Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court has ruled against the admissibility of a cautionary statement submitted by the prosecution in the high-profile trial of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, who stand accused in connection with the fatal shooting of two police officers and the injury of a third.
In a ruling delivered today (Tuesday,June 3rd, 2025), Justice Jaiteh rejected the statement sought to be introduced by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), citing fundamental procedural lapses. Chief among them were the absence of signatures from both the purported author and the recording officer, and the prosecution’s failure to produce the original document, relying instead on a photocopy.
The court is hearing the case of Ousainou Bojang, who stands accused of murder, attempted murder, committing a terrorist act, and assault causing grievous bodily harm. His sister, Amie Bojang, is charged as an accessory after the fact to murder. Both have pleaded not guilty.
During the continuation of the defense’s case, Lamin Bojang—brother to the accused—testified as the fourth defense witness (DW4), under the guidance of defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe. The session focused heavily on the credibility and authenticity of statements Lamin Bojang allegedly gave to police during the investigation.
Bojang confirmed that he made two statements to officers Malang Sanneh and Ebou Sowe, which he identified in court. However, he strongly disputed authorship of a third statement, claiming that the signature was forged, portions of his testimony were inaccurately represented, and some key details were omitted entirely.
Defense counsel Darboe moved to tender the two uncontested statements dated September 20, 2023. With no objections from the prosecution or co-defense counsel, both were admitted into evidence and marked as exhibits D38A and D38B. A third statement, dated September 14, 2023, was rejected for lacking foundational authenticity.
Testifying further, Lamin Bojang alleged that police falsely claimed he had made a call to Ousainou Bojang around 5 p.m.—an assertion he denied. He recalled being confronted by a woman who alleged she was Ousainou’s friend and corroborated the police’s version. He denied knowing her and said that an officer from the National Intelligence Agency accused him of lying. A purported call log was shown to him, but he said he was not allowed to inspect it. Bojang testified that he was held for two days in detention—first at the anti-crime unit and then at the Banjulinding Police Station.
Under cross-examination by defense counsel A. Sillah, Bojang confirmed the accuracy of a different police statement (marked D32) and discussed Ousainou Bojang’s purported travel plans to Senegal. He denied any family discussions about the trip but confirmed his brother’s intentions, which he said were linked to a relationship with a “white lady.” He also noted that it was the first time Ousainou and Amie had traveled together.
In a pointed exchange with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lamin Bojang acknowledged giving a statement on September 13, 2023, including his phone number and personal details. However, he vehemently denied signing a document the DPP attempted to tender in evidence.
Defense counsel Darboe objected to the admission of that statement on three grounds: the absence of cautionary wording, the lack of signatures from both the witness and the officer, and the fact that the statement was a photocopy, not an original. Counsel Sillah reinforced the objection, emphasizing that the statement lacked signatures from an independent witness as required under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, and that no foundation had been laid for the admission of secondary evidence.
The prosecution countered that the objections were unfounded and urged the court to admit the document.
In a firm ruling, Justice Jaiteh disagreed.
“The purported cautionary statement is inadmissible,” he declared, citing not only the absence of essential signatures but also the failure to produce an original document. The judge underscored the legal requirement that cautionary statements obtained during investigations must be signed by both the individual providing the statement and the officer recording it to ensure authenticity and voluntariness.
He referenced the precedent set in Samaten v. The State (2010 GGA 15), where the Gambia Court of Appeal held that unsigned cautionary statements cannot be admitted without compelling justification.
Justice Jaiteh concluded by invoking Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which states that secondary evidence, such as photocopies, is inadmissible unless the original is unavailable for a legitimate reason.
The prosecution, Justice Jaiteh noted, failed to offer any justification for the absence of the original cautionary statement or to satisfy the legal requirements for the admission of secondary evidence.”The prosecution failed to provide any reason for the unavailability of the original statement or to meet the conditions for admitting secondary evidence,”.
He further ruled that the mandatory presence of an independent witness during the recording of such a statement—as prescribed under Section 31(3) of the Evidence Act—had not been observed.”The document itself was silent on this critical safeguard, raising serious concerns about the statement’s voluntariness and legality,” Justice Jaiteh noted.
While the prosecution maintained that the statement concerned only the first accused, Justice Jaiteh held that its content could have incidental bearing on the second accused, particularly in light of the charge of criminal conspiracy. Accordingly, he found the objections raised by the second defence counsel to be justified.
In summation, Justice Jaiteh concluded that the statement was unsigned, lacked legal grounding as a photocopy, and had allegedly been obtained without the presence of an independent witness. He further ruled that the statement’s probative value was minimal and substantially outweighed by its potential to prejudice the proceedings.
He ordered that the cautionary statement be marked as “Rejected 1.”
The trial is scheduled to resume on June 9, 2023, for continued cross-examination by the Director of Public Prosecutions.