Lawyer Sherriff Tambedou, defense counsel of Omar Ndow, former Managing Director of Gamtel, yesterday argued before the Banjul High Court presided over by Justice Monageng, that the offence alleged to be committed by the accused is in fact GAMTEL’s act and not the accused.
He said Gamtel is a company incorporated in The Gambia, adding that count one of the particulars of the offence referred to the contract between Gamtel and the Chinese company. He added that if the accused pays any money it is Gamtel that paid the money, and Gamtel that signed the contract. He submitted that the accused is acting on behalf of the company, a corporate body that is separate from its officers, adding that the company acts through its officers.

Lawyer Tambedou further submitted that the particulars of offence from count 1 to 5 do not detail any offence by the accused, and therefore urged the court to dismiss the counts. He charged that the state has failed to comply with the provision of the law, saying that the charges appear to be an attempt by the state to get the accused at all cost. He argued that the charge against the accused is bad in law, pointing out that all the six counts relate to the same offence. He therefore urged the court to get the state to elect as to which offence they would like to proceed with.

In response, the Director of Public Prosecution, Emmanuel Fagbenle, submitted that the particulars of offence are clear in law. He said that count 1 to 5 explain that the accused person, being the Managing Director of Gamtel, a public body, between a particular date acted in a manner that violated the economic crime decree, thereby committing an offence. He added that counts 1 to 5 are justified in law, arguing that the objection raised by the defense counsel is premature. He said any senior officer or the head of the company could be held responsible for the act of the company because they are supposed to be the brain of the company. He reasoned that the Managing Director’s act of appending his signature without complying with the law makes him responsible for the act. He maintained that the charges preferred against the accused are proper and are in accordance with the law.

The DPP finally urged the court to overrule the objection raised by the defense counsel.

The case was at this point adjourned for further hearing..