Lawyers for Austrians Manuel di Stofleth Mitterer and Angelika Mitterer last Friday made known to the Banjul Magistrates’ Court their intention to make a no-case-to-answer submission in the trial of the Austrians over their alleged refusal to obey an order from the Gambian police.
Investors Ebrima Solomon Tamba and Marcel Limbertus van Andel sometime last year lodged a criminal complaint with the national police after suspecting that their business partner Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer was concealing from them vital financial information, regarding their multi-million dalasi investment.
The trio partnered around 2021 to construct a 31-apartment tower block in Bijilo called the Bitcoin Tower. The project, which involved the selling of apartments off-plan, also included the construction of a restaurant and an underground garage.
However, the partnership reportedly suffered some trust issues when Manuel informed his partners that he invested the proceeds from the sale of apartments in Bitcoins.
Tamba and Andel reportedly failed in their effort to ensure Mr. Mitterer converts the bitcoins into convertible currencies such as euro and dollar.
Consequently, they involved the cybercrimes division of the Gambia Police Force, but Manuel and his partner Angelika allegedly refused to cooperate well with the police investigators. They allegedly denied the investigators access to their laptop, containing details of the cryptocurrency transactions and were, as a result, slapped with the charge of disobeying a lawful order.
The prosecution called two witnesses in their trial currently underway at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court. It closed its case on Tuesday following the testimony under cross-examination of its second witness Lamin Saidykhan, who is among the police officers, still investigating the Mitterers.
When the case resumed on Tuesday before Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally, Commissioner Abdoulie Sanneh announced that Commissioner Malang Jarju, 9099 PC S. Sonko and himself were representing the Inspector General of Police, while senior counsel Sheriff Tambedou announced his representation for the Austrians.
In continuing the cross-examination of witness Saidykhan from where his “learned colleague” Ida Drammeh stopped almost a fortnight ago, counsel Tambedou quizzed:”The last time you were in court was 1st of April, 2026. Since that date to date, have you conducted any further investigation into this case?”
“If you say this case, I wouldn’t know,”replied Saidykhan tersely.
“The case by Tamba and Marcel,” clarified counsel Tambedou.
“Yes,” witness Saidykhan answered.
When asked what more was conducted as part of the investigation since the last sitting, officer Saidykhan replied:”We did a lot.”
Saidykhan testified that statements were obtained from witnesses when asked what was exactly done since the last sitting as part of the ongoing investigation.
“Who?” Tambedou enquired of those from whom the witness said statements were obtained.
“I cannot [name them]”, Saidykhan said firmly.
“You should be able to name them,” calmly interjected magistrate Krubally.
“These are foreign names that are difficult to pronounce,” Saidykhan explained.
When the defense counsel quizzed the witness as to whether a request [by the police] was made for the Mitterers’ laptop from 1st April to date, Saidykhan replied,”we need it up to today.”
When the counsel further quizzed the witness if a request was made for the laptop, lead prosecutor Commissioner Sanneh rose to say that the laptop was returned to the court as a result of a court order following an application filed by the prosecution.
“An application was made to the court, which is why it was returned to the police. It wasn’t a request,” said Commissioner Sanneh.
This was followed by a brief silence before counsel Tambedou asked Saidykhan again whether the police made a request for the laptop.
“No,” responded the witness.
“I am putting it to you that if the police made any investigation from the 1st to the 7th, they don’t need the laptop,” Tambedou told Saidykhan.
“The matter is before the court and the reason it was returned is that it should be used for investigation,” replied Saidykhan.
“I’m putting it to you that you didn’t do any investigation from the 1st to today,” insisted counsel Tambedou.
“I came with the laptop, and this means that the laptop was needed,” said Saidykhan.
Tambedou then requested the court to give the witness the laptop to open it and when that was granted, Saidykhan said he was unable to get through because he did not have the password and “the energy is down”.
“How can you not access it when the accused gave it to you?” insisted counsel Tambedou.
“The second accused[Angelika]inputted the password… then it was opened. Up to today, we don’t have it,” stated Saidykhan.
“According to your evidence, the password was written and given to you even if you could not read it,” maintained the counsel.
At this juncture, the lead prosecutor rose up to say:”Counsel is struggling. He has not been coming to the court. The system with this case is that one counsel will come today and the other will come the next day.” Sanneh suggested that it was in the interest of justice that the case was not impeded due to issues that were earlier dealt with by the court. Sanneh also latched on the opportunity to tell the court to let counsel Tambedou come to the realization that the local proverb- the head and bone of a dried fish are for the worms- that the counsel has been repeating since the beginning of Tuesday’s sitting is an insult.
“It’s an insult in our language. It’s derogatory. Maybe, he[Tambedou] is the dried fish, he is the bones and worms,” Commissioner Sanneh retorted.
When the seeming anger over the dried fish and worms issue dissipated, counsel Tambedou asked Saidykhan:”Are you saying the password written was returned to the accused persons?”
“Yes, because it’s something that was not readable,” replied Saidykhan.
“Was it written for you there in your office,” asked the counsel.
“I don’t understand,” responded Saidykhan.
“Where was the writing put at your office?” further asked the counsel.
“I don’t know,” the witness responded.
“Was it written in ink?” pressed the counsel.
“Pen writing is categorized as ink,” said Saidykhan effortlessly.
“Do you know the language of the keyboard of the laptop?” counsel asked.
“Keyboards don’t have language. They have alphabets,” replied Saidykhan.
When the presiding magistrate asked the witness to say exactly if he knew the language of the keyboard and whether he cannot distinguish the language on it, Saidykhan replied,”No, I don’t know. And whether he[counsel Tambedou]would be able to tell the court what the language of a keyboard is.”
At this juncture, the defense team said it had no more questions for the witness, while the prosecution also announced the closure of its case.
“Sometimes I find it troubling whether we are going to stick to the usual practice of no-case-to-answer,” said the magistrate casually.
“It’s our intention to file a no-case-to-answer application. It’s our wish to make such an application. If we are given an opportunity, we will reduce it to writing,” he informed the court. He added that if the court was minded to give time, the application would be filed orally.
The case resumes on April,30th.
