By Kemeseng Sanneh
A seasoned court transcriber working with the Judiciary of the Gambia on Monday, 9 September 2024 testified in the sedition trial involving Ebrima Dibba of the United Democratic Party (UDP).
Commissioner Abdoulie Sanneh and two other police officers appeared for the Inspector General of Police. Senior Counsel Bory S. Touray represented Ebrim Dibba.
Commissioner Sanneh led the witness in her evidence-in-chief.
The witness, Haddy Jagne, is a resident of
Old Yundum. She works at the CATS Unit in the Judiciary. CATS means court audio transcription system. She is also a court transcriber. Haddy’s work life in the Judiciary spans over 10 years.
She testified that on 12 June 2024, while in her office, she was assigned to do some work.
“I received a file requesting transcription, and it was accompanied by a flash drive. After receiving the file and flash drive, an instruction was given for the audio in the flash drive to be transcribed, and the instruction came from the Attorney General’s Office. Thereafter, the same was transcribed, and upon receiving the audio, I listened to it, and it was in the Mandinka language. Since I was not fluent in Mandinka, I had to invite a court interpreter called Mamadou Huma to assist. The interpreter listened to the audio, which was in the Mandinka language, and I transcribed it into the English language. After the transcription of the audio, it was signed by me as a transcriber, along with the court interpreter herein, Omar Huma,” Haddy said.
She indicated that she would be able to identify the transcription since it contained her name and signature. She further indicated that she would be able to identify the audio if played because the person was speaking in Mandinka.
The court allowed for the audio to be played in open court. The audio was already in evidence as it was Exhibit A. It was played for identification purposes. The witness identified it after listening to it. She testified that the audio was what she transcribed and it was the document before the court.
“This is the document,” Haddy told the court.
The prosecution applied to tender the document to form part of the evidence before the court. It was dated 25 June 2024 and signed by Haddy Jagne and Omar. After looking at the document, Defence Lawyer Borry Touray informed the court that he had no objection. The court admitted the document in evidence.
The prosecution said they had no further questions for the witness. The court called on the defence lawyer to cross-examine the witness.
“It is correct that you mentioned that you are not fluent in the MANDINKA Language, right?” Counsel Touray asked.
“Yes,” Haddy answered.
She stated that her first language is Wolof.
“Do you know Mr. Omar Huma’s first language?” Lawyer Touray asked.
“Yes, it is Wolof,” the witness replied.
“Do you, as well, know his place of birth?” Touray asked.
“No, I don’t,” she said.
“Have a look at this document, and that is Exhibit F just admitted on the face of it, is signed, stamped, and certified, right?” Touray asked.
“Yes,” Haddy answered.
“But you will agree with me that it is not a photocopy; it is an original, right?” Lawyer Touray asked.
“Yes,” Haddy said.
“You briefly listened to an audio being played before this honourable court, which you purported to identify as the very audio you transcribed,” Lawyer Touray said.
“Yes,” she said.
“What is the distinct feature of the audio that makes you believe that it is the audio played before you?” Touray asked.
“In the audio, he mentioned his name,” Haddy said.
“You can see the audio played in court, and it is in the flash drive. Is there any label on this flash drive to confirm that was exhibit A, admitted in court?” Touray asked.
The prosecution interjected.
“Your Worship objection, please; the witness never describes the flash drive before the court. She said the flash drive, and so I submit that the questions should be made on the content and not the flash drive,” Commissioner Sanneh said.
Counsel Bory Touray said the objection by the prosecution lacked merit as he urged the court to overrule it.
“Having heard the question raised by the defence and objection by the prosecution above on record, simply put the objection is overruled as in cross-examination in section 202 of the Evidence Act, the cross-examiner may ask any question to test the accuracy of the witness as well as testing his or her credibility and this is what counsel for the accused is doing. So the objection is overruled,” Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally said.
The cross-examination continued.
“Does it have a label?” Touray asked.
“No,” the witness said.
She said the flash drive with the file was presented to her by the Master herein, Omar Cham, and the registrar of the High Court.
“It was your evidence that the transcription request was from the Ministry of Justice, right?” Touray asked.
“Yes,” she said.
“Apart from the flash drive, what was the content of this file?” Touray asked.
“A transcription request,” she said.
The witness said she could also identify the voice of the speaker in the audio.
She said she is not trained in voice identification and she had not interacted with Ebrima Dibba in the past.
Lawyer Touray raised the issue of artificial intelligence as a problem. The witness concurred. She stated that the machine she operates does not have voice identification systems.
“You will also agree with me that Ebrima is a household name in the Gambia, right?” Touray said.
The witness agreed.
“Also, there are several Ebrima Dibbas across the length and breadth of this country, right?” Touray said.
The witness agreed.
“Now, look at the transcribed document you have,” Touray said and the witness looked at it.
“It is correct that it does not have any certificate attached to it right?” Touray said.
“No certificate is attached to it,” the witness replied.
“Do you also agree with me the said document is not notarized by a notary public?” Touray asked.
“Yes, I agree,” she said.
The prosecution informed the court that they intend to close their case at this stage and will not present any other witness.
Counsel Bory Touray informed the court they wished to make a “no-case submission.”
The case was adjourned to Wednesday, 11th September 2024, for the “no case submission” by counsel for Ebrima Dibba.
