Court of Appeal Adjourns State’s Motion in Bojang Acquittal Case for Definite Hearing

The Court of Appeal has adjourned the State’s motion seeking leave to appeal the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang, following confirmation by defence counsel that the application had been duly served and that an affidavit in opposition had been filed.

The motion stems from a judgment delivered on 30 March 2026 by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court, in which both accused persons were acquitted and discharged.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the State, acting through the Attorney General’s Chambers, filed a Notice of Appeal on 31 March 2026, a day after the judgment. An amended Notice of Appeal was subsequently filed on 29 April 2026.

The Motion on Notice, brought pursuant to Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, seeks four principal orders from the appellate court: leave to appeal against the acquittal; a declaration that the original Notice of Appeal was validly filed; leave to amend the notice; and a declaration affirming the competence of the amended Notice of Appeal filed in April.

In support of the application, an affidavit was sworn by Kaddijatou A. Bah, a legal clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Justice. She averred that although the State ought to have first sought leave before filing its Notice of Appeal, the Court of Appeal possesses the authority to regularise the process. She further maintained that granting the application would not prejudice the respondents.

The motion initially came before a single judge, Justice N. Salla-Wadda (President of the Court of Appeal), on 20 May 2026. At that sitting, only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A. M. Yusuf, appeared, as the respondents were absent.

The court observed deficiencies in the service process, noting that the DPP’s office had not adequately guided the court’s process server to effect proper service. While service had been effected on counsel for the first respondent, the second respondent’s former counsel declined to accept service.

Consequently, the court directed the DPP to work closely with the process server to ensure personal service on both respondents and adjourned the matter to 1 June 2026 for hearing.

When the matter resumed on 1 June 2026, it was heard before a three-member panel comprising Justice N. Salla-Wadda (PCA), Justice B.V.P. Mahoney (JCA), and Justice A. Saho-Ceesay (JCA).

The State was represented by DPP A. M. Yusuf alongside F. Touray, while the respondents were represented by B. M.O. Badjie, holding brief for Counsel J. Darboe and L.K. Mboge, together with J. Jeng.

During proceedings, Justice Salla-Wadda confirmed that the motion had been filed and inquired whether counsel for the respondents had been served. Counsel Badjie informed the court that the motion was received on 29 May 2026 and that an affidavit in opposition had since been filed.

He further indicated that Counsel L.K. Mboge had been informed that service was effected directly on the second respondent, Amie Bojang, who had been instructed to provide him with a copy of the process.

Following submissions from both sides, the presiding judge noted that the respondents had only been served on 29 May 2026 and were therefore entitled to two clear days within which to respond.

In light of this, the court adjourned the matter to Monday for a definite hearing of the State’s motion.