Officer tells court server containing people’s information is inaccessible to Immigration Department

By Mariama Marong

A senior officer of the Gambia Immigration Department (GID) has told the Revising Court that the department is currently unable to verify whether a disputed national identity card was issued by the authorities because the server containing the relevant records remains inaccessible.

Bakary Saidykhan, an Immigration Officer and second-in-command of Intelligence and Investigation at the GID, disclosed while testifying in a voter registration objection before Principal Magistrate Mam Samba Jallow.

The objector is Abubacar Jaiteh, while the objectee is Alanases. Saidykhan told the court that although the department had investigated the disputed identification card, officers could not access the relevant database because the server was not functioning.

The disputed identification number, 180591007, was entered into evidence. Under questioning from Counsel Ya Kumba Jaiteh, Saidykhan was asked whether the department could determine from the number alone whether the identification card had been issued by the authorities. He explained that officers would normally have to enter the identification number into the department’s system to retrieve the relevant information. However, because the server was inaccessible, the department could not establish whether the number corresponded to an identification card issued by the authorities.

He said the department could not confirm the authenticity of the card based solely on the number.

“As of now, we cannot determine any details of the ID card because our server is down,” Saidykhan told the court.

He said the department was also unable to use its system to verify the identification number or retrieve information about the individual concerned.

“Based on the system, we cannot determine the ID card number of the objectee. We cannot do that because the server is not functioning at the moment,” he said.

The witness was also questioned about whether immigration officials could use the system to trace a person in the course of a criminal investigation. Counsel asked whether, for example, officials could access information about a person such as Andrew Adam Siddiqi if they needed to establish the person’s whereabouts or identity.

“At this very moment, there is no way,” Saidykhan replied, adding that access to the server would be necessary. Counsel then asked why the server could not be accessed.

Saidykhan explained that the server was connected to the government’s national identification project and that the GID did not have authority to access the information stored on it. He told the court that the server, computers and other equipment were physically located within the Immigration Department.

“The server is with the Immigration Department,” Saidykhan said.

But he stressed that physical possession of the equipment did not give the department authority to access the information stored on the system. The witness explained that access had previously been available when the contract for the identification project was still operational.

He said that during the period when Semlex was involved in the identification project, the department had access to the system because the contract was still in force. When Counsel Jaiteh asked whether access ended after the contract expired, Saidykhan answered in the affirmative. Counsel also asked whether he had made a formal request for access to the server after being tasked with investigating the disputed identification card.

Saidykhan confirmed that he had not requested authorisation to access the server. Counsel pointed out that the Immigration Department still had the machines used during the registration process and had collected identification data from many individuals.

She questioned why the department had not sought permission to access the data, particularly when the court was seeking evidence about the validity of an identification card allegedly issued through the system. Saidykhan maintained that the GID did not have institutional authority to access the information and that an oversight body was responsible for the system.

When asked whether he knew if the oversight body had the password or could authorise the Immigration Department to access the server, the witness said he did not know. Counsel reminded Saidykhan that he was the second-in-command for intelligence and investigations, including investigations involving national identity and document fraud. She argued that, given his responsibilities, he should be able to tell the court whether any authority could grant the department access to the data.

Counsel specifically asked whether the Ministry of the Interior could authorise access to the system. Saidykhan, however, maintained that the department currently had no way of accessing the information.

“There is no way at this right moment we can have access to this data,” he told the court.

Counsel Jaiteh then indicated that she had no further questions, bringing Saidykhan’s testimony to an end. The court was subsequently informed that a second witness, identified as the Registrar of Births and Deaths, was expected to testify but was not present. Counsel requested an adjournment to allow the witness to be brought before the court. Magistrate Jallow adjourned the matter to 13 October 2026.