Defence Seeks Acquittal of Amie Bojang, Arguing Prosecution Failed to Prove Knowledge in Police Killing Case

As the High Court nears judgment in the fatal shooting of two police officers at the Sukuta-Jabang traffic lights, Defence Counsel A. Sillah has urged Justice Jaiteh to acquit Amie Bojang, arguing that prosecutors have failed to prove she knew anything about the crime she is accused of helping to conceal.

In a detailed final brief, Mr. Sillah contends that the state has not met the legal threshold required to convict Ms. Bojang, who faces a single charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. She is the sister of the first accused, Ousainou Bojang, whom prosecutors allege carried out the shooting.

Under Section 202 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Sillah writes, the prosecution must establish not only that a murder occurred but also that the accused knew of the crime at the time she rendered assistance. “Knowledge,” he argues, is the essential element—and it has not been proved.

Ms. Bojang’s actions, her lawyer says, were those of a sister helping a distressed brother, not of a person aiding a fugitive. She testified that she accompanied Mr. Bojang to the border so he could seek spiritual counsel from a marabout in Senegal over what she described as a personal crisis: an alleged blackmail scheme involving explicit photographs. According to her account, she did not learn of the police shooting until after he had crossed into Senegal.

Mr. Sillah emphasized that, by her testimony, Mr. Bojang did not behave like a man fleeing a crime. She said he appeared calm during the taxi ride and at the border and made no effort to conceal himself. Another defence witness, Bubacarr Manneh, who drove Mr. Bojang from the border to Diouloulou, described him as composed and unremarkable—a demeanor, Mr. Sillah argues, inconsistent with someone evading capture for murder.

The brief mounts a broader attack on the prosecution’s case against both siblings. It highlights that the only surviving officer, PC Ansey Jawo (PW10), did not identify Mr. Bojang at the scene and acknowledged that her later “recognition” came from viewing photographs on social media. Call log evidence, introduced as Exhibit D13, is cited as contradicting the testimony of two soldier witnesses who claimed to have been at the beach and to have pursued the gunman.

Mr. Sillah also challenges the reliability of alleged confessions said to have been obtained by police officers identified as PW5 and PW6, describing them as the product of “intense questioning” and unsupported by corroborating testimony from other officers present. He questions the credibility of a civilian witness, Mama Jabbie, who claimed Mr. Bojang confessed to her, noting her admission that she lost an alleged audio recording of the confession and pointing to the government’s announced D1 million bounty as a possible motive.

Even the taxi driver, Abdoulie Drammeh (PW9), who testified that he mentioned the shooting during the trip, did not say Ms. Bojang responded, the defence notes — silence Mr. Sillah says is consistent with ignorance rather than complicity. The driver further testified that he did not recognize either accused until days later, when shown photographs by authorities.

Central to the defence argument is what Mr. Sillah calls the “principle of dependency.” An accessory’s liability, he writes, depends on proof that the principal offence was committed by the alleged offender. Without forensic evidence — no DNA, fingerprints or ballistic analysis linking Mr. Bojang to the shooting — and without credible eyewitness identification, the prosecution has not established that he was the gunman. If the principal offence cannot be proved against him, Mr. Sillah argues, there can be no accessory liability for his sister.

The brief also raises concerns about the conduct of the investigation. It cites public statements made before trial by senior officials, including the Presidential Spokesperson (DW6) and the National Security Adviser (DW8), which the defence characterizes as prejudicial. Ms. Bojang testified that she was detained for more than a week — exceeding the constitutional 72-hour limit — and described being held in poor conditions and pressured to provide information about her brother’s movements.

Mr. Sillah further points to digital evidence he says supports the defence narrative. A witness, Kathleen McGee (DW11), produced WhatsApp logs (Exhibit D38) that, according to the defence, show Mr. Bojang was in continuous communication with her and another acquaintance at the time of the shooting, discussing anxiety related to the alleged blackmail.

In closing, Mr. Sillah argues that the prosecution’s case rests on “remote possibilities” rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He urges the court to resolve any lingering doubts in favor of the accused and to acquit and discharge Amie Bojang.