Counsel Lamin S. Camara representing Aisha Fatty began his cross-examination of the witness who translated the documents in the legal dispute from French to English. The case involved Abdoulaye Cham (Plaintiff) versus Aisha Fatty (first defendant) and the IGP (the second defendant).
Abdoulaye Thiam aims to recover monies and properties including vehicles in the possession of the IGP which the Senegalese businessman, said he gave Aisha during their intimate relationship.
When the case was called up the legal representation for the plaintiff consisted of Counsel Lamin Ceesay K. Sanyang and MED Sanyang. On the other hand, Lamin S. Camara and K. Jallow serve as the defense counsel for the first defendant. M.B. Sowe, along with F. Drammeh, represents the second defendant.
The case proceeds with a cross-examination of the plaintiff’s fourth witness (PW4). The witness is the person who translated documents such as the gold receipt, vehicle documents, and other legal documents from French to English, which was a subject of argument during pretrial between the defense counsel and the plaintiff counsel on its admissibility but the court admitted into evidence saying the weight and validity of the translations will be determined at the end of the trial.
The witness, Momodou Malie Bah, informed the court that he resides in Tabokoto and works as an IT officer. During the cross-examination led by defense Senior Counsel L.S Camara representing the first defendant, the witness was asked about his role as a commissioner for oath or a notary public. He clarified that he is a commissioner for oath and affidavit but has applied to become a notary public, although his application hasn’t been approved yet.
The defense Counsel Camara questioned whether a commissioner for oath and affidavit duties included translating documents from one language to another. The witness replied that there is no specific job description for a commissioner for oath but emphasized that he believes his expertise allows him to translate documents for people lawfully.
Counsel Camara further inquired about the witness’s proficiency in translating documents from French to English. The witness confirmed that he can speak and understand French, even though he does not possess a certificate in the language. He mentioned using Google Translate occasionally to assist in the translation process.
Senior Counsel Camara also raised questions about the witness’s qualifications in the English language. The witness stated that he completed secondary education up to the fourth level and holds a certificate in the English language from Pitman in the UK. The witness acknowledged using Google Translate to refine translations, believing it to be accurate about 99 percent of the time.
Counsel Camara then asked about the witness’s awareness of translation being a specialized profession for legal proceedings. The witness admitted that he was not aware of it, stating that his focus was on understanding the basics of the language written in the documents.
Counsel Camara questioned the witness whether he was an expert in French or English. The witness clarified that he does not consider himself an expert but reiterated his confidence in translating documents based on his knowledge and experience.
Defense Counsel Camara presented exhibit P8(a) to (T), which contained translated versions of various documents. Counsel Camara inquired about the language of the exhibits, and the witness confirmed that they were in English. When asked to identify which documents he had translated, the witness pointed to his signature as an indication that he had performed the translations.
Counsel Camara then questioned whether the witness had endorsed exhibit P8(a) to (T) the witness stated that he had translated them from French to English. The witness admitted that while he had sworn an affidavit attesting to being the translator, he had not indicated the translations on the exhibits themselves.
Moving on, Counsel Camara presented exhibit P9(a) to (p) and asked the witness about the language of these documents. The witness confirmed that they were in English and stated that he had translated them from French. When questioned about endorsements on the exhibits, the witness pointed to his stamp as proof of his involvement in the translation process.
Counsel Lamin S. Camara, moving on questioned the witness regarding the authenticity and translation of exhibits P9(a) to P9(p). The witness confirmed that these documents were indeed in French and stated that he had translated them personally.
Challenging the witness further, Senior Counsel Camara asked the witness about the presence of his written statement indicating the translation of the documents. The witness admitted that no such written statement was available but emphasized that he had certified the translated versions with a stamp. He then showed the court the stamp affixed to the top right-hand corner of the documents, bearing the inscription “Certify true copy from the original.”
Moving on to exhibits P10(a) to P10(m), Camara Camara inquired about the French nature of these documents, which the witness acknowledged. However, Counsel Camara highlighted that the witness had not mentioned any translation in exhibit P10(a) to P10(m). The witness acknowledged this omission but maintained that he had certified these documents as well.
Concerning the authenticity of exhibits P10(a) to P10(m), the witness reiterated that while he believed the content of the documents to be original, he could not confirm whether the physical copies were originals or photocopies.
Pushed to clarify Counsel Camara asked how he (the witness) determined the authenticity of the content without the document itself, the witness explained that he referenced external sources, such as Google, to verify details mentioned in the invoices or bills before translating them.
Counsel Camara sought clarification on whether Google could definitively determine document authenticity. The witness responded that Google could provide information about the type of invoice or bill being referenced but could not definitively establish the document’s authenticity.
When asked about the source of exhibits P10(a) to P10(m), the witness mentioned receiving the documents alongside a letter requesting translation. However, he lacked specific information regarding the origin of the receipt and could not definitively determine its source.
Counsel Camara probed further, asking if the witness had investigated the source of the documents during the translation process. The witness admitted that he did not investigate, but rather assumed all the documents originated from the person who handed them to him.
Counsel Camara is still interested in knowing the person he (the witness) assumed the documents came from asking him to mention it, but the witness still maintains that the person who delivered the documents to him is the person he presumed the document came from.
At this point the cross-examination was adjourned by Justice Jaiteh, the presiding judge to February 7th, 8th, 21st, 28th, March 6th, and 7th, 2024 for the continuation of the cross-examination.
By: Kexx Sanneh
