By Abdelkarim Jaiteh
Following a request by the attorney for the former AFPRC junta member and one time minister for the arrest of the executive secretary of the Truth Commission on the statements of the state witness, Ensa Mendy at the Commission, the High Court in Banjul on Tuesday admitted the said statement without objection raised by a team of state lawyers when the case resumed for continuation of cross-examination of PW2, Ensa Mendy.
Continuing with his evidence under cross-examination today before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, Ensa Mendy, the state second witness in the murder trial involving the former AFPRC junta member, Yankuba Touray told the court after receiving a call from the suspect, he was asked by the suspect to inform the guard commander that they should go for a patrol as there was a threat around the beachside.
Mendy however clarified that he never told the court he had driven the immediate family of the suspect to Banjul, arguing that he left the family at the resident of the suspect but could not mention their names.
The witness, Mr Mendy denied contradicting himself when it was put to him that he has two version when he said he left the family of the suspect at the resident of the suspect in Kololi or they left for Banjul prior to his departure for a patrol.
When asked by the defence to tell the court the officers he went with for a patrol, the witness replied he would not be able to know their names, adding that they were fully armed when they were going on the mission.
Asked what was the weather on that day and how he communicated with the suspect, in replied he said it was heavy downpour and he communicated with the suspect through analog mobile but could not remember the number he communicated with the suspect or the actual location of the suspect at the time.
According to the witness, so many things transpired between him and the suspect from 1995 to 1997 in the line of his duties and have seen the suspect visiting friends and officers in the army from 1997 to 2001.
However, he explained the only time the suspect was visited by friends and officers in the army was when there was occasion at his home.
The witness further told the court he did not find out or asked anyone the cause of the wetness and muddiness in the house at the time nor did he clean or see anyone cleaning the house.
When further put to him by the defence that his testimony before the TRRC and the one before the court were at variance, he replied in the negative and stated that all what he said before the court was nothing but the truth.
The defence at that point applied to tender the oral manuscript transcription of the witness testimony at the Truth Commission as exhibit which was admitted without objection raised by a team of state lawyers.
The matter was adjourned at that point to 12 December for continuation.
