The manager finished checking the first set of records and turned toward Diallo.
Security Systems Manager: "The account activity is being verified against the workstation log. I also recommend comparing the camera time stamps with the inspection system because there may be a small difference between the recording clock and the database clock."
Supervisor Diallo: "Proceed with that comparison. Record the difference rather than adjusting the original files."
The manager nodded.
While the technical review continued, Diallo arranged for the electric stun device to be transferred to the designated evidence personnel. The bag was documented in its current condition, and the transfer was recorded with the names of the people who handled it. No one was permitted to treat the device as confirmed evidence of a crime by David simply because it had been discovered during his baggage inspection.
David was asked to confirm the contents of his suitcase and identify any belongings that had been moved during the search. He cooperated, but he requested that the officers document each step.
Supervisor Diallo: "We will record the condition of the suitcase before it is returned to you. The investigation into the device will continue separately."
David Okafor: "Thank you. I want to cooperate, but I also want a clear record of what happened here."
Supervisor Diallo: "That request has been included in the incident file."
The next task was reviewing the surveillance footage.
The airport control unit supplied the preserved files to the authorized review team. Diallo arranged for the footage to be examined by personnel who had not been directly involved in the inspection. Kofi was asked to provide his account separately, and Amara was instructed not to discuss the details of her statement with other witnesses.
The review began with the corridor camera.
The recording showed David approaching the secondary inspection area with his suitcase. He followed the instructions given to him, placed his luggage on the table, and stepped back. No obvious confrontation occurred before the inspection began.
The footage then shifted to the camera overlooking the inspection station.
The angle did not reveal every detail inside the suitcase, but it showed the officers' positions, their movements around the table, and the moment Amara raised the transparent bag containing the black device. David remained behind the marked line throughout the exchange.
He did not reach for the bag.
He did not attempt to remove anything from the table.
He did not move toward either officer.
Instead, he repeatedly gestured toward the suitcase and the evidence bag while speaking to Amara. His movements were consistent with his account that he was asking questions about the discovery.
The recording also showed Kofi standing on the opposite side of the table, watching the interaction.
Supervisor Diallo: "Does the footage establish the precise location where the device was originally found?"
Review Officer: "Not conclusively. The camera angle shows the search, but parts of the suitcase are obscured by the officer's body and the edge of the table."
Supervisor Diallo: "Then the report must state that limitation."
Review Officer: "Understood."
The review continued through the period after the evidence bag was displayed. The recording captured the escalating argument, including Amara's increasingly forceful gestures and David's repeated requests for the inspection to be documented.
It did not establish that Amara had deliberately placed the device in the suitcase. It also did not provide an independent confirmation of her claim that David had knowingly carried it.
That uncertainty was important.
A fair investigation could not replace one unsupported conclusion with another. It had to determine what the available evidence actually established.
The technical team then compared the camera times with the inspection database. They found a small difference between the recording system's clock and the workstation clock, but the difference did not fully explain the earlier access event. The account activity required additional review.
The security systems manager returned with the results of the next check.
Security Systems Manager: "The account assigned to the earlier access event belongs to an authorized airport security user. We have not yet established who was physically using the workstation at that exact moment."
Supervisor Diallo: "Has the audit history identified any change to the inspection record?"
Security Systems Manager: "The original inspection entry remains intact. The available logs show the earlier access, but they do not establish that the record was altered to create or conceal the device's discovery."
Supervisor Diallo: "Record that distinction clearly. We need further verification before drawing any conclusion."
Amara let out a breath.
Officer Amara: "That confirms the system entry does not prove misconduct."
Supervisor Diallo: "It confirms that the entry alone does not prove misconduct. The rest of the inspection still needs to be assessed."