Officer Amara: "Supervisor, this could be a routine administrative delay. We shouldn't assume that something improper happened."
Supervisor Diallo: "I agree that we should not assume anything. That is precisely why we are checking the records."
Amara folded her arms. She had entered the inspection area convinced that the discovery of the electric stun device would be enough to justify her accusations. Now, every part of the process was being examined: the referral, the search, the handling of the device, and the sequence of events recorded by the airport's systems.
David stood quietly beside his open suitcase.
He had spent much of the morning asking for a simple explanation. He had never claimed to know how the device had appeared in his luggage. He had not accused anyone of deliberately placing it there without evidence. He had simply refused to accept responsibility for an object he said he had never packed.
Now, for the first time, the supervisor was investigating the questions instead of treating them as an inconvenience.
A few minutes later, Kofi received a message from the security systems manager.
Officer Kofi: "The full audit history is available. The administrator is sending the original record to the incident review file."
Supervisor Diallo: "Open it, but preserve the original version before reviewing any amendments."
Kofi followed the instruction. Several entries appeared on the screen, each containing a time stamp, an account reference, and a description of the recorded activity. He read the information carefully, then compared it with the inspection timeline.
Officer Kofi: "The earlier event was an access to the screening record. It occurred before the manual search was marked as started."
Supervisor Diallo: "Can we identify the account?"
Officer Kofi: "The account is listed, but we need the administrator to confirm who was using it at that time."
Officer Amara: "That still doesn't establish anything about the device."
Supervisor Diallo: "Correct. It establishes that we need to investigate the access event. The origin of the device remains a separate question."
David listened without interrupting. He understood that a record being accessed before a search did not automatically mean that anyone had planted evidence. There could be an administrative explanation, a system delay, or another reason that the timeline appeared unusual.
But he also understood that the discrepancy deserved an answer.
David Okafor: "Will the camera footage show when my suitcase was first opened?"
Supervisor Diallo: "That is one of the things we will check. The footage from the inspection station and the corridor has been preserved. We need to compare it with the recorded times."
David Okafor: "And will the review include the moments before the device was shown to me?"
Supervisor Diallo: "Yes. We requested the full relevant period, not just the confrontation."
Amara shifted her weight.
Officer Amara: "The camera may not show every detail inside the suitcase."
Supervisor Diallo: "That is possible. We will evaluate what the footage does and does not establish."
The supervisor's response was measured. She did not promise that the camera would reveal everything, and she did not claim that the records had already proved misconduct. Instead, she insisted that the investigation distinguish between confirmed facts and unanswered questions.
That distinction was becoming increasingly important.
The security systems manager arrived shortly afterward with a secure tablet and a printed record of the relevant audit entries. He introduced himself to Diallo, confirmed the preservation status, and explained that the system stored access events separately from the written inspection report.
Security Systems Manager: "The original entries have been preserved. The record shows an access event before the manual inspection was marked as started, but the audit history alone does not tell us why that access occurred."
Supervisor Diallo: "Can you confirm the account holder and whether any changes were made?"
Security Systems Manager: "I can confirm the account assigned to the event. We will need to compare the activity logs with the workstation records to determine whether any changes occurred and what they involved."
Supervisor Diallo: "Please do that. Keep the original data intact."
The manager took the tablet to the workstation and began checking the account information.
Amara watched him closely.
Officer Amara: "I want it noted that an access event does not prove that the evidence was planted."
Supervisor Diallo: "It will be noted that the event requires verification. No one has concluded that the device was planted."
David looked at Amara.
David Okafor: "I haven't claimed that I know who put it there. I have said that I didn't pack it."
Officer Amara: "And we are investigating the discovery."
David Okafor: "Then we should establish what happened before deciding that I am responsible."
For once, Amara did not immediately respond.