By Lamin Njie
Bubacarr Keita’s former wife ended her testimony in the businessman’s rape trial by telling the court she sparred with Keita while he was under custody – where Keita got angry and told her he has divorced her.
Keita and her former wife stood, facing each other in the witness stand and the dock for the very last time on Tuesday. It comes three weeks after the Court of Appeal revoked Keita’s bail, as he battles a charge of raping his ex-wife’s 15-year-old sister.
At the resumption of the trial on Tuesday at the high court in Bundung, Keita’s former wife produced a cadi court order that was made during a trial involving the former couple.
“Yes I have it,” the witness replied when Keita’s lawyer asked her if she had the order.
The witness took it out and gave it to the judge as Keita’s lawyer Lamin Camara applied for the order to be tendered as a defence exhibit. The judged admitted the order into evidence and marked it as Defence Exhibit B.
The witness said he could read and write in English when the defence lawyer asked if she could. She read out the claim in the cadi court order which dealt with iddah accommodation and child maintenance. The witness had asked for a D100,000 monthly iddah maintenance from the cadi court.
Still, the defence lawyer asked the witness to “look at the first paragraph [of the cadi court order], that is paragraph 1 and tell the court the date of the divorce according to the order [Defence Exhibit B]”.
“It is confirmed that the plaintiff and the defendant were married. However, on the 7th day of November, the defendant granted the plaintiff a divorce,” the witness said, reading out the cadi court order.
“So what is the date of the divorce in Defence Exhibit B according to the court?” Keita’s lawyer asked her.
“According to the court, it’s on the 7th of November 2019,” the witness replied. The defence lawyer then said he was done with the witness.
State senior attorney Alasan Jobe in re-examining the witness enquired if it was normal for the witness to just go to the cadi court to claim for iddah accommodation and maintenance.
“My Lord certainly that is not a question you can ask on re-examination. Certainly we’re objecting to that,” the defence lawyer protested. But he then walked back his objection after the judge asked him if he was really objecting.
“My Lord really it’s not one of those questions that you can ask under re-examination. My Lord I withdraw my objection, we want to hear the answer,” Camara explained.
The witness when allowed to respond said “that could not happen because something had happened”.
She then said when the state lawyer asked her to tell the court what prompted her to make the iddah and child maintenance claim at the cadi court: “Because on the 6th of November, I had a problem with my husband. Because I found out my sister was pregnant.
“When I asked her, she said it’s my husband [who was responsible]. So when we talked, we couldn’t have a solution and we went further and went to the police on the 6th of November.
“So the next day on the 7th, he was under custody and while we were quarelling, he got angry and said he has divorced me. So for me I did not take that divorce, that’s why I went to the cadi, they called him and clarified everything. So when I explained to them everything, that’s when they told me they would write that he should give me iddah and maintenance.”
The session then got briefly interrupted when the senior state lawyer Alasan Jobe complained to the judge that a gentleman in the gathering “was laughing and smiling and making gestures”.
“He is not supposed to make those gestures as a lawyer,” the judge warned.
“He has issues with me My Lord, with all due respect,” the gentleman who was then identified as a lawyer fired back.
“This is not the place for that,” the judge said and later pleaded with the senior state counsel to ‘forget’ the matter.
The session then continued with the senior state lawyer asking the witness about when she got to know about the contents of defence exhibit B [the cadi court orde].
“My Lord I just want to draw My lord’s attention that all the questions that are asked under re-examination are normally nor allowed under re-examination. Because he is going into fresh areas may need to be asked later on,” the defence lawyer interjected but the judge said questions could be asked on issues that are contentious.
“All the questions he has asked are not ambiguous and they are not contentious,” the defence lawyer argued.
“This one is contentious because it has information that she is being re-examined on,” the judge said.
The defence lawyer then read out the evidence act that “re-examination shall be directed… Explanation of matters referred to under cross-examination and if new matter by the permission of the court introduced in re-examination, the other party must further cross examine on it”.
“So what he is doing is he is introducing new matters,” he added.
The judge disagreed saying the question could validly pass for matters that have been referred to in cross-examination.
“And you have referred to it by exhibiting the item, requiring her to produce the document which has been tendered,” the judge said.
The witness when asked to answer the question said: “When I left the court the last time I was thinking I had all the documents but I realized I didn’t. So that I came to know about it the next day. I cannot recall the exact date but it was a day after the last sitting.”
Keita’s lawyer then insisted one new matter has been raised under re-examination.
“The witness led evidence as to the date of the 7th, that that is when she went to the police station and exchanged words with the accused person and the accused said you’re granted a divorce,” Camara said.
He then asked: “Mrs* did you receive a text message from the accused person on the 6th of November 2019 at 9:41am asking you to leave his house?”
The witness replied: “I did receive a message that I should leave his house.”
“And it’s because of that text message you received that you left the accused person’s house on the 7th , you packed out on the 7th?” Camara then asked.
Camara then asked the witness not to take him back to November 6 when the witness attempted to discuss what happened the previous day.
“It’s because of the text message? Don’t take me back to the 6th , Camara asked.
The witness replied: “The text message did not cause me to pack out. Because he did not divorce me, he only said I should leave his house.”
The case resumes on Wednesday when a new witness is set to testify.
