By: Cecilia E.L. Mendy
The trial of two former senior officials of the National Water and Electricity Company (NAWEC) Wednesday resumed before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court with the first prosecution witness being allowed to complete his testimony.
The court has set aside an earlier order foreclosing the prosecution’s first witness who is considered as key witness, from further testimony and cross-examination in the corruption and abuse of office trial involving two former senior NAWEC officials.
Magistrate Awa Manneh ruled that the interests of substantial justice required that the witness be allowed to complete his evidence.
The state, represented by Counsel M.D. Mballow, had applied on 9 March 2026 for the court to set aside its 2 March 2026 order foreclosing the witness and to restore him to the witness box.
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Fatou Waggeh, a legal clerk at the Ministry of Justice, who stated that PW1 was a material witness and that maintaining the foreclosure order would prejudice the prosecution’s case.
The accused persons, Cherno Omar Cham and Babou Secka, are charged with corruption and abuse of office. Prosecutors allege that on or about 17 October 2024, while serving as NAWEC Finance Director and Treasury Manager respectively, they solicited between D5 and D2 per metre from a representative of DIVYA Trading in connection with a contract to supply 476,500 metres of twisted connection cables to the utility company.
Counsel S. Twum, representing the first accused, opposed the application, arguing that the witness had repeatedly failed to attend court and that the court lacked jurisdiction to revisit its earlier ruling because it was functus officio.
Counsel L.A. Ceesay, representing the second accused, also opposed the application, describing it as an abuse of court process and arguing that the proper remedy available to the prosecution was an appeal.
In response, the State argued that the doctrine of functus officio applies only to final judgments and not to interlocutory rulings, adding that courts retain inherent powers to vary such orders where necessary to prevent injustice.
In her ruling, Magistrate Manneh held that the foreclosure order was interlocutory because it neither determined the guilt or innocence of the accused persons nor disposed of the substantive case.
She stated that the court retained jurisdiction to revisit the order and relied on judicial authorities affirming that the doctrine of functus officio attaches only after the final determination of a matter.
The magistrate further held that PW1 had already commenced giving evidence and had been partially cross-examined. She said maintaining the foreclosure order would permanently exclude the testimony of a witness who had already begun testifying and prevent the completion of cross-examination.
While acknowledging concerns over delays in the proceedings, the court found that any prejudice to the accused persons would be minimal since they would still have the opportunity to fully cross-examine the witness.
The court ruled that the interests of justice favoured allowing the witness to complete his testimony and set aside the foreclosure order.
PW1 was restored to the witness box for the continuation and completion of his testimony and cross-examination.
The court directed the prosecution to ensure the witness’s attendance at the next hearing and warned that failure to do so without satisfactory explanation could attract sanctions or other consequential orders.
The case was adjourned to 28 July 2026.