By: Kemo Kanyi
Seedy S.K. Njie, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and deputy spokesperson of the National People’s Party said The Voice newspaper’s article about President Adama Barrow’s reported succession plan caused mistrust, pandemonium, confusion and disappointment within the NPP.
Seedy S.K. Njie was called to testify as the first prosecution witness in a criminal trial between the Inspector General of Police and two Voice newspaper journalists on Thursday, 31st October, 2024. The case was presided over by magistrate Mben Faal of the KanifingMagistrates’ Court.
The prosecution was represented by Commissioner Abdoulie Sanneh, Deputy Commissioner Malang Jarju and ASP Yahya S. Colley while Musa Sheriff and Momodou Justice Darboe were represented by counselsLamin J. Darboe and Lamin S. Camara.
Commissioner Sanneh asked the witness whether he recognise the two accused persons. PW1 responded that he only recognised the first accused Musa Sheriff. He was further asked about his responsibility as the deputy spokesperson of the National People’s Party. His response was that he is responsible ofdisseminating accurate and reliable information to the public for and on behalf of NPP, adding that only him and the spokesperson Lamin Queen Jammeh are responsible for information-sharing within NPP.
Commissioner Sanneh questioned the witness, ‘’if information meant for the general public,comes from any other person besides you and the spokesperson of NPP, how would you regard that information?” Seedy Njie responded that that information would beregarded as utterly false, speculative and garbage.
Prosecution asked the witness whether he can recall the 22nd day of September 2024 that warranted his presence in the court. He responded in the affirmative and was asked to tell the court what happened: ‘’On that day,Musa Sheriff placed a phone call and when I answered, he told me that he has a hot news at his news desk and before going to the press,he wanted to call me to verify if it’s true or false. I asked what the hot news was. He told me that he received information from two executive members of that the President has finally chosen Muhammed Jah as the party’s flagbearer and he wants to find out the veracity of that hot news. I told him I am not granting interview on the matter unless he discloses the names of those executive members. He [the 1st accused] told me my brother this is a confirmed and factual news that I have followed for the past months.’’
Njie said he insisted that Musa Sheriff must tell him the source of information before any interview is granted. He continued: ‘’You know that the president had made it clear that he would be the flag-bearer of NPP. He interjected and said this is true.’’
Seedy Njie said he advised the chief editor notto run the story if he doesn’t want to create disunity and false publication. He added that Musa Sheriff told him that ethical journalism does not allow him to reveal his sources and promised to get back to him after consulting his news desk.
‘’He said I know you since and that’s why I called you to confirm. I told him Mr Sheriff, if you publish this, it will be injurious to the President and all of us,’’ he explained.
He further narrated that he was dismayed in the following morning when he saw the headline on The Voice newspaper about the President’s reported succession plan.
‘’ When I read the news, I was shocked and surprised. I received a lot of telephone calls, expressing disappointment about the news. Everybody was shocked, disappointed and confused because the executive has never had any discussion about flag-bearer.’’
He was asked whether he will identify the said publication when shown to him and repliedthat he can identify through the headline and the picture attached to the story. He was later shown the newspaper, which he confirmed to be the exact story he is referring to.
Prosecution applied to tender the said newspaper as an ID. This application was not objected to by the defence and was admitted by the court.
The witness told the court that he called Musa Sheriff and told him that he must apologise because the article has caused serious concerns within the party, adding that the accused insisted that the story was true but promised that he was going to apologise the following morning with a stop-press and it was going to be ‘’we are sorry, we misquoted you’’. He stated that such wouldn’t be enough.
He added that the editor told him that if he apologised the way the witness wanted, the credibility of his organisation will be affected. ‘’As I was talking to him about the apology, he hung up. I called back and told him that he offended me and hung up the phone. Up to this day, he never apologised,” said the witness.
Counsel Lamin S. Camara rose and demanded the ID that was presented by the prosecution. He told the witness to have a look at the ID whether he was referring to the said document. The witness responded in the affirmative.
The defence applied to tender the newspaper article as an exhibit. The court admitted the newspaper, which was earlier marked as prosecution ID into evidence as defence exhibit.
The case resumes on 10th December, 2024,for cross-examination of the prosecution witness by the defence at 10:30 am.
