By Defence Counsel
Proceedings in the ongoing alleged gold fraud and robbery trial took a significant turn during the cross-examination of the prosecution’s principal witness, an Italian investor, whose testimony, according to the defence, exonerated the first and second defendants, Admire Bio Jalloh and Dausy Jalloh, from the allegations before the court.
Under cross-examination by lead defence counsel, Melron Nicol-Wilson, Esq., the Italian investor admitted that he did not subject the gold allegedly sold to him by Admire Bio Jalloh to any scientific or laboratory examination. He therefore conceded that he could not state with certainty whether the gold was genuine or fake. The witness further testified that Admire Bio Jalloh did not sell him fake gold and was not among the individuals who allegedly robbed him.
The witness also confirmed that the second defendant, Dausy Jalloh, was not present during the alleged gold transaction, nor was he present when payment was made or when the gold was collected.
During the cross-examination, defence counsel further put it to the witness that Dausy Jalloh had informed him that he would be travelling out of the country before the transaction in question. The witness also testified that Admire Bio Jalloh was not present at the scene of the alleged robbery, where the Italian investor claimed he was attacked and dispossessed of gold.
Defence counsel further questioned the witness on whether the gold had been presented to the police before investigators commenced their inquiries into the matter.
In another notable aspect of his testimony, the witness identified a man known as “Budy,” whom he described as the manager of Lagonda Restaurant, as the individual who introduced him to the first and second defendants. According to the witness, Budy had agreed to accompany him to collect the gold on the night of the transaction and arranged a vehicle and driver for the journey. However, despite initially agreeing to accompany them, Budy allegedly declined to do so just minutes before they departed.
The witness further testified that Budy later arrived at the scene shortly after the alleged robbery, having been informed of the incident. He also told the court that he has neither seen nor heard from Budy since 2025.
Defence counsel subsequently asked the witness whether he would be surprised to learn that Budy had left the country shortly after the alleged robbery. The witness was afforded the opportunity to respond as the cross-examination continued.
The matter has been adjourned to 3 August 2026 for the continuation of proceedings.