Defense Counsel Continues Cross-examination
 
Lawyer Jobarteh, the defence counsel in the sedition case against Fatou Jaw Manneh, on Friday, 1st June 2007, continued his cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, a National Intelligence Agency officer, before Magistrate Buba Jawo of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court.

Responding to questions from the defence counsel, the witness told the court that he was not present during the questioning of the accused by his Commanding Officer. He also replied that the accused never requested a lawyer from him, adding that in Exhibit A3 the words "Till I consult a lawyer" were crossed out by him at the request of the accused. He said he did not ask her to write it because he felt it was irrelevant whether she did the writing or not. He admitted that the accused has a right to a lawyer. Asked as to why he was the one who crossed out the accused words, he answered that he was the one writing and so could not ask the accused to blot the words out.

He further responded that Exhibit A3 was recorded before Exhibit A2, adding that it was because there were two different charges that he had to ask the accused to write another statement.

He further indicated that the accused was detained because they had felt that releasing her would jeopardise their investigation. He also replied that he would not know whether the accused had a lawyer during the period she was in detention. He said he was truthful to the court and that he was present when Exhibits A1, A2 and A3 were written. He further responded that the accused was not represented by a lawyer and that no member of the accused’s family was present. He however adduced that an independent witness was present. He responded that as far as he knew, the accused received the highest number of visitors from her family during her detention. He stated that visitors had to be registered in a diary at the entrance of the NIA, adding that the accused began receiving visitors from day two. He said that it was not to his knowledge that there was a riot instigated by the accused’s article or interview.

He replied that the newspaper that published the accused’s interview was owned by a Gambian and that the interview was done in USA. He indicated that at the time the accused gave the interview, she was in the USA. He also added that he was not sure whether the person to whom the interview was granted was in the USA. He responded that there was no indication as to who did the interview and that the name of the journalist was not mentioned but rather The Independent newspaper.

Referring to one of the exhibits, he acknowledged that it might not necessarily mean that The Independent published the article or interview because he read the article from the Internet. He however maintained that The Independent published the article. According to him, the words The Independent in the exhibit refers to a newspaper even though he admitted that there was nothing in the exhibit that indicated that the word The Independent is a newspaper.

At this juncture, the state counsel applied to the court to adjourn the case so as to enable him call his next witness.

The case was thus adjourned to 5th June 2007, as the defense counsel did not object to the application made by the state counsel, Fagbenle.