Lawyer Antouman Gaye, defence counsel in the ongoing case against Maimuna Taal, yesterday submitted that the state prosecution had failed to prove their case against his client and therefore urged the court to uphold that the accused had no case to answer.

In his submission of no-case before Justice Monageng of the Banjul High Court, Lawyer Gaye argued that on counts one and two, there was no illegal or dishonest practice in the accused person’s receipt of allowance. He contended that it was normal for members of the project team to receive allowances, adding that there is no evidence that the accused person’s receipt of allowances caused financial loss to the Gambia Civil Aviation Authority.

Lawyer Gaye further submitted that the question arising is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient for the accused to open her defence. He said the prosecution had failed woefully to prove their case, stressing that there is no evidence that the accused had committed an offence.

He added that on count three, the prosecution had only embarked on “an expensive futile exercise.” He dismissed claims that the accused divided the subcontract on the rehabilitation of the Director-General’s residence, adding that there is nothing like four contracts. He further submitted that if any contract was divided into four, it was not the accused person’s making as she was not a member of the contracts committee.

Lawyer Gaye adduced that all contracts were carried out by the Contracts Committee of the GCAA, noting that the said committee acted on the advice of experts who were all members of the Contracts committee. He stated that if the accused approved anything, she was acting on the recommendation of the Contracts Committee.

Making reference to points made in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, he reminded the court that the witnesses disclosed that the Contracts Committee had even made a site visit to the Director-General’s residence, pointing out that according to the prosecution witnesses’ evidence, no financial loss was caused through the rehabilitation of the Director- General’s residence, and that the procedures adopted did not contravene the Gambia Public Procurement Authority regulations according to PW10. He thus inferred that there was no evidence from the prosecution to substantiate the allegation on count three.

The defence counsel also submitted that on count 4, 5 and 6, the prosecution provided no evidence that by giving approval to the contract, the accused stood to benefit in any way. He said GCAA made financial gains during the accused’s tenure as Director-General, adding that most of the prosecution witnesses commended the accused for GCAA’s financial performance. He argued that the prosecution witnesses’ evidences are opposed to counts against the accused person.

On count seven, Lawyer Gaye submitted that the charge of abuse of office is not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses. He concluded that the evidence in its totality is that the accused did not commit any offence, charging that the prosecution had failed to establish sufficient evidence or a prima facie case against the accused person.