By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
The state law office has arraigned Paulo Djabi before the high court on four (4) criminal charges relating to making false statements to the court.
The charges are Perjury, Fabricating Document, False Swearing and Procuring execution of documents by false pretense.
On count one, the state law office charged him wth perjury and subornation of perjury contrary section 95 (3) of the Criminal Code. The state law office alleged that Paulo Djabi on or about 8 March 2024 in Gambia knowingly committed perjury in a judicial proceeding in which he testified falsely under oath to a material matter or fact in the case of Paulo Djabi and the Attorney General in the High Court of the Gambia suit No: HC/857/23/CR/170/C0.
On count 2, the state law office alleged that he fabricated evidence. The prosecution alleged that Paulo Djabi on the same day intended to mislead the High Court of the Gambia in a judicial proceeding in which he knowingly made use of fabricated medical report as evidence in the case of Paulo Djabi and the Attorney General in the High Court of the Gambia suit No: HC/857/23/CR/170/CO.
On count three, the state law office charged him with false swearing. On the same day, he is accused of falsely swearing-in under oath before a commissioner for oath in the same case mentioned above.
On count 4, the prosecution alleged that
Paulo Djabi made a false and fraudulent representation of his health conditions by using one Doctor L. Faye to sign a medical report.
Paulo Djabi through his lawyer informed them that they’re not served with the process. The Judge ordered the registrar of the court to serve them in court. They accepted service and the case was adjourned to 22 October 2024.
Narcotic Officer Testifies in Paulo Djabi & Others Drug Trial
By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
Lamin Y.K Sanneh, a resident of Tanji and a staff of the Drug Law Enforcement Agency of the Gambia (DLEAG) testified in the major drug trial involving Paulo Djabi and 4 others before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the Banjul High Court.
Senior State Counsel Lamin Jarju appeared for the State, whle Senior Lawyer Sheriff Tambadou appeared for the Accused Persons.
Djabi, an alleged drug dealer is facing 21 criminal charges related to dealing in prohibited drug and money laundering Paulo is charged together with his wife Nadine Ismael de Gouveira Pereira and Mamadu Neto Djabi.The charges are dealing in prohibited drugs, possession of prohibited or controlled drugs, dealing with prohibited drugs, prohibition of certain activities relating to drugs, currency disclosure and money laundering.
Sanneh is stationed at the DLEAG Tanji Office. He testified that he recognised the accused persons during an investigation conducted by DLEAG officers at their headquarters in August 2023.
He said he was part of the joint investigation team tasked with investigating the activities of the accused persons. He added that Paulo Djabi was apprehended, and a search was made at his office at the Fajara Waterfront in relation to his alleged illegal dealings.
He indicated that during the search, prohibited drugs, including strings and needles, as well as money in different currencies – dollars, euros and dalasis – were discovered.
He testified that Paulo Djabi and his wife were apprehended, and the illicit substance MDME/amphetamine underwent sample extraction for analysis, which he witnessed. Subsequently, a certificate detailing the results was issued.
Sanneh testified that in a separate development, various vehicles, including a Benz, Ford, motorbike, and Jet Ski, were recovered from Paulo Djabi.
Furthermore, a search was conducted at the Baraka estate residence of Muhammed Neto Djabi, leading to his arrest. A stone of MDMA was discovered and subjected to analytical testing. He said the result was out and a certificate was issued.
He informed the court that plastic bags containing strings and needles, believed to be utilised for inhalation and injection, were found in Paulo Djabi’s possession.
He added that during the investigation, landed properties belonging to Paulo were discovered in various locations, including Faraja Waterfront, and Bijilo.
He stated that the search was conducted by himself and members of the joint investigation team, including Babucarr Bobb, Basiru Mboom, and ASP Dibba.
When asked about the relationship between the 1st and 2nd accused persons, he said they are husband and wife residing in the same household. He said they were apprehended together at Envy nightclub and subsequently escorted to their residence at Faraja Waterfront.
He testified that upon arrival, a thorough search was conducted, resulting in the recovery of £60,000, along with other currencies, strings, needles, MDMA, and bottles of Avitatim.
On the whereabouts of the seized vehicles, the witness said some are parked at Kairaba Police Station, while others are at CTI in Bijilo.
He said the vehicles were seized sometime in August at different places and times. He said one was found at Paulo’s residence, which serves as his vehicle, along with his wife’s vehicle while others were discovered at Faraja Waterfront. He said the motorcycle was recovered at the property at the Waterfront. The Jet Skis was retrieved from his Indian friend.
Regarding the state of the vehicles at the time of seizure/confiscation, he mentioned that some were motorable while others were not. He further indicated that the seizure included 15 vehicles, 2 motorcycles, and 1 Jet Skis.
When asked if he would like the vehicles, motorcycles, and Jet Skis to be part of the evidence, he responded affirmatively. On whether the vehicles would be brought to the court, he responded negatively.
Counsel Lamin Jarju requested a court visit to inspect the vehicles, motorcycles, and jet skis. The presiding Judge, Justice Jaiteh, granted the application.
The case was adjourned to 22 October 2024, at 2:30 PM for a visit to the Kairaba Police Station and CTI.
Judge Orders Sheriff of High Court to Allow Alleged Drug Dealer Access to His Money
By Kemeseng Sanneh
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the Banjul High Court on Monday ordered the Sheriff of the High Court to allow Paulo Djabi to have access and be allowed to receive 25% of the monies seized from him.
The Judge said this as payment for his reasonable living expenses with his family and litigation fees for defending the criminal charges or proceedings against him.
Djabi is facing 21 criminal charges relating to dealing with prohibited drugs and money laundering. His money, vehicles and motorcycle were seized from him. The money was deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia as ordered by the High court on 31 October 2023.
The Court made this order in a ruling delivered on Monday in relation to a motion dated 4 June 2024 and filed on 5 June 2024. In that motion, Lawyer Sheriff Marie Tambadou for Paulo Djabi asked the court to vary its orders dated 30 April 2024; in the alternative to allow him to have access and be allowed to receive 50% of the monies belonging to him and deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia.
The motion of notice is supported by an affidavit of 8 paragraphs sworn to by Paulo himself and also attached five (5) documents exhibited and marked as “PJ1” to “PJ5 respectively. The State opposed the application and filed an affidavit in opposition of 10 paragraphs sworn to by Fatou Waggeh, a clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Justice. There was a document attached to the opposing sworn statement. Paulo filed a 11-paragraph affidavit in reply sworn by himself.
In moving his application, Senior Lawyer S.M. Tambadou for Paulo relied on the averments in the supporting affidavit and the affidavit in reply. It is his submission that the application is brought pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act, Order 25 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of the High Court Rules and Order 6 Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the High Court Rules.
It is the submission of Counsel Tambadou that the court made an order on 31 October 2023 for a period of six (6) months pending the outcome of the investigation. Counsel Tambadou argued that section 51(8) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act limits when the order can last and no more. Counsel Tambadou argued that when the Court made an order on the 30 April 2024, extending the order of the court for two months was ultra vires.
Counsel Tambadou argued that at the time the application for an extension of two months was made, there was no charge before the court and there was no need for the extension of the restraining order.
Counsel Tambadou refers this court to section 51(6) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act, which gives the court the power to make an order for provision for reasonable living expenses and to defend criminal charges against an accused person. Counsel submitted that this is a court of equity and refers it to Order 6 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules of the First Schedules.
Counsel Tambadou refers this court to paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit and submitted that the facts are not denied and the punishment prescribed for drug offences does not exceed D50,000 and the properties listed under money laundering charges are all located in The Gambia and the Applicant is innocent until proven guilty. Counsel Tambadou urged this court to grant the prayers sought and in the alternative, to make order for reasonable expenses.
In responding to the arguments and submissions of the Applicants counsel, Lamin Jarju for the Respondents relied on the paragraphs of the affidavit in opposition. He argued that Lawyer Tambadou misconceived section 51(6) of Anti-Money Laundering Act. It is the submission of Counsel Jarju that Paulo did not disclose the amount of money he was seeking for reasonable expenses for his upkeep. Counsel Jarju submitted that section 51(6) (supra) refers to funds held under investment or business and allows the Applicant to have access to provide feeding, school fees and other expenses.
Counsel Jarju submitted that Paulo has no bank account and the cash in foreign currency seized is €69,000 and $5000.00, including CFA; however, the seized money is the subject matter of charges in the bill of indictment.
Counsel argued that the medical report contravenes section 45 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible, and Exhibit PJ4 is invoiced. Counsel Jarju submitted that the affidavit in reply should be struck out as Counsel Jarju is not the deponent and the averments are direct attack on him.
Justice Jaiteh said the import of section 51(1) (6) is that a person who has been investigated and charges filed against him or her is entitled to receive payment out of the money for reasonable living expenses and to defend the criminal charge or any other proceedings against him.
He added that a criminal bill of indictment has been filed against Paulo and has engaged Counsel to defend him therefore he is entitled to receive payment from the money seized to defend the criminal charges levelled against him and this is provided under section 51(6) (2) and Counsel has attached an invoice of D250, 000 as legal fees.
“This fact is not denied and the court can take judicial notice of the appearance of counsel in the matter.”
Son to Testify Father’s Domestic Violence & Attempted Murder Trial
By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
High Court Judge, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh has granted the application of State Counsel M. Singhateh to hear the testimony of the son of a man standing trial for domestic violence and attempted murder.
Lawyer Samuel Ade from the National Agency for Legal (NALA) appeared for the accused.
Counsel Singhateh, representing the State, made an application for the testimony of the fourth prosecution witness to be held in camera – out of public hearing. She relied on Section 3 of the Children’s Act as the basis for her request. Additionally, she argued that the close relationship between the witness and the accused warranted a closed-door session as he’s a father to the accused.
Lawyer Samuel Ade representing the accused, did not object to the application. However, he pointed out that the defence had not provided them with a birth certificate to verify the witness’s age, adding that it’s only a birth certificate or medical certificate that can ascertain the child’s age.
In response, Counsel Singhateh referred to the witness statement of PW4 obtained by the police, which indicated that the witness was 13-years-old.
Lawyer Ade maintained that only a birth certificate could definitively establish the child’s age. He emphasised that the child is neither the accused nor the victim in the case, but merely a witness. He further argued that the law provided for closed-door (in Camera) proceedings only in cases of sexual offence cases involving a child, which did not apply in this instance. He urged the court to conduct the proceedings in open court.
After considering the arguments presented, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, in his ruling, held that the witness is a child according to the police statement, which he will hold until otherwise is proven.
“The testimony of the witness will be held in Camera,” Justice Jaiteh ruled.
