Defense Counsel Challenges State’s Request to Halt Proceedings in High-Profile Police Shooting Trial

Defense counsel for the second accused in the ongoing high-profile police shooting murder trial involving defendants Ousainou and Amie Bojang, has filed a formal objection to the government’s request to pause proceedings, arguing that the move is baseless and would undermine the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

Adama Sillah, the attorney representing Amie Bojang, submitted an affidavit opposing the state’s application for a stay. The government is seeking to challenge a June 10 ruling by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, which ordered three senior government officials to appear in court as witnesses in the ongoing murder trial of Ousainou and Amie Bojang.

The affidavit, sworn by Jarra Sanneh, a legal assistant at Mari Bantang Chambers, was filed on June 16. Sanneh stated she had the authority to act on behalf of the defense and was familiar with the details of the case.

The defense argues that the government’s application is “frivolous and vexatious,” contending that it is a calculated attempt to prevent the court’s lawful order from taking effect. The filing further claims the state is seeking to block the defense from fully exercising its rights and from presenting critical testimony.

“There are no cogent or substantial reasons to justify granting the state’s request,” the affidavit states. It also argues that the proper avenue for contesting a subpoena is through individual applications by the summoned witnesses, not by the prosecution.

The defense emphasized that a stay of proceedings is particularly inappropriate in a criminal matter, especially given that the defendants have been in custody since their arrest, raising concerns about their rights to liberty and due process.

The affidavit specifically refutes several key assertions made by the state in its motion, insisting that halting the trial would be contrary to the interests of justice. Defense counsel stressed that the court’s prior order was issued on its merits and should stand to protect the accused’s right to a fair hearing.

Additionally, the defense pointed out that the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically suspend trial proceedings unless explicitly directed by the appellate court.

Sillah accused the prosecution of attempting to “circumvent a lawful court order” and obstruct the appearance of key government witnesses whose testimony could assist the court in establishing the facts of the case.

Finally, the affidavit argued that granting the state request would prejudice the defence’s case, leading to a “gross miscarriage of justice” and robbing the defence of their right to a fair hearing and trial.

Defense counsel argues that rejecting the state’s application serves the interests of justice and upholds the right to a fair trial, describing the motion as “vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of the court’s process.”

The state is expected to respond on points of law, after which presiding judge Justice Jaiteh will deliver a ruling on whether to grant the state’s request on Monday.