By Nelson Manneh
Lawyer Christopher E. Mene on Monday March 11th 2019, cross-examined a nurse from the Kanifing Hospital on the dead certificate tendered before the Court.
The witness told the Court during his testimony that the Death Certificate book numbered 1,595 was missing; that the Inspector General of Police requested for the hospital to provide them with the Death Certificate book. The witness indicated that when the head of the Medical Records was summoned to produce the Death Certificate book, they found out that there was an entire page that was torn from the book. He told the Court that he saw the missing paper on social media bearing a signature and the name of Lamin Lang Sanyang, the 9th accused person.
On cross-examination, the witness admitted that in 2016, he was not at the Kanifing General Hospital and cannot be in a position to tell the Court some of the things that happened during that period. He acknowledged that the Death Certificate books are usually duplicated; that where the original copy is given to the family of the decease, the duplicate remains in the hospital.
“When did you realize that a copy was missing from the Death Certificate book?” Lawyer Mene asked.
The witness replied that it was when they were requested by the IGP to provide the Police with the book.
“Is it true that Death Certificate books have two copies which are both original?” Lawyer Mene questioned the witness.
“Yes,” the witness responded.
“Who attached the photocopied document on the Death Certificate book?” Lawyer Mene asked.
In his response, the witness said at the time they were handing over the book to the Police, the attached photocopied document was missing.
“When the officer in charge of Medical Records gave us the book, it did not have the photocopied document attached. The photocopied document attached is not part of the book,” the witness said.
The witness told the Court that it is not usual to have a photocopied document attached on a Death Certificate.
“We did not attach this document on the Death Certificate,” the witness responded.
“Where is the original of the photocopied document?” Lawyer Mene enquired.
“I do not know where the original of the photocopied document is and I do not know who stapled the photocopied documents,” the witness concluded.
The case was adjourned to today Tuesday March 12th at 1 pm, for continuation of hearing.
