Defence Counsel Lamin Camara, representing Oley Sey, yesterday fired back at Prosecution final address as he addressed the court in the ongoing criminal trial against Oley Sey and Abdou Rahman Bah at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court before Magistrate Lamin George.

Oley Sey and Abdou Rahman Bah were alleged to have conspired and stolen the sum of D500,000 meant for JamesJunkungJammehMemorialNursery School in Abuko.

In his address, defence counsel Lamin Camara highlighted the inconsistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses particularly the third and fourth witnesses, as contrasted with the evidence of Oley Sey which was consistent, creditable and not in any way controverted under cross-examination. He stated that Oley Sey in her evidence maintained that she was only handed over D200,000 by Abdou Rahman Bah for safe- keeping and that the said sum was in two black plastic bags. He submitted that Oley Sey denied conspiring with Abdou Rahman Bah to steal the sum of D500,000 and what she told the  court was borne by her cautionary statement. Lawyer Camara submitted that on the other hand, Abdou Rahman Bah testified and essentially gave a very incriminating statement evidence against his co-accused Oley Sey. He said most of the Abdou Rahman Bah evidence-in-chief was not contained in his cautionary statement except the allegation that he gave D400,000 to Oley Sey.

Defence Counsel Camara further submitted that is a strike law that where a witness makes a holistic statement which was completely inconsistent with his evidence in court to a material particular, that witness’s creditability is in question and the evidence is said to be unreliable. He adduced that the defence witness, Madi Jatta, told the court that his task

 was to recover the money from Abdou Rahman Bah and deposit it to the nearest bank. He said Madi Jatta also told the court he was not tasked to recover the money from Oley Sey. He submitted that Oley Sey’s denial of being given the sum of D500,000 was not controverted by any of the prosecution witnesses. He added that there was no single evidence before the court either documentary or oral to prove that D500,000 or D400,000 was handed over to Oley Sey. He said the address of the prosecution on conspiracy, theft and possession goes to no issue. He said the evidence against Oley Sey was mere suspicious and not circumstantial evidence. He said the accused persons are charged with conspiracy and theft, adding that the evidence adduced to theft was the same evidence adduced to prove conspiracy. He cited the Law of Evidence Act and law authorities to back up his submission.

Lawyer Camara finally submitted that based on the law authorities cited the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the case against Oley Sey and urged the court to acquit and discharge her on all the counts.

The case was adjourned until 7th January 2009.