The police officer testifying in the rape trial of Bubacarr Keita completed his testimony on Tuesday by saying they did not discover any tangible evidence the businessman raped the complainant.
Mr Keita, 29, has been standing trial for the alleged rape of his former wife’s 15-year-old sister. He denies any culpability.
And Musa Dumbuya a police detective at Piccadilly Police Post who said they initially charged Mr Keita with defilement of a minor finished giving evidence in his trial.
The police sergeant said on Tuesday they did not discover any ‘tangible’ evidence the accused raped the complainant when Mr Keita’s lawyer asked if they did during the course of their investigation.
But he quickly added: “What we know and confirmed is both the complainant, the accused and the victim were living in the same house.”
The police officer had earlier on gave evidence on why they didn’t drop charges against the complainant’s boyfriend since they’d confirmed the duo dated for only three months when they already confirmed medical test results showed the pregnancy of the complainant was ‘four to five months old’.
“As I told you yesterday, for the purposes of the investigation, Pa Modou was subjected to an investigation where he was cautioned and charged equally for defilement. If you see we did not drop charges against Pa Modou because at that stage at our level, the case file was demanded by the gender and child welfare unit at police headquarters from our gender and child welfare OC under Bundung Division because of the critical and sensitive nature of the case,” Mr Dumbuya said when the prosecuting lawyer Alasan Jobe asked why they did not drop the charges against Johm.
He added: “There, we handed over the case file together with the complainant, the victim and the accused person so that if there should be any amendments or any adjustments it can be done in the case file. A crime report was also attached to the case file, a soft copy of the crime report was also given to them so that if there would be amendments, they would do it. To answer counsel’s question, that’s the reason why we did not drop charges against Pa Modou Johm.”
Mr Dumbuya’s response came only after lawyers on both sides of the aisle sparred over the way the prosecuting lawyer framed his question. The defence lawyer Lamin Camara did not like his comment the police officer confirmed the complainant and her former boyfriend dated for only three months when the pregnancy was confirmed to be four to five months.
“My Lord I will object to that. He never confirmed that they dated for three months. He said they dated for three months. There is a difference between the two. We will be guided by the records,” Lamin Camara told Judge Momodou SM Jallow.
“Mr Lord, he said they confirmed. Yesterday he said they confirmed that Pa Modou Johm the ex-boyfriend of the complainant dated for only three months,” prosecuting lawyer Alasan Jobe replied.
“My Lord what he said is from his text message, he was saying from the text message, not from Pa Modou Johm. It said it was confirmed from the text messages they dated for three months. How he is paraphrasing it, it looks like [it’s] from Pa Modou Johm they confirmed,” Lamin Camara insisted.
The judge intervened by saying “you cannot do that, please limit your directions because otherwise it may confuse him (witness)”.
Elsewhere, the witness testified that it was normal for the gender and child welfare unit of the police to make alterations or recommendations to case files sent to them.
“Yes it’s normal,” the witness said while responding to the prosecuting lawyer’s question of normality.
The prosecuting lawyer then asked him: “My final question is are you surprised the state only charged the accused person?”
In his response, the police officer said he wasn’t. He said: “I am not surprised for the simple reason that the pregnancy test result indicated that in the case the pregnancy was four to five months old and the duration Pa Modou stated through the text messages when he was dating with the victim was only three months.
“And both Pa Modou and the victim stated that when they met they only stopped at kissing and hugging, they never went further. And the victim stated that apart from Pa Modou, she had no affair with any other boy or man.”
Lamin Camara quizzing the witness requested the accused person’s voluntary statement asked that it be given to the witness. He then sparked a fight from the prosecution when he asked the witness if it was correct it was the voluntary statement of the accused person.
“My Lord, we’re objecting to that,” prosecuting lawyer Alasan Jobe quickly said.
He then argued: “My Lord, last week this issue was raised. That the document was for ID purposes only. Now counsel is relying on it to cross-examine our witness. And he himself even said even the judge cannot even look at it and he is using the same document to cross-examine our witness.”
Lamin Camara fired back that no question has been asked on the content of the document.
“That is what you cannot do at the moment. I am asking the witness to identify the document, not the content,” Camara added.
Intervening, the judge said, ruling in the defence’s favour: “The voluntary statement of the accused person which had been hitherto ID1 is now admitted into evidence as Defence Exhibit C which aforesaid statement complies with all prima facie requirements for obtaining same wherein the accused person states, I quote, ‘no, I do not agree on above charge made against me’.”
The defence lawyer then asked the witness if it is correct that the accused person was being investigated for an allegation of rape.
“Yes, initially he was being investigated on defilement of a child under the age of 18, at our level at Piccadilly Police Post,” the witness said. He then said he never personally investigate him for the allegation of rape and that it was not to his knowledge if any of his colleague did.
Elsewhere during cross- examination, said they charged Keita with defilement of a girl but he strongly denied it. He also said some the evidence she gave on Tuesday was based on what the first witness in the trial and the complainant told him during the course of his investigations, as well as Pa Modou Johm the complainant’s former boyfriend.
