The Ministry of Justice has formally filed an appeal seeking to overturn the acquittal of Ousainou and Amie Bojang, describing the High Court’s decision as “unreasonable” and “erroneous.”
The Notice of Appeal, submitted today, 31 March 2026, by Director of Public Prosecutions A.M. Yusuf, requests that the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s judgment and impose convictions and sentences “commensurate with the gravity of the offenses.”
The state has outlined seven grounds for appeal, contending that Justice Ebrima Jaiteh made multiple errors in law and fact during the trial.
Ground 1: The State argues that Justice Jaiteh erred in diminishing the weight of Ousainou’s extrajudicial statements (Exhibit P6) due to a perceived lack of corroboration. The prosecution asserts that the confessions were obtained in accordance with due process, were properly corroborated, and that a duly proven confession remains sufficient to sustain a conviction even if later retracted.
Ground 2: The State contends that the trial judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the prosecution to disprove an alibi described as an “afterthought” introduced at trial. The State further argues that WhatsApp messages (Exhibit D38) do not definitively establish physical location and that the judge failed to exercise caution in relying on testimonies from family members (DW3, DW4, and DW12) with obvious personal interest in the case.
Ground 3: The State asserts that Justice Jaiteh focused too narrowly on visual identification under the Turnbull principles, overlooking the “compelling circumstantial web” that linked investigators to Ousainou’s residence, where a haftan and the murder weapon were recovered.
Ground 4: The appeal highlights Ousainou Bojang’s immediate flight to Senegal on 13 September 2023 as evidence of a “consciousness of guilt.” The State argues that the judge failed to adequately consider the circumstances of his departure, including its clandestine nature and his efforts to evade police checkpoints, which contradicted his explanation of fleeing due to personal photos circulating on social media.
Ground 5: The State maintains that procedural shortcomings, such as the failure to video-record Ousainou’s detention under the Anti-Terrorism Act, should not have rendered the confessions “worthless.” Since the statements had already been admitted following a voir dire, the prosecution contends the judge erred in questioning their reliability on procedural grounds.
Ground 6: The appeal notes that if Ousainou’s acquittal is overturned, the case against Amie Bojang as an accessory should automatically be revived. The State references Amie’s testimony indicating that she arranged transportation knowing her brother needed to avoid public exposure. The siblings’ flight to Senegal the morning after the shooting, the State argues, provides strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.
Ground 7: Finally, the State describes the High Court’s judgment as “unreasonable, excessive, and unwarranted” given the totality of the evidence presented during trial.
Through the appeal, the State is asking the Court of Appeal to declare the High Court’s acquittal improper and substitute it with a conviction.
Comments are closed.