Omar Dibba, Gamcotrap’s Youth Programme coordinator, Thursday testified as a defence witness in the criminal trial involving the state against Dr. Isatou Touray and Amie Bojang-Sissoho, all senior officials of Gamcotrap, before Principal Magistrate Taiwo Ade Alagbe of the Banjul Magistrates’ Court.

In his testimony, he revealed that he is responsible for the coordination of the activities of Gamcotrap with the youth, and participate in proposal writing, among others. He said he was involved in writing the project proposal to Yolocamba, adding that after the approval of the proposal he participated in the implementation of the project throughout. He informed that his organisation is not a micro-credit institution and the proposal and other additional information sent to Yolocamba did not include micro-credit but rather it stated Alternative Employment Opportunity (AEO).

According to him, two Yolocomba officials came to the country and learnt about the activities of Gamcotrap. He said the officials visited the Gamcotrap office in 2007, requested for a proposal and Gamcotrap developed one and submitted it to Yolocamba. He added that the said officials went back to Spain and engaged in fundraising.

Dibba stated that a Yolocamba representative called Suzie came to their office and informed them that Yolocamba needed some information about the AEO and they submitted a 14-page document as additional information. He further informed the court that Suzie took the said document to Spain and provided it to the Region of Madrid. Dibba also added that on page 4 of the said document, the last paragraph provided information about the economic situation of the circumcisers to help Yolocamba understand their situation.

He disclosed that the Yolocamba representative (Suzie) came back to the country in 2009, with project documents, contract and others but after looking at it they (Gamcotrap) realised that a micro-credit project was mentioned and they did not sign the document. Instead, he went on, Gamcotrap officials told Suzie that what they submitted was AEO and not micro-credit and that, they were supposed to revisit the documents and to implement the project as per the proposal sent.

At that juncture the case was adjourned to 12th July 2012 for continuation.