By: Ousman Saidykhan
The fourth prosecution witness, Dibba has given evidence in the manslaughter trial involving Sainabou Mbaye, Cherno Mbaye and Kibily Dambally in Banjul High Court. Bakary Dibba was the head of the investigating team that went to Brusubi to reconstruct the scene where Baby Muhammed was said to have been left in a vehicle.
The Assistant Superintendent of Police – with over 11 years working experience at the Serious Crime Unit told the court that he in fact, set-up the panel which include; ASP Francis Jatta, ASP Jally M.I Senghore (PW3), Inspector Bunanaa Bass Manga, Corporal Samba Mballow (PW2) and himself in consultation with his seniors.
The witness told the court they received the case file on the 20th July for investigation of the demise of Baby Muhammed.
“As investigators, we sat them (the suspects) down. We interrogated them by form of interview and then gave explanation of the demise of Baby Muhammed. As part of best practices, a team was dispatched from my office headed by myself together with four or five officers (to reconstruct the scene) and Kibily and Cherno,” the witness testified.
The witness continued that the rationale behind the reconstruction of the scene was to get first-hand knowledge as to exactly what happened, adding that they were taken through the newly-rented apartment and where the vehicle, which was drove by Cherno, was parked; where Baby Muhammed was said to have been left inside; and the sitting arrangements in the car as well.
“Having gotten all these from them, we applied the actual crime scene procedure by measuring from the front tire of the vehicle to the compound gate and equally, rear tire of the vehicle to the compound gate. I put up a sketch plan for the scene (which were admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit P7series), specifying where the vehicle was and all the fixed points,” the witness told the court
Mr, Dibba testified that they interacted with a woman called Adama Bojang, a neighbour to the apartment, who explained to them what she witnessed on the day of the incident.
During the cross-examination, defense counsel C Gaye asked the witness whether the suspects were being detained at the time of reconstruction of the scene; to which the witness replied, “no, they were detained after the reconstruction of the scene.”
The defense counsel asked whether the investigation revealed the presence of any other person apart from the accused persons. The witness replied that there were agents and the driver of the truck that transported their luggage.
The witness was also asked to describe to the court the apartment they were taken through by Cherno but he said he would not be able to describe exactly.
“Did you not tell the court Cherno took you through the house?,” asked defense Counsel C Gaye. The witness replied, “I did. But that is not enough for description.”
The defense counsel asked whether the witness had taken pictures of the scene and why had he not brought it in court. The witness replied that they had photos of the scene but “there was division of labour and the photos were taken by somebody different from myself.”
“But you told the court that you were the head of the team, so you should be in possession of the photos,” asked the defence counsel.
Witness replied: “I’m the head of the team; that doesn’t suggest that I do everything.”
Counsel C. Gaye asked about who took the measurements of the scene which the witness responded that he recorded with the help of Corporal Mballow and Inspector Manga.
She also asked whether Marrong Kunda, a neighbour of the newly rented house, whose compound gate the vehicle was said to have been parked against was occupied as at 3rd July, the date of the incident. The witness replied “yes.”
The defense counsel further put it to the witness that the vehicle (Nissan Rogue) was drawn out of position by the witness who was the architect of the sketch plan. The witness said he drew the vehicle in a position as per the explanation of the driver, Cherno, the second accused.
“I’m not talking about what the driver told you. I’m talking about what you drew,” but the witness replied, “that was the exact position of the vehicle.”
The witness was asked why did they not draw the perimeter of the house which he replied that was not relevant to the subject.
“I’m putting it to you that your investigations were incomplete and unreliable,” defense counsel said.
The witness replied: “that was the opinion of the counsel, but our investigation was effectively and efficiently carried out.”
