By Mariama Marong
The defence in the ongoing homosexual case involving Muhammed Krubally and Muhammed Jawo concluded cross-examination of the prosecution’s chief witness, Momodou Sanyang, on Thursday, 21 August 2025 before Magistrate Isatou Jallow. The accused are alleged to have engaged in gross indecency at Old Yundum in the West Coast Region.
The prosecution alleged that on 18 May 2025 at Old Yundum in the West Coast Region, the two accused persons were “found engaged in indecent practices among yourselves by sucking each other’s penis an act calculated to be gross indecency.”
Defense Counsel Kemo Bojang continued with the cross-examination, aiming to challenge the credibility and reliability of the witness’s account regarding the alleged crime.
Counsel Bojang opened the questioning: “Mr Sanyang can you tell the court how you were able to see inside the incomplete building at the time of the incident.”
The witness responded, “During my petrol at night, I take my phone mobile with me and I will put on the phone touch light.”
The defence pressed further: “Are you telling the court that you were outside and you put your mobile phone light on and you saw the accused persons.”
Sanyang clarified, “Yes, I went inside through the window, when the boy informed me about it and I took my phone out, put on the light inside the house and I saw the accused persons in the act.”
On whether the phone was in his possession at all times, Sanyang confirmed, “Yes, the phone light was on.”
Counsel Bojang then asked about the presence of the boy: “Where was the boy at that time.”
The witness replied, “The boy name is Muhammed Bajo and we were together inside the house.”
Bojang continued, “Was the said boy inside the house, too.”
“Yes, because he told me about the two men inside and he was present at that time,” Sanyang responded.
On whether the boy was next to the window, Bojang asked, “Mr Sanyang, it is correct that the person you were with was also next to window.”
The witness confirmed, “We were all near the window.”
Counsel Bojang questioned Sanyang about his prior statement: “You told the court that you made a statement at Anti-Crime Unit and how would you recognise it.”
Sanyang explained, “Yes, I did give my statement to the police, I will be able to recognise it, for a reason that it was my own wording.”
The defence counsel tendered the statement of the witness for it to be entered into evidence. Without objection from the prosecution, the Magistrate marked it as Exhibit D1.
Counsel Bojang then addressed alleged inconsistencies: “In you statement you referred the boy as your partner and while testifying before the court, you claimed that you didn’t know the boy and that was the first time you saw him.”
Sanyang clarified, “In operation as officers, we refer person in same scene as partner.”
The defence counsel pressed: “All your testimony before the court is false allegation and a lie against the accused persons.”
Sanyang firmly replied, “As police officer, my role is not to lie or give false evidence to the court. Whatever I said before the court is the truth – nothing but the entire truth.”
On witnessing the alleged act, Sanyang stated, “Well I saw the accused persons doing that dirty act.”
The cross-examination also focused on procedural matters, including the timing of statements and custody of the accused.
“Which time did you took the accused at the Anti-Crime Unit,” asked Bojang.
Sanyang admitted, “Well I cannot remember the actually time because I informed their families before taking them to that place.”
“As a police officer, you cannot tell which time you handed over the accused to police at Anti-Crime,” Bojang questioned.
“I didn’t check the time by then,” Sanyang replied.
“Can you tell the court when was your statement prepared,” Bojang continued.
“Immediately we reach at Anti-Crime Unit my statement was taken but I was later recalled back by officers at Anti-Crime,” the witness said.
“You give your statement on 18th April but you were recalled again,” Bojang noted.
“Yes,” Sanyang confirmed.
The defence also probed what occurred at the guard post. “You take the accused persons to your guard post and what did you do to them.”
“I took them to my guard post and explained everything to my guard commander,” Sanyang replied.
Bojang asked, “Did you beat the accused persons.”
The witness firmly stated, “We are not required to beat.”
The counsel pressed, “I am putting it to you that you beat the accused persons and force them to accept the allegations.”
“As police officers, it is not our responsibility to beat and I did not beat the accused persons,” Sanyang responded.
On the length of custody, Bojang said, “You held the accused persons three hours at your guard post.”
“They did not spent that much hours there,” the witness countered.
Following the completion of cross-examination, Magistrate I. Jallow adjourned the matter to 3 September 2025 at 11:00 a.m. for testimony of the second prosecution witness, PW2.
