By Sainabou Sambou
The high-profile cocaine trafficking trial involving nine accused persons resumed on Wednesday before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court in Banjul, with defence lawyers for the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th accused delivering their final addresses, followed by the prosecution’s closing argument. The following individuals are involved in the case: Vilma Cabral Roel (1st Accused), Ana Patricia Dos Santos Furtado (2nd Accused), Simara Nadiya Martins (3rd Accused), Miriam Maria Mendes (4th Accused), Seedy Ceesay (5th Accused), Lamin Ceesay (6th Accused), Yaya K. Jatta (7th Accused), Modou Bojang (8th Accused), and Muhammed Jallow (9th Accused)
The 1st to 4th accused persons have been discharged, while the 5th to 9th accused persons are currently standing trial for their alleged involvement in the transportation of cocaine at Banjul International Airport.
Appearing for the 7th, 8th, and 9th accused persons, Counsel Lamin J. Darbo argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Count Two—dealing in prohibited drugs contrary to section 33(1) of the Drug Control Act. He said the particulars of the offence did not demonstrate that the three accused persons participated in transporting, supplying, or engaging in any conduct described under section 39 of the Act.
Darbo reminded the court that Count Two is a joint charge against all nine accused persons, yet the 1st to 4th accused—described during trial as the supposed owners or handlers of the drugs—were acquitted and discharged at the no-case submission stage. He said this development raises doubts about the continued prosecution of the remaining accused persons under the same joint charge.
“If four of the accused persons were found not to have participated in the alleged offence, it is difficult to understand how the 7th, 8th, and 9th accused persons could have participated,” he argued.
Darbo also raised concerns about missing CCTV footage from the Banjul International Airport, which investigators had earlier indicated was available. He said footage from the aircraft’s foot area—a highly monitored zone—would have been the most material evidence to determine whether the 7th, 8th, and 9th accused persons participated in the alleged drug trafficking. According to him, investigators failed to produce the footage despite being provided with a USB drive by the defence.
He further argued that the alleged confessional statements linking his clients must be examined in light of the circumstances under which they were obtained. Darbo also questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s independent witness.
Counsel A. Jarju, representing the 6th accused, submitted that the prosecution failed to present any credible evidence implicating his client in either drug dealing or conspiracy. He said PW2, Bubacarr Sarr, did not provide testimony incriminating the 6th accused, while PW3, who tendered the cautionary statement of Yahya K. Jatta, admitted he never interacted with the 6th accused.
Jarju added that the 6th accused and Yahya Jatta later denied the contents of the statement during examination. He further argued that PW14 made general allegations without presenting concrete evidence. Jarju also cited the absence of the promised CCTV footage as a major weakness in the prosecution’s case.
He accused investigators of coercing the 6th accused into signing two conflicting statements—Exhibits P9 and P16—without allowing him to write or read them properly. Jarju highlighted contradictions in the statements, including differing dates for an alleged phone call, varying numbers of bags, different amounts of money, and inconsistencies in the locations described.
“These contradictions clearly raise doubt as to the guilt of the 6th accused person,” Jarju said.
In response, State Counsel M. Sarr argued that the evidence against the 5th to 9th accused persons was “overwhelming, corroborated, and unchallenged.” He said the case involved 30 blocks of cocaine, weighing 33.6 kilograms, allegedly prepared for export through the Banjul International Airport, and that the operation required coordinated action from the remaining accused persons.
He said PW9 and PW10 testified that the 5th and 6th accused procured Vueling Airlines hand-luggage tags to disguise the cocaine as legitimate cabin luggage. He also described the 7th accused as a coordinator, noting that PW13 testified he received €26,950 as payment for facilitating the trafficking.
The 8th accused, a VIP van driver, allegedly transported three bags containing the drugs and attempted to flee when confronted by DLEAG officers. The 9th accused, a security officer, was said to have allowed the van to pass a security gate after being promised €1,000—a detail reflected in his cautionary statement and supported by the 8th accused’s confession.
Sarr said the forensic analysis, weighing of the drugs, and chain of custody were never challenged. He noted that the defence did not object to the admission of the confessional statements when they were tendered, adding that they must therefore be treated as voluntary and valid.
“The confessions are direct, positive, and corroborated,” he said, urging the court to convict.
The case was adjourned to 3 December 2025 at 11:00 a.m. for ruling.
