A customs officer told the Supreme Court that a Canadian man accused of drug smuggling admitted having cannabis in his luggage before it was searched.

The man’s counsel suggested that branding his comments as an admission was “not quite apt” given the full nature of the conversation.

Ngongo-Eric Sampassa, 32, from Ottawa, Ontario, has denied charges that he illegally imported cannabis into Bermuda on March 11, 2023.

He has further denied a charge of possessing the drugs with the intent to supply.

Earlier in the trial, the court heard that a drug-sniffing dog had alerted customs officials to Mr Sampassa’s suitcase after he arrived on a flight from Toronto.

Yesterday, Ornette Smith, a customs officer, said she had first encountered Mr Sampassa at immigration when she checked his passport.

“He said he was on vacation and that he was staying at Coco Reef,” she said. “I then asked if he had anything to declare to customs and he said no.”

Ms Smith said she later went to assist with baggage searches and, when she arrived, she saw Mr Sampassa in line to be searched.

She told the court that she waved him forward and, at the same time, another customs officer, Antonio Madeiros, approached her and informed her that Mr Sampassa’s bag had been singled out by a K9 unit.

Ms Smith said Mr Madeiros asked the defendant whether he smoked cannabis, to which he responded: “No, but my friends do.”

She said Mr Madeiros then commented that there was a strong odour of cannabis emanating from the bag before he left the area.

Ms Smith said she asked the defendant why there would be a K9 alert for his bag if he did not smoke cannabis.

She said that he responded: “There may be marijuana in my bag.”

“I said to him either it is or it isn’t,” she continued.

She told the court that Mr Sampassa answered: “I do.”

Ms Smith said that after the defendant’s comment, she signalled for another customs officer to take notes while she searched the bag.

“When I opened the bag, there were two compartments,” she said.

“I unzipped one side. When I pulled the flap back, there were packages of vacuum-sealed bags with plantlike material in it.”

Ms Smith said she then cautioned Mr Sampassa and opened the second side of the bag, where she discovered additional vacuum-sealed packages.

The court heard that a total of 26 bags were discovered in the suitcase containing a combined 9,736 grams of cannabis.

She went on to search Mr Sampassa’s carry-on bag but nothing of interest was found in it.

As she began the search of the carry-on, she said Mr Sampassa asked whether she wanted his other passport.

He then handed her a Canadian diplomatic passport, different from the Canadian passport he had presented at immigration.

Ms Smith also searched the contents of his pockets, where she found a number of cards in his name along with $20 Canadian and $1,700 in Philippine pesos.

Asked whether the address on his driver’s licence was accurate, she said, Mr Sampassa replied “no” and indicated towards a card with an embassy logo and an address in the Philippines.

Under cross-examination by Marc Daniels, Ms Smith said that she did not smell the odour of cannabis coming from the bag.

She also accepted that the quotes that she gave the court were slightly different from those in her notes from that day.

Ms Smith agreed that, according to her notes, she said “either you do or you don’t” rather than “either there is or there isn’t”.

She also said that during her search of the suitcase, she had found a wet towel, which she had not mentioned in her notes.

Ms Smith said that while she did not notice any dripping during the search, she did later see a puddle forming beneath the bag after it was taken to a police station.

Detective Constable Damon Hollis told the court that he was among the officers to attend the airport after the drugs were discovered.

He told the court that he had asked Mr Sampassa whether he had packed his bags and that the defendant pointed towards his carry-on bag and said: “That one.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.