Today’s Supreme Court hearings saw the start of the lawsuit filed by the United Democratic Party (UDP) and its members against a political consultant and an ambassador. The panel of five judges heard the case.
Members of the party have filed a lawsuit to have some Gambians serving in overseas missions and others advising President Barrow removed.
Senior Counsel Ida Drammeh, S. Tenbedou, and others attended on behalf of the defendants during the court session, while Attorney A.M. Ousainou Darboe represented the plaintiff, Madi Ceesay, along with Senior Counsels Borry S. Touray, Aziz Bensouda, and Ya Kumba Jaiteh.
Sulayman Camara, Henry Gomez, Lamin K. Saidy, Ousman Rambo Jatta, Dembo Bojang, Dou Sanno, Lamin Cham, and Fatoumatta Jahampa Ceesay are the defendants.
Hon. Madi Ceesay and the UDP’s case against Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay and Rambo Jatta was the first to be called.
Both Ousman Rambo Jatta and Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay (FJC) are being challenged for their appointments by Serrekunda West member Hon. Madi K. Ceesay and his party, the UDP. In accordance with sections 166 and 170 of the Gambian Constitution and G.O. 3104 of the General Orders for Public Service of The Gambia, they are requesting that the Supreme Court rule that President Adama Barrow’s appointments of Fatoumatta Jahampa as high commissioner and Ousman Rambo Jatta as counsellor to South Africa were unconstitutional.
They are asking the supreme court to issue an order compelling Fatoumatta Jahampa Ceesay and Rambo Jatta to give up serving as their own solicitors and high commissioners and counsellors.
Citing section 170 of the 1997 Constitution, which forbids a person from holding post in the public service while also holding office in any political party, attorney A.M. Ousainou Darboe contended in court that both individuals are holding political roles while holding public office.
In addition, Attorney Darboe told the judge that they planned to call a witness to testify in court, and the judge gave authorization for the witness to be called.
Attorney Darboe attempted to introduce audiovisual evidence through witness Kemo Bojang, using his iPad tablet to display the evidence.
Bakau resident and KMC councillor Kemo Bojang was called to give testimony and evidence. During his main evidence, Kemo Bojang, holding the Holy Quran in his hand, vowed to solely speak the truth under the guidance of Counsel Aziz Bensouda.
Bojang was questioned by Attorney Bensouda about the proof he had on Fatoumatta Jahoumpa Ceesay. Kemo Bojang revealed that he has audio and video recordings from the APRC Facebook page and Kerr Fatou YouTube channel saved on his iPad and SoundCloud.
Attorney Ida Drammeh filed an objection, arguing that before being submitted to the court, Kemo Bojang’s iPad holding the audio and video files should be moved to a flash drive. Counsel Aziz Bensouda stressed, nevertheless, that they meant to submit the footage that was taken from the iPad—not the actual device.
Kemo Bojang proceeded to display two more videos: one with Bakso Jaiteh and the other with Fatoumata Jahampa Ceesay delivering an activity report for the party and addressing at the APRC Congress.
Kemo Bojang said he screen-recorded the video from Kerr Fatou’s YouTube channel and the official APRC Facebook page using his iPad tablet in response to a question about how he obtained the recordings. According to Kemo, the Congress took place between January 6–8, 2023.
Counsel Ida Drammeh objected and argued that the films should not have been shown in court, but the court ultimately allowed them to be shown. A video featuring Basko Jaiteh and Fatoumatta Jahampa Ceesay was shown, with both of their images and voices visible on the screen thanks to Kemo Bojang’s iPad connection to the court’s large screen. Following the court’s admission, the video was designated as exhibits E1 and E2, and it was stated that transcription and translation would need to be produced.
An further video proof that Kemo Bojang supplied was a video of Ousman Rambo Jatta interviewing the CEO of Kerrfatou for a show named Tanka-ka. When questioned about how he captured the date and the video. Kemo Bojang told the judge that he recorded the footage on his iPad.
When Kemo Bojang was told to play the tape, Fatou Touray could be seen and heard conversing with Rambo Jatta. At the program’s launch, he claimed to be the APRC’s first deputy party leader.
Ida Drammeh objected, claiming she didn’t comprehend what was stated in the film, but the court dismissed her argument and allowed the Rambo Jatta video to be brought into evidence with an E3 rating.
Additionally, Kemo Bojang supplied a typical newspaper article with the heading “March 02, 2024.”
As the deputy leader of the APRC, Rambo Jatta resigned. The publication was admitted into evidence by the court pending translations and transcriptions, against the objections of attorney Ida Drammeh, who cited the Evidence Act.
Counsel Ida Drammeh questioned the credibility of the source, the recording procedure, and possible evidence manipulation throughout the cross-examination. In response, Kemo Bojang said that he had screen recorded the video using his iPad and that Kerr Fatou and the APRC’s official Facebook page were the sources of the footage.
Kemo responded, “To the best of my knowledge,” when asked if it is true or not that something can be recorded on camera when screen recording.
Counsel Drammeh persisted, saying that voice and other aspects might be captured during recording. Kemo retorted, saying, “No, I only know about notification capture in the recording but not voice.”
Counsel Drammeh also mentioned that Apple products show the option to capture a full screen or only a section of it, to which Kemo gave a positive response.
“Is it correct that before starting a recording you can adjust the settings to include your voice?” asked Counsel Drammeh. With a “Not to my knowledge,” Kemo answered.
Counsel Drammeh questioned, “You said that the videos were posted.”
Kemo Bojang said, “Yes.”
“It means that you chose the location where they were sent,”
Concerning the videos that were posted, Counsel Drammeh inquired as to whether Kemo was there when they were uploaded. In response, Kemo said that the media outlets had posted the films, and although he wasn’t there in person, he was able to determine when they had been uploaded.
Counsel Drammeh questioned, “A video can be on a platform without being uploaded.”
Kemo Bojang answered, “Yes, that’s Facebook Live.”
Counsel asked Kemo about his knowledge of artificial intelligence, bots, Photoshop, and whether or not a machine could alter speech or images. While confirming his familiarity with Photoshop, bots, and AI, Kemo expressed doubt about a machine that could alter photographs and videos.
In response, Kemo stated he was aware of phoney accounts but that he was unaware of the possibility of someone uploading a video on one, and that this was not conceivable for live video. Counsel Ida Drammeh suggests that these are phoney accounts.
Counsel Ida Drammeh inquired more regarding the YouTube live broadcast visibility. According to Kemo, the live indicator appears during streaming but vanishes at the conclusion of the live session.
Counsel Drammeh questioned, “Is it correct that when YouTube is doing live, it indicates Live?”
Kemo Bojang responded, “Yeah, live is visible while it’s playing, but after it ends, it’s not live anymore.”
Counsel Drammeh questioned, “So everything you presented here is from a recording from elsewhere?”
Kemo Bojang said, “Yes.”
“You have provided two different dates for the Congress—December and January—in your evidence.” Counsel Drammeh enquired
“Yes, I made the error; the APRC Congress was in January, but my party’s congress was conducted in December. Thus, I was thinking about our Congress,” Kemo Bojang answered.
Due to her weak command of the language, Counsel Ida Drammeh told the court that this was the extent of her ability to work with the witness until the transcription and translation of the films were delivered.
Counsel Ida Drammeh stated, “I applied for the court to allow me to continue with the witness once the transcription and translation are available.”
Ebrima Dibba’s lawsuit against President Barrow’s advisors, including Dembo Bojang, Dou Sanno, Lamin Cham, Henry Gomez, Lamin K. Saidy, and Sulayman Camara, was the second case.
In this case, Lawyers Darboe, Aziz Bensouda, Borry S. Touray, and Ya Kumba Jaiteh represented the plaintiff while Ida Drammeh, S. Tambedou and others appeared for the defendants.
UDP and Ebrima Dibba filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the appointment of President Adama Barrow’s advisers in the persons of Dembo Bojang, Lamin Cham, Henry Gomez, Dodou Sanno also called Dou Sanno, Sulayman Camara and Lamin K Saidy.
According to UDP and Dibba, their nominations violated the Constitution’s provision 170. The identical declarations that are requested by UDP and Madi Ceesay in their lawsuit against Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay are also sought by Dibba and UDP.
Attorney Darboe spearheaded the group of attorneys and presented the matter, arguing that the plaintiff requested a judicial statement.
Senior Lawyer Darboe argued that the appointment of the first defendant goes against Section 88 of the Constitution, and a declaration is sought to prevent them from presenting themselves as holding that position.
“We will present evidence showing that all the defendants hold positions in political parties, with one of them even being a party leader. It is deceptive to say they have no political opinions. Their behaviour calls into question public service. To bolster our argument, we intend to summon two witnesses. Attorney Darboe contested.
He added: “We will provide facts to support our arguments.”
Counsel Ida Drammeh, “My esteemed colleague failed to distinguish between a public servant, public officer, and civil servant. The President has the authority under the Constitution to appoint and establish a public office. Chapter 1 establishes public office. Section 88 establishes a public service commission, with a commissioner appointed by the President.”
Counsel Ida Drammeh argued that the defendant seeks to limit and challenge the President’s powers. The court is asked to interpret the Constitution and clarify the concept of public office.
“The President acted within the powers granted to him by Section 88 of the Constitution. We request the court to dismiss the case.” Counsel Drammeh submitted.
The court scheduled the proceedings
to the 25th of March 2023 at 14:00, 26th March at 10:00, and 27th March at 10:00am allowing time for translations and transcriptions.