By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
The ongoing trial of Ousainou and Amie Bojang, charged in connection with the killing of police officers, proceeded today with testimony from a defence witness alongside important procedural developments involving an application filed by the State.
The court session commenced with Counsel Lamin J. Darboe informing Justice Jaiteh and other court participants that the defence team had formally filed an affidavit in opposition to the State’s motion. Counsel Darboe confirmed that this affidavit had been duly served and acknowledged by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), indicating that the defence was prepared to proceed with presenting evidence.
Justice Jaiteh, seeking clarity on the status of subpoenaed witnesses, questioned the DPP on whether the witnesses had been present in court during the previous day’s proceedings. The DPP affirmed their presence, noting that while only two witnesses had been formally served with subpoenas, a third individual had appeared voluntarily after hearing about the subpoena. This acknowledgement set the stage for the court to move forward with hearing witness testimony as it deliberated on the motion for a stay of proceedings.
The court instructed the defence counsel to call its next witness. At this point, Famara Badjie, a resident of Brufut and former co-worker of the first accused, Ousainou Bojang, was called to the witness stand. Badjie identified himself as having been the lodge’s first employee before Ousainou Bojang’s employment began. The witness proceeded to describe the nature of his working relationship with Bojang and the events surrounding the night of September 12, 2023.
Badjie testified in detail about the work schedule, confirming that on the evening of September 12th, Ousainou Bojang relieved him from his duties at the lodge. He explained this exchange as a normal routine between them, stating clearly, “Ousainou relieved me from work on the evening of the 12th.” This statement underlined that Bojang had taken over Badjie’s responsibilities at that point.
The following morning, Badjie returned to the lodge to resume work and found Ousainou Bojang already present. When questioned about the events that transpired on that particular Wednesday morning, Badjie candidly admitted, “I could not remember.” Despite this, he provided a detailed account of his shift pattern, noting that he closed at 7:00 AM and was relieved by a colleague named Tumani. After his shift, he was invited to the police station in Banjulding, where he recalled engaging with an officer named Patch Jallow.
During his testimony, Badjie informed the court that the police had taken a statement from him earlier in the investigation. He disclosed that he himself did not read the statement, explaining, “I am unable to read.” Despite this, he confirmed that the police had taken down his telephone number (510#####), verifying its accuracy when prompted by the court. When asked whether he would recognise the statement, Badjie answered, “I would not recognise it, but if it were read to me, I would recognise it as my exact words.”
In light of this, Counsel Lamin J. Darboe sought and obtained the court’s permission to read the statement aloud to the witness. After the statement was read, Badjie affirmed its accuracy, stating emphatically, “It reflects what I told the police,” and further confirmed that the signature on the statement was his, which he had affixed after it was read to him.
Neither the DPP nor the second defence counsel raised any objection to the statement being tendered into evidence. Consequently, Counsel Darboe applied for the statement to be admitted. Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh acceded to the request and admitted the statement, which was formally marked as Exhibit D34.
During direct examination, further inquiries by Counsel Darboe addressed the issue of a cutlass mentioned by Badjie. The witness confirmed the existence of the cutlass and stated that it “belongs to the lodge and was purchased by its owners.” This clarification was significant as it established the ownership of the weapon referenced in the testimony.
During cross-examination by Counsel Adama Sillah, Badjie reiterated that he had been relieved from work by the first accused on the day of the incident. He also confirmed that he and Bojang had been colleagues for a considerable period. When asked about the presence or use of firearms at their place of work, Badjie denied such, affirming, “There were no guns at our workplace.”
Addressing questions regarding their interaction with law enforcement, Badjie clarified, “No, I wasn’t arrested by the police, but I was asked to come to the police station, I told them.” This statement suggested his cooperation with the police investigation without implication of personal detention.
The DPP’s cross-examination focused on Badjie’s knowledge of the reason behind Ousainou Bojang’s court appearance. Badjie replied, “Bojang was accused of killing police officers.” He explained that this information came from a family member named Famara Bojang on September 13, 2023, noting the proximity of their workplace to the family compound, which facilitated the flow of such information.
When questioned whether Musa Bojang had informed him about Ousainou’s arrest, Badjie responded, “I could not recall Musa Bojang telling me, but I remembered Famara Bojang knocking on the workplace door to inform me of Ousainou’s arrest.”
Justice Jaiteh then posed a clarifying question to the witness: “You told the Court that Ousainou relieved you from work on the 12th of September 2023, and you came on the 13th of September 2023 and found Ousainou Bojang lying down at the poolside with a cutlass. What did Ousainou tell you when you met him at the poolside?”
In response, Badjie stated, “He told me that a Jamaican singer was following him and if he got him, he would kill him. He instructed the police to arrest him, but later told me he was visiting his friend and then to Jujulung in Cassamance to visit a Marabout.”
Following the completion of the witness testimony, Badjie was discharged by the court.
After this, the court turned its attention to the application filed by the State against a ruling of the court. Counsel Adama Sillah explained that while the defence had already prepared their affidavit in opposition, new facts had recently emerged that they wished to include. Accordingly, Counsel Sillah sought the court’s permission to file a reply within 24 hours to update their affidavit, citing fresh research that revealed additional information.
Justice Jaiteh issued a directive for Counsel Adama Sillah, representing the second accused, to file the updated affidavit in opposition and serve the State by Wednesday. The State is then required to reply by Thursday. The hearing of the application is scheduled for Monday.
The trial is expected to resume next week on the 23rd of June 2025 with the hearing on the State’s application and its determination.
