Defense Makes ‘No Case to Answer’ Submission

The defence counsel in the trial of the beleaguered ex-Gamtel director has eloquently argued that his client has no case to answer and should be, therefore, acquitted and discharged.

The counsel for the former Gamtel boss made these assertions yesterday after the prosecution had closed their case against his client, Mr. Omar Ndow.

In his submission before Magistrate B.Y. Camara, defence counsel Tambedou argued that if, at the end of the prosecution’s case, the evidence adduced does not support the charge or when the evidence adduced had been so discredited that no reasonable tribunal could convict on it, a ‘No Case to Answer By the Accused’ should be upheld.

He further argued that the abuse of office charge against Ndow was not sanctioned by the Attorney General because the fear of consent by the Attorney General has not been given in this case. Lawyer Tambedou added that it was late for the prosecution to remedy ‘this fundamental defect’ as it [the prosecution] had already closed its case, saying the prosecution in the authority is the IGP and not the Attorney General. He consequently urged the court to acquit and discharge his client of the abuse of office charge as ‘it was invalid’.

Still arguing his points and this time around on count two-failure to comply with GPPA regulations- lawyer Tambedou pointed out that successful prosecution of this particular count must establish that Mr. Ndow had a statutory duty as Managing Director of Gamtel to refer a contract to the GPPA. He added that the court did not know whether his client had any statutory duty to do this because the prosecution had not adduced any evidence to show that the accused had a statutory duty to refer a contract to GPPA.

Lawyer Tambedou reminded the court that the second prosecution witness, Ousman Jallow, had said in his testimony that he was the compliance manager with GPPA but when he [Tambedou] cross-examined him, Jallow told the court that he was not aware of any approval given to Gamtel by GPPA. Jallow, Tambedou argued, had further told the court that as compliance manager, he was dealing with Gamtel and not Ndow. He pointed out that going by Jallow’s evidence with regard to GPPA Act, it’s the procurement organization that deals with the GPPA and not individuals, quoting section 13 of the GPPA Act to buttress his argument.

Counsel Tambedou further submitted that there is no requirement in the GPPA Act for Ndow or any individual to comply with anything. He added that the act requires organisations or companies to have contract committee and that the requirement is on the contract committee to comply with the GPPA Act, pointing out that no evidence had been adduced that his client was a member of the contract committee.

Tambedou posited that the prosecution did not produce the contract proposal as per the charge against Ndow, saying there is no requirement either by the GPPA act or the regulation for Ndow to comply with anything. He added that the prosecution did not make any prima facie case that will necessitate his client to enter into his defence.

Tambedou, therefore, urged the court to uphold a ‘No Case to Answer Submission’ and discharge Ndow .