Land fraud affecting 500 gendarmes: 3-year prison sentence requested, cooperative claims 2 billion FCFA

Charged with fraud involving 498 million CFA francs and forgery, 65-year-old real estate developer Abdou Ndiaye appeared this Thursday before the trial chamber of the Financial Judicial Pool (PJF). He is accused of collecting contributions from 500 trainee gendarmes to sell them plots of land in Dougar, before offering them other plots in Yène. During the hearing, the defense raised a motion to dismiss based on the alleged irregularity of the police custody proceedings. The court joined the motion to the main case. The verdict is scheduled for December 3rd. Details of the trial!

It's a dream of owning a roof that turns into a nightmare for the families of gendarmes. This is the story at the heart of the trial of Abdou Ndiaye, prosecuted before the judgment chamber of the Financial Judicial Pool for fraud involving 498 million FCFA and forgery and use of forged documents, to the detriment of the cooperative of the Amicale of the 38th class of student gendarmes.

Aged 65, an entrepreneur, married to four women and father of 22 children, the defendant is accused of having collected large sums of money in connection with a real estate project that never came to fruition, leaving several hundred families in uncertainty.

The matter stems from the desire of the members of the Association of the 38th Class of Gendarmerie Trainees, a group of 500 members, to facilitate access to housing for their families. Among the hoped-for beneficiaries were widows and orphans of gendarmes, some of whom were living in rented accommodation on pensions deemed insufficient.

To bring this project to fruition, the members had established a system of monthly contributions of 15,000 FCFA per person. In 2018, the association, which had become a cooperative, approached Abdou Ndiaye, a real estate developer and president of the GIE "Dieufdieul Tawfekh Immo," who was presented as being well-established in the Rufisque department.

Also read: "Alleged land fraud: Khady Diagne caught up in a new complaint"

The developer then proposed a project of 500 residential plots in Dougar, in the municipality of Diamniadio. The agreed price was 1.3 million FCFA per plot, according to the cooperative's representative.

A memorandum of understanding was signed. The members committed to paying approximately 6.5 million FCFA per month for five years. In total, Abdou Ndiaye acknowledged having received 498 million FCFA.

In return, the developer was to deliver the plots in batches of 100 each year. But the project will not be completed as planned.

In the dock, Amadou Samb Ndao, a gendarme serving in the Thiès research brigade and representative of the cooperative, explained that payments were interrupted during the fourth year, after the discovery that the Dougar site was located in a classified forest.

According to his testimony, the Water and Forestry Department had requested a halt to operations. In 2019, the developer then proposed an alternative solution to Yène, without informing the cooperative members beforehand. But this new option also encountered difficulties with the municipal authorities.

The defense raises an objection of nullity related to the custody

Before the substantive examination of the facts, Abdou Ndiaye's lawyers raised a motion to dismiss, based on the length of his police custody. The defense contests the legality of this measure and, consequently, requests the annulment of the investigation report.

Attorney Djiby Diagne denounced the extension of police custody by 19 hours beyond the legal limit, without prior written authorization from the competent magistrate. The lawyer believes this irregularity should render the official report drawn up by the investigators null and void.

Speaking on behalf of the client, Mr. Youssou Guèye stated that his client had been held in custody from September 25th to 27th, 2026, before the end of the detention period was ultimately set for September 28th. He argued that the length of the detention and the conditions of its extension raise serious legal concerns.

The lawyer relied on Article 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which custody cannot exceed 48 hours and can only be extended with written authorization from the competent magistrate.

Mr. Guèye also pointed out contradictions in the information contained in the file. The date of entry into police custody is set at September 25, while the end of the measure is dated September 28.

For Mr. Guèye, these details are not mere clerical errors. They constitute substantial information intended to allow for the effective monitoring of the duration of the deprivation of liberty. When this information is contradictory or inaccurate, the lawyer argues, this monitoring becomes impossible.

For his part, lawyer Cheikh Amadou Ndiaye denounced the arbitrary detention. "In this case, this is just the tip of the iceberg," he declared, asserting that his client's fundamental rights had been violated. The lawyer questioned the possibility of holding someone in police custody for 67 hours without the investigating magistrate being properly informed and without a written authorization for the extension being included in the case file.

Addressing the objection raised by the defense, the representative of the financial prosecutor's office expressed her disagreement with the lawyers' arguments. According to her, a request for an extension had initially been made verbally before being subsequently submitted in writing. The magistrate asserted that authorization was included in the file and asked the court to dismiss the objection of invalidity.

This explanation prompted a further reaction from Mr. Cheikh Amadou Ndiaye. The lawyer clarified that the defense was not necessarily contesting the fact that the gendarmes could have requested an extension, but rather insisted that the legal procedure had been followed. "In all procedures, there is a written request for authorization and a written response," he emphasized, challenging the possibility of justifying the extension with a simple verbal request formalized after the fact.

The lawyer also invoked Article 48 of the law of November 17, 2022, before insisting on the absence, in his view, of a proper written authorization in the file. "There is no written authorization in this file," he maintained.

Aliou Sawaré, the lawyer for the plaintiff, argued the opposite. According to him, the legal deadlines were met, as the defendant was arrested on Friday, September 25, before being brought before a judge the following Monday. However, Cheikh Amadou Ndiaye countered that the debate did not concern the day of the week on which his client was arrested or brought before a judge. For him, the essential question was whether the investigators had the necessary authorization to extend the custody period.

“The question is whether the police officers had authorization to detain him. The answer is no,” he insisted. Following these observations, the court decided to combine the objection of nullity with the merits of the case. The judges will therefore examine this issue during deliberations.

Abdou Ndiaye discusses Covid-19 and the work stoppage

When questioned about the facts, Abdou Ndiaye denied the fraud, while acknowledging that he had received the money paid by the cooperative.

The defendant explained that it was Ndao who had put him in touch with the members of the association, outlining their need for 500 plots of land. According to his account, he had told them he couldn't provide all the land on a single site. He claims that the land in Dougar originally belonged to a family who farmed there. Following the intervention of the Diamniadio municipality, the land was allegedly divided between the municipality, the developer in charge of the construction, and the family in question.

According to his explanation, the town hall received 22% of the land, while he himself was to receive 26% in exchange for the development work, with the remainder going to the family. The division was allegedly carried out by a special delegation from the municipality.

Abdou Ndiaye claims to have started the land development operations in 2018, before interrupting them due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He maintains that he then resumed the work, but was forced to stop it again in 2024, following a presidential decree ordering, according to him, the suspension of the operations concerned.

The defendant also mentioned a dispute with Mr. Ndao of the cooperative, whom he accuses of having demanded a 5% commission, then a sum of 20 million FCFA, under threat of dissolving the office set up to monitor the project.

According to Abdou Ndiaye, his refusal led to the filing of the complaint. He questioned why only one member of the organization brought the matter to court, given that the cooperative has several leaders.

President Mouhamed Diop, however, reminded him of the difficulties encountered at the Dougar site, referring to a memo from the Water and Forestry Department. The defendant denied having been arrested by Water and Forestry agents in connection with his activities at the site.

The Yène site at the heart of the debates on the fake

The court proceedings also focused on documents submitted by Abdou Ndiaye to members of the 38th graduating class, including deeds relating to plots of land located in Yène. The developer acknowledged having submitted resolutions concerning this site. However, the judge pointed out a chronological inconsistency in the allocation file, which he claimed to have acquired in 2002: the 38th graduating class of gendarmerie cadets was mentioned there, whereas that class actually dates from 2005. Judge Diop also noted that the site in question was already occupied.

When questioned about this difficulty, Abdou Ndiaye explained that he had registered the names of the cooperative members on the Yène website after the Dougar project encountered obstacles. He maintained that this was a common practice.

Following the discussions, the developer promised to offer other plots of land to the cooperative on another site in Yène.

This perspective did not convince Amadou Samb Ndao. The representative of the plaintiffs explained that the developer had already been granted several extensions and had been summoned to various meetings without a concrete solution being found.

The police are demanding 2 billion FCFA

For Aliou Sawaré, the cooperative's lawyer, the charges against the defendant are sufficiently substantiated. He argued that since 2018, Abdou Ndiaye had failed to propose any concrete solutions enabling members to recover the promised plots of land. He maintains that the fraud is clear and accuses the developer of having presented false subdivision permits. Mor Samb, for his part, detailed what he considers to be the maneuvers that led to the disbursement of funds. According to him, the defendant used documents and land registry information despite lacking the necessary legal standing on the land in question. The cooperative's lawyers are seeking 2 billion CFA francs in damages to compensate for the losses incurred.

In his indictment, the public prosecutor distinguished between the acts of forgery and those of fraud.

Regarding the forgery, the prosecution focused primarily on the 14-hectare plot of land located in Yène. According to the public prosecutor, the document presented by the defendant contained several inconsistencies, backdated dates, errors, and erasures.

The prosecution also noted that in 2020, Abdou Ndiaye could not have been aware of the 38th graduating class of gendarmerie cadets under the conditions described in the document. Furthermore, an application submitted to the sub-prefecture allegedly revealed, according to the prosecution, that the document was fictitious.

Regarding the fraud, the public prosecutor insisted that the defendant admitted to having received 498 million FCFA from the cooperative.

The prosecutor's representative pointed out that a subdivision permit did not constitute a title deed. She concluded that Abdou Ndiaye did not have the legal standing to receive the funds under the terms of the disputed transaction.

At the end of its closing argument, the prosecution requested that the defendant be found guilty and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment.

The defense argues for acquittal.

Abdou Ndiaye's lawyers, for their part, pleaded for his outright acquittal. Attorney Youssou Guèye contested the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the forgery charge. According to him, the accusation relied in particular on an extract from the deliberations of the Yène municipality without the investigators having carried out the necessary verifications with the former president of the special delegation or the individuals who signed the document.

The lawyer expressed regret at the lack of expert analysis of the disputed excerpt from the deliberation. He argued that these shortcomings prevented him from definitively concluding that the document provided by his client was forgery. Regarding the fraud allegation, Mr. Guèye maintained that it was Amadou Samb Ndao who had approached his client requesting 500 plots of land. According to the defense, Abdou Ndiaye explained that he could not provide all the land on a single site and instead submitted documents relating to two separate lots of 250 plots each.

The lawyer stated that these documents had been verified by the cooperative with the relevant authorities. He also emphasized that the Yène site was not the source of the funds, which were initially intended for the Dougar project.

For Mr. Guèye, his client acted in good faith. He argued that, without the Covid-19 pandemic and the presidential decree invoked by the defendant, the land could have been delivered to the beneficiaries. "This looks more like a political maneuver in court," the lawyer stated, contesting the prosecution's case.

Mr. Djiby Diagne also argued that the evidence was insufficient. Citing the difficulties with archiving within the municipalities, he maintained that the evidence presented in the case file did not allow him to conclude that the disputed document had been falsified by his client. He asked the court to dismiss the charges against the defendant.

Attorney Malick Fall raised another issue concerning the admissibility of the action brought by Amadou Samb Ndao. He questioned Samb Ndao's authority to file a complaint on behalf of the association, arguing that he lacked a power of attorney and that he was not its president. Fall pointed to irregularities in the cooperative's operations and reminded the court that the 38th graduating class had signed an agreement with Abdou Ndiaye. In his view, the defendant had not produced any forgeries and should be acquitted outright.

Finally, Mr. Cheikh Amadou Ndiaye, who concluded the defense's arguments, urged the court to consider the facts within their contractual context. The lawyer questioned the classification of the charges, arguing that the central issue remained the contract concerning the Dougar site. According to him, the difficulties encountered on this site could not automatically be equated with forgery of a document related to Yène.

He also indicated that Abdou Ndiaye had written to the supervising minister to initiate a procedure to declassify the Dougar site. The lawyer believes the case requires a more measured approach, given the human cost of this affair. "We have 500 families waiting. Let's find a solution together," he declared.

The case has been adjourned for deliberation until December 3rd.