The civil dispute between GACH Global and former Gampetroleum managing director Saikou Drammeh, alongside Khadijatou Kebbeh, intensified in court on Monday as witness Abdoulie Saine testified about a disputed €1 million payment.

During cross-examination, Saine claimed a lawyer had facilitated the payment and accused Drammeh of concealing the funds.

The proceedings, initially focused on commercial matters, veered into personal and professional accusations, including allegations over hidden videos of cash, conflicting police statements, and questions about the admissibility of documents.
Under questioning by Counsel BS Conteh, Saine admitted recent contact with Drammeh over a fuel deal, insisting they had discussed commissions and remained in touch.

Conteh suggested Saine was fabricating claims, but Saine countered that a lawyer had previously sought his assistance to help Drammeh with police bail and to arrange payment following a car accident.

Conteh denied these assertions from the bar, prompting objections that he was effectively giving evidence rather than questioning the witness.

The most contentious issue was a claimed €1 million handover. Saine testified he witnessed Khadijatou Kebbeh’s brother, Haruna Kebbeh, deliver the cash to Drammeh and filmed the aftermath when the bags were opened. According to Saine, the money included both euros and dollars.

Conteh challenged the credibility of the footage, arguing it lacked audio, did not clearly identify Haruna Kebbeh, and maintained no such payment had been made.

Saine said there were two videos, one filmed in a dimly lit living room, the other in an office, and insisted he had been present.

He added that he confronted Drammeh at a police station, urging him to return the money.

Counsel I. Drammeh raised repeated objections over procedural matters, arguing that Conteh was testifying.

Justice Jaiteh instructed the lawyers to maintain a proper question-and-answer format. Conteh pressed on, claiming Saine had been discredited and that the video had previously been rejected in a related criminal case.

Saine maintained his testimony, insisting he was speaking “nothing but the truth.”

In re-examination, Counsel I. Drammeh sought to tender police witness statements from Badou S. Conteh, Bai Mass Saine, and Hamidou Jah, arguing they were relevant after cross-examination raised questions about the witness’s credibility and the source of payments at Jah Oil.

Despite Conteh’s objection on timing and relevance, Justice Jaiteh allowed the statements, citing sections of the Evidence Act that permit the court to admit documents arising from cross-examination.

The judge emphasised that “documents speak for themselves” and that credibility testing is central to the process.

After inspecting the statements, the court admitted them for the limited purpose of addressing the matters raised during cross-examination.

Justice Jaiteh also highlighted scheduling and fairness concerns, noting Saine’s imminent travel to Sweden, and indicated further cross-examination on the documents might be allowed to preserve both parties’ rights.

The case now hinges on sharply disputed facts: whether a €1 million cash transfer to Drammeh took place, the authenticity of the videos, and the role allegedly played by the lawyer in facilitating payments at Jah Oil.

By Adama Makasuba