Legal practitioners And Police Prosecutors Trained On Tabacco Control Laws

On the 3rd Nov 2023, the training for legal practitioners and police prosecutors across the country on tobacco control came to an end. This training was organised by the Non communicable Disease unit of the MoH with support from WHO. According to the participants, this intensive training has helped enhance their understanding on tobacco control policies, laws and regulations in the Gambia, the sub region and globally. The training further created a more cohesive environment between legal practitioners, police prosecutors and public health experts in a bid to creating an enabling environment for comprehensive tobacco control efforts. World Health Organization (WHO) The Gambia Police Force Attorney General's Chambers & Ministry of Justice ,the Gambia Judiciary of The Gambia Justice Defenders Gambia Bar Association Female Lawyers Association, Gambia Ministry of Interior, The Gambia

Multiple Witnesses Testified In Police Shooting Case

The two defendants are facing murder charges in connection with the shooting of police officers. Ousainou Bojang is charged with murder and terrorist attack. He is accused of causing the death of two police officers and injuring one, while Amie Bojang is charged with accessory after the fact to murder. She’s alleged to have aided or abetted Ousainou Bojang after a shooting incident occurred in Sukuta/Jabang Traffic Light. The case proceeded with cross-examination of the first state witness Ismaila Bojang (soldier) by lawyer Lamin J. Darboe for the first accused (Ousainou Bojang). When the case was called, ER, Dunga F. Faye and C.C Jobarteh appeared for the state, while Lamin J. Darboe represented the first accused and Lamin Mboge & H. Farage represented the second accused. Counsel J. Darboe asked the witness, “Have you made a statement to the police?” The witness replied, “Yes.” “When did you make the statement?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “It was on the 14th of September,” the witness answered. Counsel Darboe then asked, “If you see the statement, can you recognize it?” “Yes, I can,” the witness replied.

“How can you recognize it?” Counsel Darboe inquired further. “What I said on that day, if I see it, I will recognize it,” the witness explained. “Did you sign it?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, I signed it, and it has my name,” the witness confirmed. Counsel J. Darboe then showed the document to the witness and asked whether that was a copy of the statement. After going through the document, the witness indicated to the court that it was indeed the statement. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked whether the witness knew where the original copy was, and the witness said it was with the police. Counsel Darboe applied for the state to produce the original copy of the statement. Justice Jaiteh ruled that the state should produce the original copy of the witness’s statement. Counsel for the state, Dunga, then informed the court that the original copy was with her and handed it over to the court. It was shown to the witness, and he confirmed that the document was the statement he made. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe applied for the statement to be admitted in evidence as an exhibit, and there was no objection from the state counsel. The statement was admitted and marked as D1. “On that date, 12th September 2023, what time did you leave the barracks for training?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I left the barracks in the early hours of the morning to work at the Army Barracks at Fajara. After finishing work around 15:00, I proceeded to the beach,” the witness replied. “Where did you meet your colleagues, Mr. Jallow and Jarju?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “At the Gambia Armed Force training school,” the witness responded. “When did you leave the beach for Yundum barracks?” Counsel Darboe asked. “After 7 p.m. or after Magrib prayers,” the witness answered. “When you arrived at the Sukuta traffic light, do you recall the time?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, I don’t,” the witness replied. “Do you know who gave you a lift to the traffic light?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “No, I don’t know the person,” the witness answered. “Where were you dropped off at the traffic light?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Opposite the petrol station,” the witness replied. “Do you know the name of the petrol station?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I don’t know,” the witness replied. “You said you crossed the road. Where did you cross, and where did you go?” Counsel inquired. “We crossed the road towards Jabang direction,” the witness explained. “When you crossed the road, where did you go?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I was standing near a building around the road, facing Jabang,” the witness replied. “At that point, what was the distance between you and the police officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I can’t give an accurate measurement of the distance,” the witness replied. “You said you were behind the officers?” Counsel Darboe confirmed. “Yes,” the witness answered. “Do you know how far you were from the officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “Do you recall the location of the first officer who fell on the ground with his AK47?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “At the same spot on the other side of the road,” the witness answered. “What side of the road? Because I think you are on the side,” Counsel Darboe asked for clarification. “The road is divided into two, and I was standing on the Sukuta side while officers were on the Jabang side,” the witness explained. “Apart from your colleagues, are you aware of any other person who witnessed the incident?” Counsel Darboe asked. “People were many there,” the witness replied. “Where were you when the female officer was shot?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Before the female was shot, I decided to intervene,” the witness replied. “So, why couldn’t you prevent the female from being shot?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, because the distance was far and I knew that he possessed a firearm,” the witness explained. “But that did not prevent you from pursuing the shooter,” Counsel J Darboe asked. “Yes, it didn’t,” the witness replied. “You say the distance is far. Can you tell the court how far the distance was?” counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “When the gunman showed up, did you do anything?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, but the second officer was scrambling with the gunman,” the witness said. “Which direction did the gunman run away, and did he come towards the petrol station?” Counsel Darboe asked. “He ran towards Sukuta,” the witness explained. “You said he entered the first junction on the road to Sukuta, and you followed him into that street according to your testimony. Is that correct?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes,” the witness answered. “At this stage, how many of you were following the gunman?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “Are you the only one following the gunman?” Counsel Darboe pressed further. “No,” the witness replied. “Then it was you and who and who and who?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I know of Bakary Jarju, and Omar S. Jallow is the one I personally know,” the witness answered. “What happened to your training when three military officers couldn’t apprehend a bowlegged man?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Because we were pursuing an armed man,” the witness explained. “Then you were wrong to pursue the shooter,” Counsel Darboe stated. “We took safety measures,” the witness replied. “You said he fired his gun twice while you were chasing him. So, what safety precautions did you put in place?” Counsel Darboe asked. “We left a distance between me and the shooter, went away from the possible direction of the fire, and looked for cover,” the witness replied. “I’m putting it to you that in that street, there is no possible fire cover,” Counsel Darboe challenged. “Yes, there is,” the witness insisted. “Can you give an example of possible fire cover?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Concrete poles, fences, etc.,” the witness replied. “Where on that road was a concrete pole erected?” Counsel Darboe asked. “At the first junction in the street,” the witness clarified. “What distance did you leave between yourself and the gunman?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “I put it to you that you made up the story because you never entered that street,” Counsel Darboe challenged. “No, I entered,” the witness asserted. “So how far had you gone in that street while pursuing the shooter?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Very far,” the witness replied. “All along with Mr. Jarju and Jallow?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, they were behind me. But I noticed it was Bakary who was next to me when I lost sight of him,” the witness clarified. “Who?” counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked the witness. “The shooter,” the witness replied. “Do you know the person the shooter spoke to for 2 to 3 seconds, as per the evidence-in-chief?” Counsel Darboe inquired. The witness answered, “No.” “Can you describe the distance?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Almost 400 meters,” the witness replied. “And in the end, it was a futile pursuit?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes,” the witness admitted. “You said you collected two empty gun casings,” Counsel Darboe stated. “I recovered one, and Bakary recovered one, and we handed over both to the police,” the witness replied. “Do you know the particular police officer?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, I don’t know him,” the witness replied. “And you picked up the empty gun casings with an empty hand?” Counsel Darboe clarified. “Yes,” the witness confirmed. “Were you not aware that this is a trial scene?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Yes, I was aware, but the crowd had already encroached on the place,” the witness explained. “When you arrived at the scene, did you see any police officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, I saw police officers who were on traffic control,” the witness replied. “Where were the officers who were shot?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I don’t know, but I know they were taken for medical treatment,” the witness replied. “Do you recall the time you returned to the crime scene?” Counsel Darboe asked. “It was about 21:23,” the witness replied. “So, how long did it take you to follow the shooters and return to the crime scene?”Counsel Darboe questioned. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. At this point, counsel J. Darboe requested the witness’s statement and asked him to read from Omar. The witness read until he mentioned that at 21:12, the shooter fired the gun. Counsel J. Jobarteh asked the witness to stop reading at that point and told the witness that 21:12 was the time he pursued the shooter for 400 meters and returned to the scene in only 12 minutes. “Yes, it is possible because we are trained in BFT, which allows us to run 800 to 900 meters in 9 minutes,” the witness explained. The counsel for the second accused Amie had no questions for the witness, and the witness was discharged. The second witness of the state Bakary R. Jarju began his testimony in the case. The witness, Bakary R. Jarju, said he’s a member of the Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) attached to the GAF training school and is resident in New Yundum. During questioning by state Counsel Dunga, Jarju confirmed that an incident occurred on September 12, 2023. When asked to provide details, he recounted that he, along with Ismaila Bojang and Omar Jallow, went for training at Senegambia beach. He testified that the purpose of the training was their selection for special training to be held in Turkey. After their training session, while returning home around Maghrib prayers, they got a lift and were dropped at Sukuta Traffic Light Junction and they decided to buy dinner (Afra). Jarju (the witness) explained that they crossed to the other side of the road, which was divided in two, and stood on a veranda behind three police officers. One officer had an AK-47 rifle and was seated in the center. Witness Jarju said he heard a gunshot and immediately turned to the direction of the shot. He saw the officer with the AK-47 down, adding that he assumed it was a negligent discharge. He further testified that another officer who was seated on the left side stood up, and a struggle ensued between him and the shooter. Witness Jarju said that was the time he realized the situation was not normal and the shooter fired a shot at the officers. He (the witness) testified that the shooter then took a step back and shot the female officer before fleeing to the Sukuta Traffic Lights roundabout. He said as people gathered there, the shooter fired more shots, this time and that was the time he (Jarju), was able to distinguish the sounds of weapons due to his military training and recognized the type of weapon from the sound as pistol. He revealed that along with Ismaila Bojang and Omar Jallow, he pursued the shooter. During the chase, the shooter fired a shot but he couldn’t determine its target. He alerted Bojang to take cover when the shooter turned and fired again. They decided to take cover behind a fence, anticipating potential danger from someone armed with a pistol at close range. While continuing the pursuit, the shooter entered an incomplete building in a dark area without electricity, adding that he (witness) proposed using the fence as cover, but Bojang suggested that they follow the shooter instead. He said he (Jarju) emphasized the risks of entering an unfamiliar territory, poorly lit area without weapons and advised Bojang for them to return to the scene to gather evidence which Bojang agreed. He testified upon arrival using his phone torch lights with Bojang, they searched the area and discovered two empty bullet casings. He said he identified the casings as “live rounds” that had been fired, as the bullets were missing. He further testified that an officer named Sowe approached them during this search, initially unidentified as a police officer. Eventually, Sowe revealed himself as a CID officer, and Jarju apologized for not recognizing his status earlier. Sowe asked to speak with him and Sowe suggested moving to his white pick-up truck for privacy. There, he requested water to drink which Sowe provided and he explained to Sowe that they had come from Senegambia and heard gunshots and saw a man who was the shooter and pursuit him, but they could not apprehend him. The witness (Jarju) said he handed over the empty bullet casings to Jallow his colleague, who then handed them to Officer Sowe. When asked to describe the shooter’s appearance, the witness (Jarju) describe that he’s tall but couldn’t accurately describe his cloth color but is a haftan, he said the shooter is slim and wore ankle-high covered shoes. The witness (Jarju) highlighted that his primary focus was on identifying the shooter’s weapon, but despite it being nighttime, he could identify the weapon as pistol because the distance was approximately 20 to 25 meters away, allowing him to observe it clearly. He finished his testimony and he is expected to be cross-examined by Counsel Lamin J. Darboe on Monday. source foroyaa.gm

Gam Housing CEO to 2 Years Imprisonment

Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally has handed Lamin Mboge, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Gam Housing Estate Agency a 2-year jail term for obtaining money by false pretence. CEO Mboge was charged on Tuesday, 23 February 2021 with obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 288 of the Criminal Code. The particulars of the offence alleged that Lamin Mboge on or about 5 May 2020 at Brufut fraudulently induced the complainant, with the intent to defraud, and received an amount of Three Million Dalasi (D3, 000,000). The brief fact revealed that the convict (Lamin Mboge) entered a signed agreement with the complainant (Yahya Ceesay) in which Mboge agreed to sell his registered landed property located in Brusubi to the said Complainant for a total sum of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dalasi (D4,500,000). The complainant, in accordance with the agreement duly signed thereof made a part payment of Three Million Dalasi towards the aforementioned agreement in order for CEO Mboge to transfer title in his name. CEO Mboge, subsequently having received part payment from Yahya Ceesay, has been unable to neither transfer title of the property nor provide a refund of the complainant’s amount paid to him. The land in question also had third party issue. Mboge pleaded not guilty in response to the charge of obtaining money by false pretense. The prosecution in proving its case called three witnesses and tendered some exhibitis. Exhibit “A” which was a copy of a cheque of D500,000 issued to the accused Lamin Mboge by PW1 (Yahya Ceesay) dated 5 May 2020 and the same was paid to CEO Mboge and comes with attached receipt issued by the accused. Exhibit “B” was a sale agreement between Lamin Mboge and Yahya Ceesay dated 5 May 2020. Exhibit “C” is a bank statement showing an amount of Two Million Dalasi paid into Lamin Mboge’s account from Yahya Ceesay with four receipts from GT Bank (Exhibit F). Exhibit “D” was a bank statement indicating bank transfer of D500000 to Gam Housing. Exhibit “E” was a witness statement of the complainant dated 3 July 2020. Exhibit “F” was four cheques on different dates issued to PW1 via Guarantee Trust Bank. At the close of the prosecution’s case, CEO Lamin Mboge gave unsworn evidence in court. He stated that his defense for denying the charge is premised on the fact that the transaction between him and the complainant is contractual and since the complainant violated clause 5(b) of the contractual terms, civil matter should have been instituted against him but not criminal where both parties may remedy the breach as stated in their sale agreement. The accused told the court that he relied on clause 6 of their agreement, stating that it is agreed that payment should have been made to his own account (Lamin Mboge) but instead the complainant made the payment through his company account which is completely different from him. As a result, his defense is that he is not the right person to be sued and instead the company should have been sued for obtaining money by false pretense. In his defense, the accused stated that, the property was in his name and it was his right to proceed and sell his property since valid title was in his name and pursuant to one high court decision, only person with valid title may transfer. He added that fraud is obtained during the time of sale, and at the time of sale the property was in his name. Mboge testified that the cheques referred to by the prosecution were forcefully obtained from him and that the cheques are irrelevant to the matter at hand. He further stated that the matter at hand is obtaining money by false pretense and not bounce cheques. During cross examination, it was established that the landed property in question is in another court in which Abdoulie Cole, the first purchaser of the landed property sued Lamin Mboge and the Sheriff Division. That case was registered around 2022. It was further established that the monetary transaction between the accused and the complainant in this case was some time in 2019 or 2020. The prosecution then put it to the accused, Lamin Mboge, that the land in question he clandestinely sold to the Complainant, Yahya Ceesay belonged to Abdoulie Cole at the time which is why Abdoulie Cole instituted an action against the accused before the High Court. The accused’s response to the above during cross examination was that, he cannot agree because the time of signing the first agreement with the complainant, the said property was registered in his name and at that time there was no encumbrance or third party claim. The Prosecution further put it to the accused that, in his defense, the accused had no opportunity to produce ownership evidence relating to the property confirming that the property was registered in his name at the time he entered into the contract with the complainant. The accused person’s response to this was that, the prosecution already tendered as that was what he remembered. The Prosecution, again, put it to him that he already sold out the said property to Abdoulie Cole and continue to receive money from Yahya Ceesay which the accused knew to be true thereby defrauding the complainant, Yahya Ceesay. The accused reacted stating that is incorrect. The accused in proving his case with respect to the charge, informed the court that he wishes to present at least 3 witnesses or more. Eventually the accused was only able to call one (1) witness, DW1 and the other witnesses DW2, and DW3 were subpoenaed by the court upon application made by the accused. As a result, the following were tendered as exhibit: Exhibit “A” is a document from Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation from the Seller, Lamin Mboge. Exhibit “DLS1”- a search letter dated 5th May 2020 with serial number 392/2020 KD. Exhibit “DPAL”- a Power of Attorney with serial number 348/2020 PA. Exhibit “DDA1”- a deed of assignment with serial registration number 392/2020 KD. Bakary Sanneh, the first defence witness said he is a retired civil servant who witnessed something pertaining to the transaction between the accused and the complainant. He testified that sometimes the accused gave him a power of attorney to follow up his cases and other things. He stated that he remembered that one time the accused went to Lands Office in his presence to terminate a deal between himself (i.e the accused) and one Mr Cole because the accused had a new buyer herein Yahya Ceesay. Magistrate Krubally cited the provisions of S.287 and S. 288 of the Criminal Code. Section 287 of the Criminal Code defined false pretense as: “A representation made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter or fact, either past or present, which representation is false in fact, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true, is a false pretense” Section 288 of the criminal code further provides that: “A person who by any false pretense, and with intent to defraud, obtains from another person anything capable of being stolen commits a misdemeanor, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of three years.” The Principal Magistrate said the key elements in determining false pretense under S.287 and S.288 are: False representation (fraudulent misrepresentation), Intention to deceive and Reliance by the complaint (obtaining i.e anything capable of being stolen). “Giving regards to the fact that all the ingredients of obtaining money by false pretense pursuant to S. 288 of the Criminal Code has been proven. I hereby, state that the accused is guilty for the offense of obtaining money by false pretense within the meaning of S. 288 of the Criminal Code. I therefore, hereby find the accused herein Lamin Mboge guilty of the offense with which he stands charged and I shall convict him accordingly.” After convicting him, here was what Lamin Mboge said in his plea of mitigation: “Giving the fact that I am a first time offender, I am a responsible man taking care of two kids and also operating business wherein a lot of people owe the business and I have been trying very hard to recover. Furthermore, I have put up a lot of efforts to negotiate with the complainant herein, but such efforts proved futile because the complainant does not accept any payment plan. The laws of this country provides for compensation to be settled on agreement or by installment. The fact that I have proof of a property handed over to me by a closed relative to sell and settle the complainant, I am able to have a credible customer willing to pay for same more than what the complainant is asking for, but his condition was the process of transfer must be completed before he can effect payment. I therefore guarantee to this honourable court to temper justice with mercy by giving me the chance to conclude sale which is basically the process of completing the transfer within a period of one month. I shall do my best to settle the complainant’s balance of two million eight hundred thousand dalasi. It will be impossible for me to complete that sale process if I am not at my (sic) freedom to complete the sale process and settle the complainant, it will be very important giving the fact that the interest of the complainant is only to receive his money back. This court has power to award compensation and it has the power to give me up to one month to be able to settle the complainant in full. At the same time, I will be grateful if the court can allow court bail to continue whiles I am in the process of settling the complainant. More so, payments I am expecting from people apart from the sale of the property will be impossible for me to receive if I am not at liberty. Therefore, I shall be very grateful to this court to consider that the interest of the complainant is to have his money to be recovered. I shall also be grateful again if the court considers that and give option of fine, that the minimum level be considered to enable me pay same because I have been going through serious financial difficulties by finding it difficult to receive moneys from people. I think this court is a reasonable one. Finally I urge the court to consider my application to settle any compensation within the stated period of one month and the fact that compensation shall be paid to the plaintiff, clearly indicates that it is in the interest of justice for the court to order for compensation or it will be must appropriate.” In passing his sentence, Principal Magistrate Krubally said: “Giving regard to all these circumstances above from the well couched mitigating circumstanced by the Accused makes me preface the following remarks below; “That is, from the year 2020 up to date now 2023, why didn’t the accused really give the victim’s money back to him? Instead he leaves him to continuously suffer daily economic losses with his family and business? More so, it is indeed very intolerable for one to obtain money from the other by false pretence which the accused knew he was doing at the time he was dealing with the complainant. It is of criminal nature that this court as court of justice shall never entertain. With regard to the accused application for fine, well since it is a statutory jurisdiction and discretion pursuant to section 29 3) of the criminal code, I hereby grant same and so order that pursuant to the said section 29 3). I order that he (the accused herein Lamin Mboge) pays a fine of D50,000 Dalasis in default to serve one year in prison. Now pursuant to the application of the prosecution on compensation stating that since the victim herein Yahya Ceesay suffers huge economic losses which is indisputable, pursuant to Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be read together with Section 31 2 of the Criminal Code, I hereby grant such application and so order that the said Accused herein Lamin Mboge compensates the said victim herein called Yahya Ceesay the sum of Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dalasis in default to serve Two Years in prison. The sentence terms herein made against the said Accused shall run concurrently.”

Joint Security Team Continues to Demolish Stalls

The Road Cleansing Exercise, jointly carried out by the National Road Authority (NRA), Police Intervention Unit (PIU) of The Gambia Police Force (GPF), and armed personnel (Soldiers) from The Gambia Armed Forces (GAF), yesterday, 30th October continued to remove illegal structures along roadsides in the Greater Banjul Area. Officials from the Physical Planning Department are part of a task force conducting this exercise. The national road-clearing exercise started on the 19th of October 2023 in Old Jeshwang. The personnel carrying out the exercise are currently in Tallinding going towards Latrikunda. The initiative includes the demolition of permanent and temporary structures and installations that are in breach of the law governing road safety and public order. Mr Lamin Jabbie, a shopkeeper around the Tallinding Market, said the national clearing exercise is not bad, but the authorities should have provided a place for the vendors before they started demolishing their stores. “I am not against the exercise because if you look at the highways, you will agree with the fact that the exercise has yielded some dividends. The road is now clean and wider than it used to be and people are freely working along without interruptions,” he said. He added that for him, it was only his veranda that was removed. “I used to pack some of my goods under the veranda of my shop because my shop is small, but now I have no choice, I have to squeeze everything inside,” he explained. Madam Fatou Camara, a street vendor, said she was asked to remove her umbrella and table from where she used to station them, which she did but had no place to relocate her stall. “It is very devastating to some of us, for me I have no other place to relocate myself. I have been selling here for the past ten years and this is where I get my fish money and other basic provisions for my children because I am a single parent,” she lamented. Madam Camara said the authorities should have come up with alternatives before the exercise. “I don’t have a place inside this market (Tallinding Market) that’s why I decided to place my stall here and fend for myself. If I am asked to relocate, I don’t know where to go to,” she emotionally expressed. Some victims whose stalls and shop verandas were pointed out for demolition voluntarily removed them, but some decided not to remove theirs, making the authorities remove them on their own

GPF-GPST TRAIN OFFICERS ON SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT POLICY

The Gambia Police Force has successfully concluded a week-long training on the selection and recruitment policy with support from the German Police Support Team (GPST) in The Gambia. The training took place at the NaNA Conference Hall on October 6, 2023. During the closing ceremony, Serap Bahadir, the project coordinator, emphasized the critical importance of this training. She highlighted that selection forms the bedrock of a reputable police force. Adeleine Bassangeh, Commissioner for the Kanifing Police Division, represented the Inspector General of Police (IGP) at the event and expressed his delight and appreciation for the continuous support provided by GPST in the GPF's ongoing reform agenda.

Gamtel Partners With Huawei

Recently the management of Gamtel and Huawei reached a strategic partnership agreement to upgrade and expand Gamtel's network backbone. The upgrade includes the deployment of several 7 DWDMs and OLTs to improve bandwidth to address the increasing unprecedented service and coverage demands in the ICT sector. As a partner to the numerous carriers within and outside the borders of the Gambia, and a key player in the Gambia government's digitalization initiatives, we remained committed to this cause, and as always taking a lead role in building the information technology super highway. We are thankful to the Gamtel and Huawei teams for the tireless efforts and their continuous support.