Momodou Sowe, Commissioner of the Police Anti-Crime Unit.
By Landing Ceesay
Momodou Sowe, Commissioner of the Police Anti-Crime Unit, has on Thursday wrapped up his testimony and faced cross-examination by the Defense Lawyers.
While continuing his testimony under cross-examination, the Commissioner informed the court that he found his officers, eyewitnesses, and other civil servants present at the crime scene.
Counsel H. Farage, standing in for Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, questioned Commissioner Sowe about the preservation of the crime scene, given that he was only notified about the shooting while on his way home. In response, Commissioner Sowe emphasized the responsibility of police officers to preserve the crime scene when an incident occurs.
“How was the crime scene preserved when you were only told about the shooting on your way home?,” Counsel H. Farage asked the witness.
Commissioner Sowe replied, “The role of police officers is to preserve the crime scene when an incident occurs,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Later, Counsel Lamin J. Darboe entered the courtroom and took over the cross-examination from Counsel H. Farage. Darboe inquired about the source of information regarding the shooting at Sukuta Jabang traffic lights. Commissioner Sowe revealed that his operational officer, Bubacarr M. Bah, had provided him with the information.
Regarding the timing of the notification, Commissioner Sowe admitted uncertainty but mentioned that he arrived at the crime scene after 10 pm.
“When you said the crime scene was preserved how did you preserve it?” Counsel LJ Darboe asked Commissioner Sowe.
“Officers were deployed there to protect the area of the crime scene,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
“I put it to you that there was no preservation at the crime scene,” Counsel LJ Darboe told Commissioner Sowe.
“The crime scene was preserved,” Commissioner Sowe insisted.
“According to Ismaila Bojang and Bakary Jarju, the first and second Prosecution Witnesses, the crime scene was taken over by the public, the curiosity seekers who wanted to know what was going on,” Counsel LJ Darbod told Commissioner Sowe.
Nevertheless, Commissioner Sowe maintained that this constitutes the testimony provided by the 1st and 2nd Prosecution Witnesses.
About the empty bullet cases that were recovered, the Commissioner could not say who exactly recovered them but stated that his Operational Officer, Inspector Bah showed him the empty bullet cases that were discovered. Commissioner Sowe affirmed in court that the forensic officers or experts currently possess the canvas shoes, combat boots, black jeans, and the haftan that were recovered. However, he stated that he is uncertain whether Mama Jabbi’s audio conversation with Ousainou Bojang (the 1st accused) is in the possession of their forensic experts.
In response to whether he had personally listened to the audio, Commissioner Sowe informed the court that he had not done so.
“I am putting it to you that if Mama Jabbi’s (PW3) testimony is correct, it is a dereliction of duty on your part that an audio record so central to your case wasn’t listened to by the head of the anti-crime unit,” Counsel LJ Darboe told Commissioner Sowe. DPP Yusuf vehemently objected to the defense’s line of questioning, asserting it was inappropriate due to the witness’s lack of firsthand information. Yusuf emphasized that the witness never mentioned being informed of any audio recording between Mama Jabbi and the accused, further noting that Mama Jabbi herself had testified her recording device was broken and unavailable.
“So the question is tricky. Therefore we urged the court not to allow the question as it has gone out of the facts,” DPP Yusuf argued.
Addressing the objection, Counsel LJ Darboe emphasized the necessity for law enforcement officers, engaged in crime investigations within the age of rapid communication, to utilize a comprehensive approach that includes accessing various services and personal information from devices such as Mama Jabbi’s phone, as well as electronic communication channels like social media.
Furthermore, Counsel LJ Darboe asserted that Mama Jabbi had indeed confirmed sending pictures and audio conversations with the primary accused to the Gendarmerie at Jululung. The Commissioner then took the initiative to travel to Jululung, establishing connections with the Senegalese officers who had custody of the first accused.
“So is fair for the Commissioner to tell whether that audio is available to the police or not? On that note my lord I will request to allow the witness to answer the question,” Counsel LJ Darboe submitted.
In pronouncing his decision, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, the presiding judge, dismissed the objection, affirming that the question was deemed fair and straightforward. Justice Jaiteh noted the witness’s extensive experience as a seasoned Police Officer and directed the witness to respond to the inquiry.
“Is not correct. I’m not the Head of the Panel of Investigators and if the investigators find that audio to be useful they will pick it up and preserve it. Since I am not the head of the investigations team, I will not be in a position to say whether the audio is with the Police or not. I did not listen to it,” Commissioner Sowe answered.
“How many officers were in your three-vehicle convoy to Giboro?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked Commissioner Sowe.
“I cannot tell you the actual number,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Commissioner Sowe however confirmed to the court that he was the Commissioner in charge of the convoy to Giboro.
“How many Officers were in your vehicle to Jululung?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked him again.
“I may not remember the number,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Asked whether he could recall the names of the officers in his vehicle to Jululung, Commissioner Sowe told the court that he could not recall their names.
“Do you remember Officer Ollie Bobb?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked the witness.
“Yes, I remember her,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Commissioner Sowe told the court that Ollie Bobb was in his vehicle while they were going to Jululung.
Commissioner Sowe denied that Yero Saidy was not in his vehicle to Jululung. He said he could not remember any other person in his vehicle by the surname Njie.
“Can you help the court who else was in the vehicle?,” Counsel LJ Asked the witness.
“Yes, Myself, Lamin Cham, Ollie Bobb but the officers behind me, I could not remember all of them,” Commissioner Sowe told the court.
“Between yourself, Lamin Cham, Ollie Bobb is it fair to say that you have 40 years of experience?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
“I know my length of service but I don’t know about others,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
“In your testimony, you said when you went to Brufut you recovered certain items from the home of the first accused person (Ousainou Bojang). Who told you that the accused was wearing canvas shoes?” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
Commissioner Sowe stated that Ousainou Bojang personally informed them of wearing canvas shoes.
Furthermore, Commissioner Sowe indicated that both the individuals present at the crime scene and Ousainou Bojang himself affirmed that he had been donning combat shoes.
In a subsequent development, Commissioner Sowe noted that Ousainou Bojang altered his initial statement, shifting from mentioning canvas shoes to specifying combat desert shoes.
“Did any witness mention to you that the first accused (Ousainou Bojang) was wearing a jean, the jeans you took from his workplace in a bucket?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
Commissioner Sowe said Ousainou Bojang led them to where the jean was in a bucket.
“Commissioner with your extensive experience, it is correct that when the first accused (Ousainou Bojang) confessed to you that he did the killing you should have recorded that,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
“Police work in procedure and confessional statements are taken at the cautionary statement and his statement was recorded,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Commissioner Sowe stated that there is no audio or video recording of Ousainou Bojang’s confession inside the vehicle. When questioned about the purported location of the vehicle owned by Ousainou Bojang, Commissioner Sowe indicated that it was parked from Jabang towards the roundabout. Additionally, he mentioned that both the registration number and a photo of the vehicle are in the possession of their forensic officers.
Asked where exactly did he start questioning Ousainou Bojang, Commissioner Sowe said, he started questioning him from Giboro to the Anti-Crime Headquarters.
“So from Jululung to Giboro all of you were sitting quietly, none of you spoke to the accused?” Counsel LJ Darboe asked Commissioner Sowe.
“The suspect (Ousainou Bojang) was handed over to us at the border by the Gendarmerie,” Commissioner Sowe said.
“When you arrived at the Anti Crime Headquarters you and your team went to Brufut. Who were the members of that panel of investigation, the team of investigators,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked Commissioner Sowe.
“I was part of it, Lamin Cham, Bobb, Kebba Darbo, and Pateh Bah. I may not be able to remember all but a good number of officers were there,” he said.
“Was Mama Jabbi (PW3) part of the team of investigators? Because she went with them to Brufut,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
“I cannot tell because I was in the lead vehicle,” Commissioner said.
Regarding the firearm, Commissioner Sowe stated that their Forensic Officer recovered the gun in close proximity to the crime scene.
Commissioner Sowe observed the firearm resting on the ground with its upper sling separated and lying nearby.
“Normally, when the investigators get relevant information about a case in hand when they arrive at the scene and confirm that there is evidence to be collected, the forensic team will come and collect the exhibit,” Commissioner Sowe said.
Commissioner Sowe stated that the firearm had been disassembled into two separate pieces. He clarified that examining a gun for fingerprints falls outside his area of expertise.
Commissioner Sowe mentioned that a member of the Investigation Panel had apprised him of the firearm in question.
When questioned about the specific type of gun, Commissioner Sowe emphasized that only a Ballistic expert possesses the knowledge to identify the firearm accurately.
“Is it the type of gun the government gives to security officers?,” Counsel LJ Darboe asked.
“I don’t know,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Commissioner Sowe confirmed to the court that his officers are provided with AK47s.
“I am putting it to you that the accused (Ousainou Bojang) never talked to you about using any gun,” Counsel LJ Darboe told Commissioner Sowe.
“That’s not right,” Commissioner Sowe insisted.
“The accused (Ousainou Bojang) did not talk to you about killing or injuring anybody because there is no evidence,” Counsel LJ Darboe again told the witness.
Commissioner Sowe insisted that Ousainou Bojang told him.
“I am putting it to you that on the 12th of September 2023, the accused (Ousainou Bojang) was nowhere near the Sukuta Jabang traffic light,” Counsel LJ Darboe told the witness.
Commissioner Sowe again insisted that the Ousainou Bojang was there.
“I am putting it to you that as a police officer, you should provide objective evidence. Can you show us evidence that the first accused (Ousainou Bojang) told all these, other than your words?,” Counsel LJ Darboe told the witness.
“My testimony is evidence,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
“I am putting it to that the accused (Ousainou Bojang went to Jululung to get prayers from marabouts about difficulties from his white wife. And he said the same thing to Mama Jabbi and that’s why that audio confession was not tendered. You should go and find the suspect and the first accused (Ousainou) has nothing to do with this,” Counsel LJ Darboe told the court.
“That’s your opinion,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
Meanwhile, Counsel H. Farage, the lawyer for the second accused (Amie Bojang) took the floor to cross-examine the witness.
“Apart from that statement that the second accused (Amie Bojang) helped him to escape, did he (Ousainou Bojang) tell you what the second accused told him about the incident?,” Counsel H. Farage asked the witness.
“No, I can’t remember,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
“I am putting it to you that the first accused called his elder sister to inform her that he has a problem with his white lady and wants her (the second accused) to take him to Dasillameh. He wants to go to Cassamance and this statement collaborated with your testimony that Ousainou told you he has a problem with his white lady,” Counsel Farage told the witness.
” I have no idea,” Commissioner Sowe responded.
The witness was discharged and the case was adjourned to December 18 2023 for the evidence in chief of PW6.
Background of the Case
On September 21, 2023, Ousainou and Amie Bojang made their initial appearance before Principal Magistrate Omar Jabang of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, facing charges related to the shooting incident at Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights, which resulted in the tragic deaths of two PIU officers and severe injury to another on September 12, 2023.
The police had initially leveled four charges against the accused, including two murder charges, an act of terrorism charge, and an accessory after the fact to murder charge. Subsequently, Principal Magistrate Omar Jabang transferred the murder trial to the Special Criminal Division of the High Court of The Gambia.
On October 12, 2023, the case was presented before Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court of The Gambia.
On October 19, 2023, the State brought six charges against Ousainou Bojang, the prime suspect in the deaths of two Police Intervention Unit (PIU) officers, and a single charge against his elder sister, Amie Bojang.
On October 24, 2023, both Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang entered pleas of not guilty to the charges