By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx)
Justice Jaiteh of the High Court has rejected the admissibility of a cautionary statement presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the high-profile trial of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, accused in connection with the fatal shooting of three police officers in September 2023.
The rejection came after intense legal arguments centered on whether the statement purportedly made by Lamin Bojang, a defence witness and brother to the first accused, met the statutory requirements for admissibility under the Evidence Act.
Ousainou Bojang is facing multiple charges including murder, attempted murder, committing a terrorist act, and assault causing grievous bodily harm. His sister, Amie Bojang, is charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. Both have pleaded not guilty.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh held that the cautionary statement failed to meet three fundamental legal thresholds: it was unsigned by both the alleged maker (Lamin Bojang) and the police officer who recorded it; it lacked the required endorsement from an independent witness; and it was a photocopy tendered without any justification for the absence of the original.
Justice Jaiteh emphasized that for a cautionary statement to be admissible, it must satisfy the requirements of voluntariness, authenticity, and procedural compliance. He cited Section 31(3) of the Evidence Act, which mandates the presence of an independent witness during the recording of any cautionary statement, especially when the accused is in custody.
“The document was silent on this critical safeguard, raising serious concerns about the statement’s voluntariness and legality,” Justice Jaiteh ruled.
He further cited Section 116 of the Evidence Act, stating that secondary evidence, such as photocopies, is inadmissible unless a valid reason is given for the unavailability of the original—something the prosecution failed to provide.
The court also referred to the Gambia Court of Appeal decision in Samaten (2010) GGA 15, which reinforced that unsigned cautionary statements are inadmissible unless supported by compelling reasons.
During proceedings, Defence Counsel Lamin J. Darboe raised multiple objections, arguing that the statement lacked the accused’s signature, the officer’s signature, and that the document’s cautionary label was legally ineffective. Co-counsel A. Sillah supported the objection, pointing to the empty space meant for an independent witness’s thumbprint and underscoring the legal deficiencies.
In response, the DPP argued that the defence objections were unwarranted and maintained that the statement had probative value. However, the court disagreed.
Justice Jaiteh also considered the broader implications of the statement. Though the DPP claimed it only concerned the first accused, the judge noted that the substance of the statement could bear incidental relevance to the second accused in light of the criminal conspiracy charge. He therefore held that both defence teams had standing to object.
“The probative value of the statement is highly questionable and outweighed by its prejudicial effect,” the judge concluded, ruling that the statement be marked “Rejected 1.”
The trial will resume on 9 June 2023 for the continuation of the DPP’s cross-examination of Lamin Bojang.
