Hafsatu Z Bangura
The defense counsel concluding his cross examination on the 25th April,2022 asked the witness if he knew the 4th accused be it personally or officially but the witness denies of his relationship with the 4th accused and said he has heard of the 4th accuses name and was asked further if he knew whether or not he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation but he denied also and said he can’t tell of the 4th accused person’s position. This action by the witness prompted the 4th accuse person to shed tears.
Defense counsel argued that the 4th accused was not holding any governmental positions in 2018 and that all other payments that were being made was made in absential of him as he held no governmental position at the time and that only 1million United States dollars was made during the 4th accused tenure in office but the witness denied having knowledge of this.
Defense counsel for the 4th accused Mr. Ibrahim Sorie in his cross examination to the witness asked him of his confirmation of the witness statement made by him to the Anti-Corruption Commission and confirmed it. He furthermore questioned him about how he prepared his reports regarding his visit to New York and responded with a yes and that he never visited the New York Building site as indicated in his statement at the ACC.
He continued with his cross examination in asking the witness of the procurement manual that was used in referral to his reports and the year it was completed. He replied the defense counsel that it was completed in 2020 and further asked him if it was gazette to the best of his knowledge of which he replied that he is not aware of that nor is he aware whether it has gone through parliamentary process and that the manual was an old manual of the procurement manual of 2016 and that 2020 was the revised one.
Defense counsel continued asking him of his reports if the report was a comprehensive report he responded and said the report speaks for itself.
Defense counsel continued also by asking if there were no additional floors to be added if the grading report of the witness would have been higher for the first four floors he responded and said no.
He also made a tabular form in his report of the assessment done and was asked of the dates of the assessment work but he responded and said it was an assessment report much of what was collated was based on discussions he had with the contractor and sub-contractor.
Defense Counsel for the 2nd accused Mr. Sesay in his cross examination with the prosecution witness asked him about his visit to New York and the year and his reports of which the witness answered that he made his first visit to New York on October 16th 2019 and the second visit in 2021.
He continued that if the second accused was present during these visit but the witness replied that the second accused was absent on both occasions and was no longer as the Ambassador.
Defense Counsel went on to ask the prosecution witness if he visited the New York Chancery Building in New York and his response shocked the whole court room as he said he never visited New York that all what was required was a permit and a supervisor, defense counsel told him that are u aware that New York will give a building permit and he replied yes but never thought it was necessary to get it nor cross check the permits.
He asked him also about the document that came from the Director Generals office that had a specific request on where his advice and approval was needed for the additional floors and funding he cited the minutes of the document and that the two additional floors were technical advice.
Franklyn Kargbo Chief Defense Counsel for the 4th accused person Dr. Samura Kamara and Chief prosecuting counsel Matesbo engaged in a heated objection battle as the prosecution counsel objected to a repetitive question by defense Counsel Ibrahim Sorie as described by him.
Franklyn Kargbo however objected to Mr. Matsebo’s objection on behalf of his witness and said that Mr. Matesbo keeps interrupting the witness and the cross examination by defense as he said Mr. Matesbo should be put in the witness stand for his unnecessary interruptions and leading the witness on what to answer as he cautioned him to allow the witness and the cross examination to flow.
