Senior Magistrate Kayode Olajubutu of the Banjul Magistrates Court has said that Supt Manlafi Sanyang, the former head of Logistics and Vehicles Unit at State House, is the only person who can explain the "unanswered questions" in the trial.

The senior magistrate made this observation while delivering a ruling on the no-case-to-answer submission filed in by the defence counsel Lamin Camara.

Magistrate Olajubutu reminded the court that the accused is facing two counts of criminal offences, such as abuse of office and stealing, which are contrary to the Criminal Code, Laws of The Gambia.  

He added that the prosecution has called four witnesses, including Alagie Conteh, who testified that he was introduced to the accused by the then NIA director, Abdoulie Kujabi, after enquiring about the sale of a government vehicle.  He said the witness further testified that he chose the vehicle (registration No. BJL 4591B) and had paid D75,000 to the accused.

Narrating the evidence adduced  before the court, the senior magistrate said that the third prosecution witness, ASP Faburay, who is the officer commanding at the Licensing Department, testified that BJL 4591A was the property of the Gambia Immigration Department and was later transferred to the Youth Development Enterprise, under the registration BJL 4591B.

On the other hand, the senior magistrate noted that the defence counsel, in his no-case-to-answer submission, urged the court to discharge and acquit the accused person, on the grounds that the prosecution had not proven its case against the accused.

Magistrate Olajubutu said  the accused stated that Alagie Conteh paid a purchase price of D75,000 to him, which he gave to Abdoulie Kujabi. He said the accused further stated that he effected the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his capacity as controller of government vehicles.

Handing down his ruling, Kayode Olajubutu said it is both "unreasonable, illogical and untenable" to describe this transaction as the transfer of a private vehicle.  "It is based on all the above that I concluded without prejudice to the unshiftable burden on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in this case.

There are unanswered questions, which only the explanation of the accused can answer," he said, adding that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. According to him, this is sufficient enough for the court to require him to enter into his defence.