.
At this juncture Madam Bensouda indicated to her that her statement is full of untruth just to show that she can justify the unreasonable allegation against the defendants.
No, replied Sanchez.
She agreed with the defence that the contract agreement commenced on the 6th of March 2009 but denied that she had received the final report from GAMCOTRAP by email.
“You may not be happy with what you have but you have received a final report from GAMCOTRAP?”
“No, may I be shown,” answered the witness.
She further agreed with the defence that there was a second project approved on the 2nd of December 2010 and the money was in her position and she sent 1000 Euro so that the accused persons can explain to her the implementation of the second project. “If the second project was not effective you would not be able to have the money from the donors neither to send it to any one.”
The witness answered in the negative and added that she did not want to cut off GAMCOTRAP from the said project as stated by the defence.
She denied that she had ever been to Casamance in her life but the defence counsel indicated to her that there are emails correspondence from John at 12:27 to Isatou (first defendant) indicating that she went to Casamance for a personal mission.
At this juncture Bensouda applied to tendered I D D, which she said was identified by the witness as emails correspondence as defence exhibit but the prosecution objected to the application and he argued that the document is from one Omar Dibba of GAMCOTRAP to Emma Cornola who are all absent in court and it is not made by the witness neither is she the right person to tender through the said document. He added that the originals of the said document should be produced and the person through whom to tender this document should have knowledge about it.
Bensouda argued that the document sought to be tendered by the defence was identified by the witness and the said document shows correspondences from the administration of Gamcotrap and Yolocamba and it contains a series of correspondences between officials of the two organisations and to the witness in the dock. “It is my submission that the documents which included many of the emails are addressed or copy to her.” She further submitted that an officer of Yolocamba is the recipient of the correspondence and it is not second hand evidence and they are the original correspondences between the two parties and they are admissible unless the prosecution wants her to bring the computer on which it was made. “The witness has identified the document and the test of admissibility is relevance,” she submitted.
When the trial magistrate asked the prosecution whether he has a reply on points of law, the Prosecutor Joof said he did not have anything to reply on points of law but he will instead maintain his earlier submission.
The trial magistrate overruled the objection and the emails correspondences were marked as D E 4.
Testifying further Madam Sanchez indicated to the court that Daniel is in Spain but he is no longer working with Yolocamba and he had just left in October when he started going to University in 2010. She added that Daniel visited GAMCOTRAP in May 2010 to work on the Micro Credit and he was part of the implementation of the Project.
Sanchez declined to comment on issues relating to one Ebrima Tamba who she said is a friend to her. When asked by the defence whether Tamba works for Yolocamba she replied in the negative and added that she doesn’t want to talk about Tamba.
“Why did Ebrima Tamba involve himself in Yolocamba Affairs?”
“Because of our friendship and cooperation.”
“It is correct that he arranged for you to meet the authorities?”
“Yes,” reply Sanchez.
When you told us that the authorities approached you in this case you were not telling the truth? “Yes I said so and it was the truth. I was called by the authorities through Tamba after they had known about our relationship,” said Sanchez.
“It is correct that you demanded 31,350 Euro to be refunded to you and Gamcotrap replied that they did not agree to carry out any micro Credit and that is what led to a dispute,” asked Bensouda?
“Yes we demanded to be refunded the money but the accused persons did not agree to refund the money and this is what is creating dispute,” said witness.
The defence indicated to her that under development rules which are E U rules the measures used to under take such issues like this are mediation, arbitration, or Civil Negotiation?
She responded in the positive and added that it is all over the world.
“Did you seek Mediation?”
“Yes for six months and it was through mutual negotiation we tried to resolve mutually.”
But the defence indicated to her that mediation in European Law requires a mediator.
Yes I know this type of companies but you need to pay.
When the defence asked her whether she wants the accused persons to be convicted she said, “No I don’t want them to be convicted and go to prison and I don’t want them to be punished. This process was not initiated by me but I want the money to be given to the people whom it was meant for.” She said she did not initiate any process and the Judicial system of The Gambia is not in her hands but she is just a witness.
But the defence was quick to indicate to her that she is not a mere witness.
See next issue for continuation of last Friday’s testimony.
DAY 3 OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF YOLOCAMBA’S DIRECTOR
By Kebba Camara
Cross-examination of Begona Ballesteros Sanchez continued for the third day at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court in the trial of Dr. Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang Sissoho of GAMCOTRAP before magistrate Alagbe Taiwo Ade.
Begona Ballesteros Sanchez, the Director of Yolocamba Solidaridad in Spain gave her evidence-in-chief as a prosecution witness on 29 January 2011.
On 1 February she was cross-examine for the third day by counsel for the defendants, Mrs Amie Bensouda. The cross-examination went as follows
Q: Yolocamba was supposed to make two payments?
Ans: No 3 payments
Q: The first upon the singing of the agreement and the second upon approval of an interim report.
Ans: Yes
Q: So, is it correct you made 3 payments all together?
Ans: Yes.
Q: The first was done on 15 March?
Ans: Please allow me to check my documents for confirmation.
At this juncture she was allowed to check her files and said it is the 6th of March.
Q: Was the money sent on the 6th of March 2009?
Ans: Yes
Q: Well am putting it to you that Gamcotrap received it on the 16.
Ans: I cannot tell.
Q: The second payment was done on the 9th April and the third payment was done on the 11th September 2009
Ans: It is possible.
Q: Have you received their financial report?
Ans: I received the narrative report not financial. The first accused said she had some economic problems and needed money, she promised to send me a financial report within a week but she never did.
Q: Where in the exhibits was it stated that the accused borrowed money in order to complete the project?
Ans: It is not mentioned in the exhibits because I feel that’s personal. I will prefer not to put that information in the document.
Q: I’m putting it to you that you are lying to the court because there is nothing like this in the exhibits.
Ans: I’m telling the truth.
Q: I’m putting it to you that in fact when you sent the second transfer you mentioned that the interim report was not due?
Ans: Yes that’s true.
Q: When does the project start?
Ans: February.
Q: What is 6 months after February?
Ans: July, and they were supposed to send it to me in August.
Q: So the record transfer was supposed to be made in August?
Ans: Yes.
Q: But you made it in April?
Ans: Not exactly.
Q: The international conference was held in February 2010?
Ans: Yes.
Q: The conference was financed from the project?
Ans: It was part of the project.
Q: Did you attend the conference?
Ans: Yes I did.
Q: So Yolocamba did not give GAMCOTRAP any extra funds for that?
Ans: It was an activity, a part of the project we don’t have to give money for that.
Q: Did Susy make any report?
Ans: For my organisation, yes.
Q: Did she tell you that the ceremony was a huge success.
Ans: She just informed me about the celebration and told me it was well organised and more money was spent in fact there was expenditure which were not recorded.
Q: I’m putting it to you that Susy did tell you that the ceremony was successful and do send an email to all of you including GAMCOTRAP to that effect.
Ans: I can’t remember that.
Q: I’m putting it to you that you knew very well that GAMCOTRAP was not implementing any micro credit project?
Ans: When?
Q: In August.
Ans: Not exactly.
Q: Have you made any background checking before going into a deal with GAMCOTRAP?
Ans: Yes.
Q: And you knew they don’t have any licence to carry out micro finance credit?
Ans: Well I cannot tell.
Q: Have you seen a licence for micro credit.
A: Yes and no.
Q: I’m putting it to you that here in the Gambia you need a licence to carry out micro finance project.
Ans: They never told me that. And they spent the money.
Q: I’m putting it to you that GAMCOTRAP never spent money on micro finance credit.
Ans: I knew that they have spent money, and that’s the problem now.
Q: That’s your problem, not GAMCOTRAP.
Ans: They spent money which was meant for micro finance credit.
Q: When you demanded to see the receipt that the money was spent on micro finance and other women project you knew very well that such cannot be because GAMCOTRAP made it clear that they don’t have micro finance credit?
A: I knew that they spent it elsewhere and I want to know on what they spend the money.
Q: I’m putting to you that you knew how it was spent because you visited GAMCOTRAP and you were shown all the documents in the computer.
A: I don’t know where the money was spent and I have to be refunded.
At this juncture she was shown some photographs and she acknowledged recognising her colleagues, John and Musa the finance officer of Gamcotrap.
Q: Are those photos taken at the GAMCOTRAP office?
A: Yes.
The photos were tendered prosecution denied for the tenders of the photos but they were tendered as I.D.
A: How many times did John visit on behalf of your association?
A: 3 times.
Q: When was the first visit?
A: January 2010, 2nd visit May 2010.
Q: It’s in May that you wanted to report GAMCOTRAP to the authorities.
A: I was invited by the Gambia government.
Q: What is John’s background?
A: He is the coordinator of the project.
Q: Is it not correct that John went through all the financial vouchers of Gamcotrap?
A: Some.
:Q: I’m putting it to you that he went through all the receipts and vouchers.
A: No, not at all only few documents.
Q: Apart from the fact that they pay for the last installment they also approve for the last project?
A: Yes.
Q: This is a project of 105 thousand Euros?
A: Yes
Q: Is it correct that GAMCOTRAP visited Spain in November 2009 to raise these funds with your organisation?
A: No, never
Q: But did they come to Spain?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have any fund raising with them?
A: Yes.
Q: The purpose of the visit, was it to raise funds for GAMCOTRAP for the project?
A: No is just to show the communities what Gamcotrap does and not to raise funds.
Q: Why is it necessary to show the Spanish people what Gamcotrap does?
A: Just to show the Spanish people what they do.
At this juncture the case was adjourned till Thursday 3 February 2011 for continuation of cross examination.
The state was represented by ASP Manneh.
Source: Foroyaa
COMPLETION OF YOLOCAMBA DIRECTOR’S TESTIMONY
“I did not initiate this action.”
By Mamadou Dem on 07-02-11
Begona Ballesteros Sanchez, the Director of Yolocamba Solidaridad, an NGO based in Spain on Thursday ended her testimony after 6 p.m. in a crowded courtroom after four days of cross-examination at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court presided over by Magistrate Alagbe Taiwo Ade. During her testimony Sanchez told the court that she doesn’t want the defendants to be convicted and go to prison, adding that she was not the one who initiated the action.
In the last edition we published part of Thursday’s proceedings and the remaining part in this edition as below.
The defence further showed the witness email correspondence in the month of February and March 2010 which she said is correct. The email correspondence was tendered by the defence. It was admitted and marked as Defence Exhibit 5 (D E5).
“D E5 shows that you were sent the project report?”
“ No,” replied the witness, adding that the final report should be a document with invoices attached.
The defence counsel then indicated to her that there is no project that requires such invoices but the witness disagreed.
Madam Bensouda further put it to her that the Cooperation Agreement (Exhibit B2) did not indicate anywhere that invoices should be sent to Yolocamba. Sanchez replied that it is there. Bensouda then told her to show the court? She said it is on the first page of the said exhibit at the paragraph which she said deals with preliminary matters and the said paragraph she said means invoices.
Madam Bensouda finally put it to her that her role in putting the accused persons in the accused box is a disgrace to her (Sanchez’s) Organisation and Country.
“Yes because they failed to justify the money we gave them.”
“I’m putting it to you that if Yolocamba was interested in justification the place to go to is a civil Court?”
“It was not me who initiated this action,” Sanchez responded.
Mrs Bensouda ended her cross-examination of the witness at this stage. The witness, Madam Sanchez, was scheduled to return to Spain without delay.
The case was then adjourned till 16 February 2011.
The case of the prosecution is not yet closed.
The lead Counsel for the defendants was Amie Bensouda assisted by Lamin Mboge and Ebrima Jah. Superintendent Joof represented the Inspector General of Police. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2011 : 13:28:18
|
Defence continues in Gamcotrap case
By Yusuf Ceesay
Friday, August 26, 2011
 Dr. Isatou Touray, executive director of Gamcotrap, yesterday continued her defence testimony in the trial for alleged theft involving her and Mrs Amie Bojang-Sisoho, programme co-ordinator of the same organization, at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court before Magistrate Tabally.
The two prominent women’s rights activists allegedly, in 2009 in Banjul and diverse places in The Gambia, jointly stole 30,000 Euro being money provided by the YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD of Spain to Gamcotrap.
Continuing her defence, Dr Touray told the court that when Suzi came to The Gambia, she (Dr. Touray) and her team with Suzi visited their project sites.
“After we came back, Gamcotrap held a meeting with Suzi. In that meeting we all agreed that the project’s activities should be implemented and all documents pertaining to the project were given to Suzi,” she told the court.
She said when Suzi went back to Spain, Gamcotrap started implementing the project.
“In August 2009, YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD Director Begona Ballesteros Sanchez visited The Gambia, and we went on a monitoring trip together with her of our project sites in Koina in URR and Brikama Ba in the CRR respectively,” said the first accused person.
After the monitoring trip, she continued, they prepared a monitoring report and agreed on a date for the drop of the knife for 36 circumcisers.
Dr. Touray added that, later, Gamcotrap wrote a report and held a workshop at the Paradise Suites Hotel attended by participants from Senegal, Mali, Guinea Bissau and The Gambia.
She said the workshop was also witnessed by a representative of UNICEF, UNFPA and a representative of the Spanish consul in The Gambia.
According to her, the report of the workshop was on sharing the best practices to lead to the public declarations to the dropping of knives.
She further stated that the workshop was also attended by TOSTAN representatives, who are also working against FGM.
The executive Director of YALOCAMBASOLIDARIDAD, Begona Ballestero Sanchez, was at the workshop, Dr. Touray went on, adding that the workshop was jointly organized with them.
“That was the end of the project for 2009,” said the Gamcotrap executive director.
She told the court that after the workshop, the report was given to her and she left for Spain.
“We later received an email from her that they needed a receipt for 30,000 euro on behalf of YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD,” she added.
The said email was shown to her, which she identified, and it was tendered as exhibit 13.
She went on to say that after consultations with Gamcotrap staff, they responded to her that they have already given all the documents regarding the 2009 project.
The replied email document and the report of end of 2009 project were all tendered in court as exhibits, after they were identified by the witness.
Dr. Touray told the court that Gamcotrap was shocked after receiving that email, because all documents of 2009 were given to the Executive Director YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD.
According to her, they were waiting for a D10 million project, of which D5 million had been approved by the Region in Madrid that they had already discussed with the YALOCAMBA Director.
She indicated that after submitting their implementation plan, YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD Director also submitted project plans written in Spanish for signing.
She said she replied to the director that she could not sign a document, the contents of which she did not know.
“She told me to follow the same procedure like the first one, because they already presented their proposal in English,” Dr. Touray told the court, adding that she advised her to take the contract document back to Spain and translate it into English so that she could sign it, which the Yalocomba director agreed to do.
“The director apologized to us for making that mistake, in front of the staff of Gamcotrap,” Dr. Touray added.
She adduced that when the YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD director came to The Gambia, she told her that she would want to invite her to breakfast at Kunta Kinteh Hotel.
“I then requested to come with one of my senior staff, Amie Bojang-Sissoho, but the Director refused,” she asserted, adding that the director further told her that it was going to be a private discussion between them.
She indicated that she later went to meet her at the hotel by 9 o’clock with her driver.
“Upon our arrival, while sitting on the same table, the director later asked me to asked the driver to move away to another table, which the driver did,” she told the court.
She said that was the time they started discussing the D10 million project as a precondition for her to give them the 2010 funds.
She then requested that she must provide a receipt for 30,000 Euros.
“I told her the money was to advocate and fight against FGM in the Gambia, as well as to promote women’s rights in The Gambia,” Dr. Touray said.
“The director told me that if you do not agree, I would show you that your country is corrupt and I would use this 2010 funds to put you behind bars,” said the witness.
Still on her evidence, she told the court that, two days later, seven officers came to their office from different security units.
She added that she was told by them that she was wanted together with Amie Bojang for questioning.
“They then identified themselves. I asked for the reason for our questioning. The security officers informed me that it was an executive order that Gamcotrap must be reported and interrogated,” she told the court, noting that the security officers produced a letter signed by one Ebrima O. Camara from the Office of the President, requesting for them to produce documents regarding the issue.
This, she went on, formed the basis of the first panel of investigation.
She narrated that while they are waiting for the investigation report, another panel came to them and told them that they were needed at the Office of the President.
“We boarded their vehicle to the Office of the President. As were going, we met with our board chairman, Sidia Jatta. We were taken to Holgam in Kanifing instead,” she told the court.
“Upon arrival, we were told that we are not under arrest, but they just wanted us to confirm certain things for them. They asked us if we knew YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD and we replied in the affirmative,” Dr Touray told the court.
She adduced that they were asked if they knew the director of YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD, and they again replied in the affirmative.
“We were asked to write a statement about the 2009 project with YALOCAMBA SOLIDARIDAD, which we agreed to do,” she further stated.
Dr. Touray said she later gave statements, adducing that they were later brought to court and charged.
The case was then adjourned till 8 and 21 September 2011.
Source: Dailynews |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
