Justice Ebrima Jaiteh has admitted into evidence an audio recording of an interview conducted by journalist Bakary Mankajang with Mama Jabbi (PW3), a prosecution witness in the ongoing police shooting trial.
Mankajang, who is the tenth defence witness (DW10) for the first accused, Ousainou Bojang, returned to the witness stand today to continue his testimony. He had been ordered by the court in the previous session to produce the audio interview he said he conducted with Mama Jabbi at the residence of President Adama Barrow’s sister.
The proceedings were presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, with Counsel A.A. Wakawa and Counsel F. Touray appearing for the State, while Counsel Lamin J. Darboe represented Ousainou Bojang and Counsel Adama Sillah represented the second accused, Amie Bojang.
Mankajang presented both the edited and unedited versions of the interview to the court. However, State Counsel Wakawa informed the judge that the prosecution had not yet been served with copies of the recordings. Counsel Darboe explained the delay in serving the prosecution but confirmed that copies were now available before the court.
Justice Jaiteh noted that, regardless of whether service had been completed, the court would review the evidence together in session. When asked by Counsel Darboe about the recordings, Mankajang confirmed he had provided the audio copies. Darboe then clarified to the court that he possessed three copies—both the edited and unedited audios.
“It’s a video or audio?” Justice Jaiteh inquired.
“It’s an audio,” Counsel Darboe replied.
Justice Jaiteh ordered the audio to be played in open court. The recording, featuring Mama Jabbi speaking in Mandinka with Mankajang, was heard by all parties present.
After the playback, Counsel Darboe moved to tender the unedited version of the audio as evidence.
“My Lord, this is in the interest of justice,” Counsel Darboe submitted. “It’s an audio that was voluntarily recorded, and it is PW3’s (Mama Jabbi) version of what she says actually happened. My Lord, in the overall justice of the case, it is suggested that this audio be tendered as a defence exhibit.”
Counsel Sillah, representing the second accused, raised no objection, describing the evidence as relevant. However, State Counsel Wakawa opposed its admission, citing Section 22 of the Evidence Act, 1994, which requires a certificate for computer-generated evidence. He argued that the flash drive containing the audio qualified as such evidence.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh addressed two main issues: the obligation to produce the document and its admissibility in light of the prosecution’s objection.
The judge recalled that under Section 220 of the Evidence Act, the court had ordered Mankajang to produce both the original and edited recordings. He emphasized that the section compels a witness to produce any document in their possession when directed by the court, regardless of admissibility disputes.
Justice Jaiteh stated that the court had reviewed the recordings under Section 220(2) and found the contents relevant to the issues in dispute, thus meeting the test for admissibility under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
Addressing the prosecution’s objection, Justice Jaiteh ruled that the flash drive was not computer-generated evidence as defined by Section 22, but merely a storage medium.
“The flash drive in question merely stores the audio interview; it does not generate or process the data through calculation or comparison,” Justice Jaiteh held.
The judge explained that the certification requirement under Section 22 was intended for data produced or computed by a computer (such as electronic calculations or algorithmic results), not for ordinary recordings stored on digital devices.
Consequently, Justice Jaiteh described the prosecution’s objection as “misconceived” and overruled it. He admitted the flash drive containing the audio recording as Exhibit D37 for the Defence of the First Accused.
“Accordingly, the flash drive containing the audio interview between DW10 and PW3 is admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit D37 for the Defence of the 1st Accused,” the judge ruled.
He further ordered that the contents of Exhibit D37 be transcribed and the transcript attached to the exhibit, with copies provided to all counsel.
Ousainou Bojang is on trial for murder, attempted murder, and committing a terrorist act, while his sister Amie Bojang faces charges as an accessory after the fact.