High Court Orders Production of Police Press Briefing Video Following DIG’s Testimony
Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Modou Sowe
The High Court of The Gambia, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, has ordered the Inspector General of Police and the managing directors of QTV, Kerr Fatou Media, and The Fatu Network to produce video recordings of a police press conference held on September 15, 2023.
The order was issued following testimony by Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Modou Sowe, who appeared as a subpoenaed witness in the ongoing trial involving Ousainou Bojang, the first accused in the case. DIG Sowe, who has served in his current role since 2023, was examined by defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe.
During cross-examination, Counsel Darboe questioned DIG Sowe about statements allegedly made during the press conference.”You held a press briefing on the 15th of September 2023. In that press briefing, you said Ousainou Bojang was the accused,” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe stated.
“I had a press briefing but never mentioned any Ousainou Bojang,” DIG Sowe responded.
Darboe pressed further, referencing statements about phone tracking and possession of a firearm, but the DIG repeatedly denied making those claims. When asked how the suspect was identified, DIG Sowe replied, “That’s security information; I can’t divulge that.”
Counsel Darboe challenged the classification of the information as intelligence and asserted that Africell records corroborated the tracking. Additional questions related to the timeline of the alleged crime, CCTV footage, evacuation of officers, and financial pledges made to aid the investigation were either denied or met with claims of unawareness by the DIG.
“You said the suspect was tracked by his telephone due to the volume of communication.”
“Yes,” the DIG affirmed.
“Did you have the record of that, particularly of September 2023?” Counsel Darboe asked.
“No, I don’t have it and never had. Our end is the collected intelligence aspect,” DIG Sowe responded.
“How did you get it through intelligence?” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked
“That’s security information, and I can’t divulge that information.” DIG Sowe stated,
Counsel Darboe countered, “I disagree with you; that’s not intelligence; we also have the records through Africell.”
“You got it through intelligence,” DIG Sowe insisted.
Counsel Darboe stated, “You stated that the suspect/accused was having the gun for a long time.”
“I never said that,” DIG Sowe denied.
“You said the accused was with the gun in the court trial of Yankuba Darboe,” Counsel Darboe pressed.
“I never said that. I never mentioned guns,” the DIG maintained.
“Did you know the time of the murder incident?” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked.
DIG Sowe stated, “I don’t have the specific time the murder happened,” DIG replied.
“How did you evacuate the officer from the crime scene?” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe inquired
“Did you know who removed the officers from the crime scene?” DIG Sowe responded
“Did you get the CCTV footage of the crime scene?” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked.
“No,” DIG answered.
“You made a personal pledge for 25,000 for leading to the perpetrator,” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe inquired.
“No, I am getting that information now.” DIG responded
“Do you know about the President’s pledge of one million?” Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked
“I don’t know; I’m just hearing it for the first time,” DIG Sowe stated.
When asked whether he or the police institution retained a copy of the September 15 press briefing, DIG Sowe responded that he had no such recording and was unaware if the police had one. He also claimed not to know which media houses were present, stating, “That was the first time I saw them all.”
“As the Deputy Inspector General of Police and someone who participated in the press briefing on the 15th September 2023. Do you have a recording of the press conference?” Counsel Darboe asked.
“I don’t have it,” DIG Sowe replied.
“I’m not talking about you but the Police as an institution,” Counsel Darboe clarified.
“I’m not aware,” the DIG stated.
Do you know any media houses present at the press briefing”, Counsel Lamin J. Darboe inquired.
“I don’t know, because that was the first time I saw them all”, DIG Sowe replied.
At one point, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) A. M. Yusuf objected to certain questions on the grounds that they were potentially incriminating. “Counsel Darboe cannot ask question that’s incriminating because it’s against the law.”
However, the court overruled these objections.
Notably, DIG Sowe distanced himself from direct interactions with the accused, stating that senior officers like himself do not speak with suspects. Counsel Darboe then alleged that the Inspector General of Police had visited and spoken to the accused at Banjulding. “That’s his prerogative. I act on law and order,” DIG Sowe replied, denying any implication that the IGP had overstepped his authority.
“Have you had the opportunity to speak with Ousainou Bojang?” Counsel Darboe asked.
“That’s not my area as I’m a senior officer and I don’t talk to the accused,” DIG Sowe responded.
“I’m telling you the IGP went to Banjulding and spoke to the accused,” Counsel Darboe asserted.
“That’s his prerogative. I act on law and order,” the DIG replied.
“So, you’re telling me the IGP acted illegally or overstepped his boundaries by visiting the alleged shooter Ousainou Bojang and spoke to him,” Counsel Darboe questioned, which was objected to by DPP Yusuf but overruled.
DIG Sowe then answered, “I didn’t say that.”
Following this exchange, Counsel Darboe made an oral application requesting the court to compel the production of the press briefing video recordings from QTV, Kerr Fatou Media, and The Fatu Network. The DPP objected, arguing that such a request required a formal written application supported by an affidavit.
However, in his ruling, Justice Jaiteh rejected the objection, stating that while the defense application was made orally, it was legally sound and justified in the interest of justice. He emphasized that the press briefing had already been acknowledged by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and that media presence had been established.
Justice Jaiteh noted that the requested recordings constitute a matter of public record and could be materially relevant to the defense. He stated that strict adherence to procedural formality must not obstruct access to potentially exculpatory evidence.
Citing Section 221 of the Evidence Act and Section 24(3)(e) of the 1997 Constitution, Justice Jaiteh underscored the court’s authority to compel the production of evidence and affirmed the accused’s right to equal facilities for securing evidence in their defense.
“To deny the application solely on procedural grounds would be to elevate form over substance, contrary to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial,” Justice Jaiteh concluded.
The matter has been adjourned to June 30, 2025, at 2:15 p.m. for the continuation of the hearing.