By Lamin Njie
An ex-wife on Tuesday said she called her then-husband Bubacarr Keita’s sister immediately she left the hospital with her sister and told her the businessman has been wronging her for long but she wasn’t in this instance going to let it go.
Picking from her Monday testimony, the businesswoman witness explained how she immediately called Mr Keita’s elder sister after she finished consulting a doctor over her sister.
“I told her ‘your brother has for long been wronging me and this time I will not forgive him’. She asked me what happened and I explained everything to her,” the witness said.
The witness had on Tuesday begin her testimony by telling Judge Momodou SM Jallow of the Bundung High Court the doctor she consulted, Dr Daffeh, counseled her to take the right steps by reporting the matter.
According to her, the doctor informed her of an incident of a dad raping his daughter when she told the doctor it would be a great shame on her to face people and tell them her husband impregnated her younger sister
“Dr Daffeh told me that [such] was rampant, that just the previous week there was a father who raped his daughter,” the witness who arrived in court late by five minutes which saw her lawyer apologise on her behalf said.
She earlier on testified that she explained everything to Dr Daffeh when she took her sister to family planning clinic at Westfield.
“I told him I want him to check and scan her to confirm how old the pregnancy was. Dr Daffeh then checked her and confirmed that she was pregnant and the pregnancy was 21 weeks old,” the witness said and then quickly added she told the doctor that was not possible because by looking at her sister one would not think she is pregnant by even two months. She said the doctor told her young persons’ pregnancy is not easily noticed – that their stomachs show visible signs when they’re about to give birth.
“I was then worried and asked the doctor how he could help me who informed that there is nothing that he could do and that I should take the rights steps by reporting the matter,” the witness testified and detailed she told the doctor it would be a great shame on her for her to face people and tell them her husband impregnated her sister.
She told the court there were ‘results and everything’ after her lawyer asked her if the doctor ‘scanned’ her sister and whether there were results.
“That same day I was given the results,” she responded when her lawyer asked when she received the results.
According to the witness, while at the hospital the doctor asked her to excuse him so he could speak with her sister in private.
“I then excused them. They were for 30 minutes discussing, him and *T. After 30 minutes, the doctor called me and I went back inside the office,” she testified.
The witness then sparked protest from Bubacarr Keita’s lawyer Lamin Camara when she said the doctor told her, ‘I have discussed with your younger sister and what she is saying is the truth, it’s your husband who impregnated your younger sister’.
The veteran defence attorney who didn’t take that statement kindly rose and said: “My lord, we are objecting to the statement because clearly it is not admissible and we want that last part of the evidence to be expunged from the record.”
Camara then outlined his reasons thus: “My Lord, Section 19 (b) of the Evidence Act is very clear on what is admissible and what is not admissible in terms of hearsay.
“My Lord Section 19 (b) reads, with the permission of the court… My Lord let me change that to 19 (a) instead of 19 (b). Let’s start with 19 (a). My Lord it says hearsay evidence is a statement other than a statement made by a witness at a relevant trial as evidence of the truth of what was asserted.
“This statement ascribed to Dr Daffeh who is listed as Witness No. 4 in the indictment is meant for the truth and that is why she said, and I quote the witness verbatim, ‘after 30 minutes, Dr Daffeh called me inside and what you told me is the truth, she was impregnated by your husband’. It’s not admissible because she’s telling the court what Dr Daffeh allegedly said, and this can only be meant for the truth.
“If and only if, it’s not meant for the truth, they will come under the exceptions under Section 19 (b) and this cannot be admitted under 19(b) because it’s said it’s the truth of what’s asserted. Let Dr Daffeh come here and say that to the court since he’s Witness No. 4. My Lord Section 19 of the EA is the codification of the hearsay rules.”
Camara then said when the judge asked him to read Section 19 (b) of the EA: “Section 19 (b) says ‘it is not hearsay when it’s intended to establish, by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made.”
When the defence attorney’s argument that she (witness) was relying on Dr Daffeh alleged statements as the truth was interpreted to the witness, the attorney for the state and the witness Alasan Jobe said the defence attorney took them by the scruff of the neck insisting he was actually going to guide the witness to skip the whole conversation that happened between Dr Daffeh and her sister.
“Because as senior counsel already argued, they are already listed as witnesses. We will get to hear it from the horse’s mouth. We are therefore not opposed to the objection,” the tall state lawyer said and then asked the witness to skip the conversation between Dr Daffeh and her sister. The judge had at this time already expunged that statement.
And pressing ahead with her testimony, the witness said immediately she left the hospital, the first thing she did was to call Bubacarr Keita’s elder sister.
According to her, she said she told Mr Keita’s sister she didn’t know what to do and wanted the sister to take a step in the matter, because if she told her dad he would take drastic action immediately.
“*A (accused person’s sister) told me she was confused but I should let her call him (Bubacarr) and talk to him,” she said, adding the sister called Bubacarr but later called her back to say she shouldn’t go to work the next morning as she would come to the house so they all could sit and talk. She outlined that it was a meeting that involved her, her mom, Bubacarr and her sister.
“She (Bubacarr’s sister) then told me to go home and pretend that nothing happened and let her to settle the issue,” she said.
When the state lawyer intervened to ask her if Mr Keita was aware of the issue at this time, the witness replied: “No, he wasn’t aware of it yet.”
The case continues on November 23.
