By Lamin Njie
The judge in the trial of Bubacarr Keita accused of raping a minor could be left to decide whether the divorce of a witness could be discussed after state attorneys enjoined the court against it.
Alasan Jobe quickly tackled Bubacarr Keita’s lawyer Lamin S Camara after the latter brought the divorce of Keita’s ex-wife into the mix at the return of the trial on Wednesday at the high court in Bundung.
“Objection,” the state attorney quickly dissented when Camara asked the witness if the first thing that happened on Nov. 6 2019 in the house was her being granted a divorce and then her later reporting the matter of Keita ‘falling on’ her sister to the police for the very first time.
The witness who is Keita’s ex-wife had earlier said she could not remember what really happened in the house she was living in on November 6, 2019. She then later testified it was the day she lodged a complaint at the police for the first time. This was after this piece of event was preempted to her by the defence lawyer Lamin Camara.
On the issue of her divorce, the state attorney asked the court not to allow that ‘question’ or anything regarding ‘her divorce or alleged divorce’.
“My Lord, that question as to whether she was divorced or not is irrelevant. And the issue of her divorce is not before this Honourable Court and it is not something that she ever mentioned in her examination in chief,” the state attorney Alasan Jobe insisted.
He insisted more: “It’s therefore not in issue and cross-examination should be confiend to the witness’s testimony-in-chief. We therefore urge this Honourable court pursuant to Section 3 of the Evidence Act and the above quoted authority from the author not to allow that question and anything regarding her divorce or alleged divorce.”
The state counsel had initially referred the court to page 221 of ‘Law of Evidence’ book written by the current chief justice Hassan B Jallow, where the legal mind argued that a witness is obliged to be questioned by the ‘opposite party’ at the conclusion of her examination-in-chief to challenge and test the veracity of the witness’s assertions, whether of fact or admissible opinion.
“He further stated that relevant is still the test of the validity of the question,” the state counsel had also stated.
The defence lawyer Lamin Camara when asked by the judge to respond to the state counsel’s argument said his objection was ‘totally’ misconceived.
“My Lord, I am convinced that the objection of my learned friend is totally misconceived,” Camara said. He is expected to elaborate when the case resumes on Thursday.
When the trial resumed on Wednesday, the defence lawyer began questioning the witness by first showing her a statement she wrote when she first reported the matter to the police.
“Did you write everything you said to the court in that statement?” Camara asked the witness.
In replying, the witness said: “No, it’s not everything. Because when I went to the police station, they asked me why I went there and I explained it to them.
“Are you telling this court that what you told the court in your evidence-in-chief in connection with this case is not why you went to the police station?” Camara said in a follow-up question.
The witness responded that the issue of Keita ‘falling on’ her sister was what took her to the police station ‘and they asked me and I explained to them what happened on that day’.
“So why did you not tell them what happened?” a curious Lamin Camara asked.
“When I came to the court, I realised it’s a platform where you can say all that you want to say. That’s why I said what I wanted to say,” the witness said.
The witness then said what the police asked her was what she told them ‘at that time’ when the defence lawyer asked her if she didn’t believe the police station availed her the platform to tell them everything she wanted to say in connection with the matter.
“Because that was how they asked me. If they had asked me the way you (court) have asked me, I would have explained everything to them,” the witness said.
“Everything you said in your evidence-in-chief on the pregnancy of the complainant is what you were told either by her, your mother or a third party?” the defence lawyer probed.
The witness replied: “That’s how I came to know it because I was not there when they were falling on her.”
Questioning the witness further, Camara told the witness she had said in her testimony her sister had collapsed twice in school and if at all that was true.
“Yes,” the witness said and then said this happened when the complainant was living in the same house as herself and her ex-husband when the lawyer enquired about where she lived at that time.
The witness said she did not investigate the cause of her sister’s collapse in school when the defence lawyer asked her whether she medically investigate the cause of the collapse ‘as an experienced mother’.
“I did not investigate it because a lot of kids were collapsing in the school at that time,” the witness said.
“And for 21 weeks in your own words and in your statement, you did not notice that the complainant was pregnant whilst under your roof allegedly. Is that what you’re telling the court?” Camara then asked.
“I did not know, I did not suspect it and I did not pay attention to it,” the witness replied.
Wednesday’s session also saw the state’s lawyer express concern over her witness being constantly reminded of her swearing to speak just the truth.
“My Lord, we’re a bit concerned here because from last sitting also, the court reminded the witness again that she was under oath. She’s not a child, she’s an adult. She has already sworn to tell the truth before this Honourable Court. She has already answered the questioned. With all due respect, I don’t understand the fact that she’s being reminded again because she has already sworn,” Alasan Jobe complained when the judge told the witness she was under oath and should ‘please’ answer the questioned posed to her if she knew them. The judge said it was contingent the court reminded the witness of her oath to speak just the truth.
