There was a deadlock in the trial of two Austrian nationals at a lower court in the Gambian capital, Banjul last Wednesday when police prosecutors and their witness decided not to leave the courtroom even after the magistrate brought the proceedings to a screeching halt.
The trial of Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer and his partner Angelika Mitterer on allegation of refusing to obey an order from the Gambian police resumed at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court mid-week but was halted for a considerable amount of time when the magistrate abruptly walked out of the courtroom as the defense and the prosecution team could not find common ground on the defense’s line of questioning, to which the prosecution strongly objected.
Commissioner Abdoulie Sanneh, leading the prosecution team, made a robust objection to the counsel’s way of cross-examining the first prosecution witness as in the prosecution’s view, the defense was dedicating more time than necessary to questions, thereby impeding the progress of the trial.
The Austrians are being tried for allegedly refusing police investigators access to the details of cryptocurrency transactions stored in their laptop.
Investors Ebrima Solomon Tamba and Marcel Limbertus Van Andel sometime last year lodged a criminal complaint with the cybercrimes division of the Gambia Police Force (GPF) after suspecting that Manuel was diverting the proceeds of their investment to personal use. Tamba, Andel and Manuel partnered in 2021 to construct a 31-apartment tower, an underground garage and a restaurant. Some of the apartments, according to sources, were sold off-plan by Manuel in thousands of euros, but he reportedly told police investigators that he converted the proceeds into bitcoins. He denied investigators access to the details of the cryptocurrency transactions suspected to be stored in his laptop computer.
The effort of the prosecutors in ensuring the trial progressed paid off as the trial continued after they emerged from the magistrate’s office.
When the proceedings resumed, defense counsel Ida Drammeh asked first prosecution witness Lamin Saidykhan as to whether or not the laptop at the centre of the trial was given to investigators.
“The laptop was with us from the day they [Manuel and Angelika] were arrested,” replied Saidykhan.
“When you opened the laptop, were you able to see or determine the name of the owner of the laptop?” further asked counsel Drammeh.
“No, we never saw the name because the laptop was “inputed” by them[Manuel and Angelika]. They “inputed” the password,” responded witness Saidykhan, who is part of officers, still investigating the Stofleths.
When quizzed as to what language was the laptop using, Saidykhan replied: “I wasn’t able to know the language because it wasn’t the subject of investigation.”
“I want to tell you that the laptop is being operated solely in German,” stressed counsel Drammeh.
“It’s good that defense counsel understands that the laptop was in German. Our medium of investigation is English as we cannot speak German. That shows that they [the Stofleths] want to mislead the investigators,” said Saidykhan effortlessly.
“Are you saying that because the laptop is in German…So, you are saying that the owner wants to mislead the police or anyone else who doesn’t speak the language in which the laptop was set?”
“I did not say that. It’s the defense that is saying that . What I am saying is that if they know that our medium of investigation is English, they need to translate it,” replied Saidykhan defiantly.
At this juncture, presiding magistrate Sheriff Tabally calmly told the witness to try to give short answers to the counsel’s questions. But in completing his answer to the counsel’s question, the prosecution witness continued: “The investigators did not confirm that the language is German. The app on the laptop; cryptocurrency… whether it’s in German or English, it can be translated.”
“So, Mr. Saidykhan, you said the name remains the same, irrespective of the language,” counsel Drammeh said.
“I’m not the maker of the app,” replied the witness.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Saidykhan, I have to tell you that your reasoning is flawed,” said the counsel.
“That’s her understanding of it,” Saidykhan responded.
“Just say whether you agree or not,” the counsel pressed.
“Nothing will change what I said,” insisted Saidykhan, adding that it doesn’t matter whether the platform is in Dutch as that does not change the app.
“You said you don’t speak German or Dutch?” asked the lead defense counsel.
“It is true. I cannot speak German and Dutch,” Saidykhan admitted.
“Effectively, you cannot find your way around a laptop that is not in English,” concluded counsel Drammeh.
However, according to officer Saidykhan, the motive behind trying to access the laptop was not about the language, but the cryptocurrency…
The witness said the police have earlier “accessed laptops that are in Chinese.
“If he[Manuel ] allowed us access, we can find our way around it. We have experts in our office. Every single word could be translated,” added the witness.
“When you opened the laptop, did one of your experts translate what is in it?” asked counsel Drammeh.
“I answered that and she wants to bring me back,” Saidykhan told the court.
But when the magistrate interjected at that juncture and asked whether the language was translated when the computer was opened, Saidykhan replied: “We did not open the laptop. It was the accused who inputted the password.”
“When the laptop was opened, did your experts translate what was on the desktop?” asked counsel Drammeh.
“I am sorry the defense counsel does not understand laptops. When you open the laptop, a lot of apps will appear on the desktop,” replied Saidykhan.
“Whatsoever appeared on it, was any or all translated?” asked magistrate Tabally.
“Nothing was translated as the expert has no business with the apps. All we want is the cryptocurrency account,” the witness said impatiently.
At this juncture, lead prosecutor Commissioner Sanneh rose up to tell the witness that: “The senior counsel [Ida Drammeh ] is experienced and she wants to annoy you. This question is being asked over and over.”
Commissioner Sanneh pointed out that a lot of time was spent on witness Saidykhan, adding that “the court has the inherent power to ensure that the counsel does the right thing”.
He further told the court that cases must be dealt with expeditiously in the interest of justice.
“We are keener to finish this case. We have a lot of things to do,” replied counsel Drammeh.
At that juncture, Principal Magistrate Tabally adjourned the case to 7 April 2026, while agreeing with the lead prosecutor that “there must be finality to litigation”.
