Ousainu Bojang at the high court
By Landing Ceesay
Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, who is defending Ousainou Bojang (1st accused) in murder trial of the shooting incident that claimed the lives of two PIU officers at Sukuta Jabang traffic light, has asked the court to disregard the statements that his client gave to the police, claiming that they were obtained under duress and violated his rights.
Highlighting concerns over the circumstances surrounding Bojang’s statements, Counsel Darboe initiated a trial within the trial to address the legality of their acquisition, alleging coercion, including the use of drugs and physical abuse by the police.
Two witnesses were called by the Prosecution: Police Detective Ebou Sowe, who obtained Bojang’s statements, and Alieu Cham, purportedly an independent witness in the trial within a trial.
Following the Prosecution’s case closure, the Defense called two witnesses, Ousainou Bojang (1st accused), and Amie Bojang (2nd accused).
Upon the Defense case’s conclusion, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, presiding judge, instructed both Prosecution and Defense to address the court based on the evidence from the voire dire.
Justice Jaiteh allotted 20 minutes each for the Prosecution and Defense for their addresses, with an additional 5 minutes for the Defense Counsel for a legal reply. Counsel Lamin K. Mbodge, representing Amie Bojang (2nd accused), was given 15 minutes.
Justice Jaiteh ordered Counsel Lamin J. Darboe to speak first, followed by Counsel Lamin K. Mbodge, and then Director of Public Prosecution AM Yusuf.In his address to the court, Counsel LJ Darboe submitted that the statements obtained from his client were done under duress. “My lord, Mr. Ebou Sowe, PW1 in the voire dire testified that he was asked to take the cautionary and voluntary statements of the 1st accused (Ousainou Bojang). Allegedly, the 1st accused apparently confessed to the killing of the Police Officers at Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights. “The first so-called voluntary and cautionary were supposed to be taken on the 13th of September 2023 but there was no independent witness. On the 14th of September 2023, another cautionary and voluntary statements were taken but later withdrawn because there was no independent witness. The voir dire is as a result of the cautionary and voluntary statements,” Counsel LJ Darboe told the court.
Counsel Darboe elaborated that Detective Ebou Sowe, a witness for the Prosecution, informed the court that Ousainou Bojang had personally thumb-printed the cautionary and voluntary statements.
Additionally, Counsel Darboe highlighted that neither the cautionary nor the voluntary statements of Ousainou Bojang were documented through audio or video recordings. He emphasized that Ousainou had been detained under the supervision of security personnel during this period. “My lord, the cautionary wordings which are very essential to effect that the accused person need not say anything, but whatever he said will be used against him or maybe use against him. That was not done as the supposed Witness PW1 (Ebou Sowe) did not mention anything about cautionary wordings and it is absolutely essential. “My lord, PW1 Mr. Ebou Sowe said that to allow the 1st accused person’s friend or family member to be an independent witness will defeat the purpose. My lord, we submit that the purpose here is Justice, not an overbearing security system forcing the accused person to say something he didn’t mean to say or didn’t want to say. “My lord, this is a serious problem. My lord at the time these statements were supposedly taken, at 1 pm on the 15th of September 2023, the 1st accused (Ousainou Bojang) was before the investigative panel looking into the shooting incident at Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights,” Counsel Darboe told the court.
Counsel Darboe further informed the court that according to pages 18 and 19 of the Anti Crime diary, marked as exhibit D3, Ousainou Bojang appeared before the investigative panel from 10:55 am to 3:58 pm.
Counsel LJ Darboe argued that his client couldn’t have been providing statements while present before the investigative panel.
Moreover, Counsel Darboe contended that the Independent Witness admitted to being on the phone more than three times while Ebou Sowe was taking Ousainou Bojang’s statements.”I submit to the court that except for the security officers working at the Anti Crime Campus in Banjulinding, visitors are not permitted to enter with any gadgets and you must leave your telephones at the gate. My lord, this is a regular practice at the Anti Crime Unit in Banjulinding,” Counsel Darboe submitted. Counsel Darboe raised concerns regarding the inconsistency between the cautionary and voluntary statements extracted from Ousainou Bojang. Counsel Darboe pointed out that there was a gap of one week between the different cautionary and voluntary statements obtained from Ousainou Bojang.
Additionally, Counsel Darboe highlighted the presence of cautionary and voluntary statements in which the accused allegedly admitted to the killing of the police officers. Moreover, Counsel Darboe emphasized the existence of cautionary and voluntary statements dated September 23, 2023, wherein the accused denied all charges. “The obtaining of the two statements are a week apart and the Independent Witness does not understand Wolof, and did not understand any of the charges that were read before the accused. He (the Independent Witness) also did not remember the cautionary statements that were read to the 1st accused. My lord, why the duplicity of cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused on the same charges? “My lord, even the airport process, the independent witness could not remember the cautionary wordings being read to the 1st accused person. According to him, the statement taker Mr. Sowe, PW1, in voire dire read the charges to the accused person without reading the cautionary wordings to him. My lord, all the issues in this matter should be resolved in favour of the 1st accused (Ousainou Bojang),” Counsel Darboe submitted. Counsel Darboe further referred the court to section 31 of the Evidence Act about confessional statements. “I urge this court to reject these so-called cautionary and voluntary statements as they were not obtained in accordance with the law,” Counsel Darboe submitted.
Attorney Lamin K. Mboge, representing Amie Bojang as the second accused, was granted an opportunity to address the court following the evidence presented during the voire dire proceedings.
During his presentation, Attorney LK Mboge contended that the cautionary and voluntary statements made by Ousainou Bojang were inadmissible under legal statutes.”My lord, the 1st accused (Ousainou Bojang) clearly told this court that the said statements were not voluntary. And that assertion has found weight already by other cautionary and voluntary statements admitted by the court. My lord, if the court looks at the time of obtaining the voluntary statements starting from 1:40 pm to 2:35 pm. My lord, at the same time the accused person was before the panel of investigators. “This is evident in exhibit D3 which is the diary of the Anti-Crime Unit. My lord, the entry of Anti Crime diary, on page 19 says Detective Corporal Sowe has taken Ousainou to the cell at 15:58. On the same day my lord, there were other cautionary and voluntary statements obtained from the 1st accused person and the only one having a time is at 15:28 and the rest have no time on them,” Counsel LK Mbodge said.
Counsel LK Mbodge requests the court to acknowledge that the entirety of September 15, 2023, spans from 12 midnight to 12 midnight. Additionally, Counsel LK Mbodge argued that the logical deduction is that Ousainou Bojang either refuted the charges before or after the statement in question, which is the focal point of the voir dire. “In a bit to regularize the irregularities, I will refer your lordship to page 20 of exhibit D3 from entry number 86 to 90. My lord, will see that the entry of these so-called confessional statements was made after 16:55 which is 5 minutes to 5 pm. I am submitting that the investigators of this matter cannot reverse the time from 16:55 to 13:20 pm. But again my lord, there is no reference to this like other entries that have numbers and the only entry they recorded on page 20 were omissions, which means they omitted on their diary at the time that it was made,” Counsel Mbodge submitted. Counsel Mbodge further submitted that there is no document that is as important as the confessional statements of the 1st accused and yet the investigators omitted to enter it in their diary from 13: 20 to 16:55 on page 20 of exhibit D3. Counsel Mbodge submitted that the exhibit sought to be tendered is made out of gross violation of the fundamental rights of the 1st accused (Ousainou Bojang). “My lord, the rejection will not displace the burden on the prosecution about the allegations leveled against the 1st accused. The rejection of these statements will not prejudice the prosecution and it will balance the scale of Justice in this case. For all the reasons, irregularities, and inconsistencies, highlighted, I humbly urged the court to reject these statements,” Counsel LK Mbodge submitted.
During his court address, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), AM Yusuf, refuted the claim that Ousainou Bojang’s statements were not obtained voluntarily.
DPP Yusuf informed the court that the statements obtained from Ousainou Bojang were given willingly by him.”Yes, my lord, these said statements were obtained voluntarily. Based on the Evidence before this court, there is evidence that the statements were voluntarily obtained. There are 3 types of evidence before the court that determine that the statements are admissible. The evidence of PW1 (Ebou Sowe) and PW2 (Alieu Cham) in the voice, and the exhibit D3 (Anti Crime diary),” DPP Yusuf told the Court. DPP Yusuf argued that Ebou Sowe provided clarification and outlined the process by which the statements were acquired from the first accused individual, Ousainou Bojang. Additionally, DPP Yusuf asserted that no aspect of the voire dire undermined the credibility of the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 concerning the acquisition and documentation of Ousainou Bojang’s statements, which are under scrutiny in the voire dire. “In the evidence, he (Ousainou Bojang) denied giving the statements in other words he disown the statements. Denying the statements is not a reason to stop the court from admitting confessional statements. Rather the court ought to admit those statements.
Throughout the evidence of DW1 (Ousainou Bojang), there is nowhere his evidence showing that he was being drugged while giving him statements,” DPP Yusuf told the Court.
The case was adjourned to the 6th of March 2024 for the ruling of the voire dire.