Monday, April 22, 2024

Counsel Ida Drammeh questioned Kemo Bojang’s knowledge of AI

- Advertisement -

By: Alieu Jallow

Counsel Ida Drammeh, the defense counsel for the six presidential advisers whose appointments are legally contested by the UDP and its member Ebrima Dibba, filed at the Supreme Court. She questioned UDP and KMC nominated youth councillor Kemo Bojang on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). The question arose following the submission of video evidence that the witness presented during his testimony on the six Presidential advisers.

- Advertisement -

“Do you know that AI can put an exact message as if it’s from a person when it’s not?”

“Not to my knowledge,” Kemo responded.

According to PW 1 (Kemo Bojang), the videos he presented were screen-recorded on his iPad from a few social media platforms. These screen-recorded videos did not sit well with the defense counsel, who then questioned the witness’s understanding of Facebook’s inability to authenticate content posted on its platform, an assertion that the witness disagreed with.

During his testimony, the KMC nominated councillor asserted that one of the presidential advisers was elected National President for life, an assertion that counsel Drammeh challenged by asking the witness if it is correct that the IEC would not allow a person to hold a position for life—a question the witness was not well prepared to answer.

- Advertisement -

The dates of appointment for these contested Presidential advisers were another area that the defense counsel addressed with the witness, along with their terms of reference. At this point, the witness couldn’t specify the exact dates of their appointment.

“I am putting to you that Mr. Sulayman Camara was appointed on 23rd January 2023 by the President,” Counsel Drammeh asked.

“I don’t know the date or who appointed him,” Mr Bojang replied. At this point, counsel Ida Drammeh informed the witness that his appointment was made on a pro bono basis, a statement that the witness acknowledged.

Counsel Drammeh asserted that the witness knew little, a statement that the witness disagreed with.

- Advertisement -

“Until that congress, UDP Constitution has accepted what they are challenging today,” Counsel Drammeh asked.

“I don’t know,” Mr. Bojang replied.

During his testimony, Mr. Bojang exhibited a video of the GDDP congress. The defense counsel then questioned the witness, asserting that he never attended the GDDP and NPP Congress, to which the witness responded positively.

“Is it correct that when Dembo By-Force was speaking in an interview, it was all emotional and not the reality on the ground?” Counsel Drammeh asked.

“That hasn’t happened, but they lost the election. He was trying to portray something. He was speaking for his political party to win,” Kemo replied.

Counsel Ida Drammeh argued that the witness extracted some portion of the video of Dembo By-Force from social media, a submission that the witness stressed by mentioning that he downloaded the full video, which lasted for 18 minutes, from the Fatu.

Popular Posts