Ousainou and Amie Bojang escorted to court
By Landing Ceesay
Police Detective Ebou Sowe, serving as the Sixth Prosecution Witness in the trial of Ousainou Bojang (1st accused) and Amie Bojang (2nd accused), informed the court that a panel assigned to investigate the deaths of two police officers recommended prosecuting the accused pair.
Ousainou Bojang is charged with the murder of two members of the Gambia Police Intervention Unit (PIU), while Amie Bojang faces charges of being an accessory after the fact of murder.
Under cross-examination by the defense counsels for Ousainou and Amie Bojang, Detective Sowe disclosed the panel’s recommendation for prosecution.
“What was the recommendation of the Panel?” Counsel Sillah, the Lawyer representing Amie Bojang asked Detective Sowe.
“The recommendation was for the accused to be prosecuted,” Detective Sowe told the court.
When asked about Amie Bojang’s presence at the crime scene, he stated they had no information indicating her presence there.
Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing Ousainou Bojang, questioned him about his alleged presence at the Crime Scene and provided him with Detective Sowe’s call log from Africell.
“Detective Sowe, look at the entries of the 12th September 2023, Defense Exhibit D5, and tell the court where you were,” Counsel LJ Darboe told Detective Sowe.
“On the defence exhibit D5, it has 3 columns, and the timings are 17:27, 17:51, and 21:24. And these locations are Serekunda and Bambo respectively,” Detective Sowe told the court.
Detective Sowe testified in court, confirming that on September 13th, 2023, he accompanied a team of investigators from the Anti-Crime Unit to Brufut. Additionally, Detective Sowe informed journalists that they subsequently returned to the Police Anti-Crime Unit in Banjulinding from Brufut.
“If you look at the entries from 12th September 2023, to the 13th of September 2023, were you anywhere on the scene of the incident according to your telephone log.?” Counsel LJ Darboe asked Detective Sowe.
“As per his call log, the location does not show the crime scene. Because this particular number is not my official working line. This is my personal line and the Brufut junction on the call log had to do with my movement on that particular night,” Detective Sowe told the court.
“But you were clearly at the Brufut junction, were you not?” Counsel LJ Darboe quizzed Detective Sowe. “Yes, I was,” Detective Sowe responded.
Counsel LJ Darboe further quizzed Detective Sowe that even though he denied the number being his official telephone number, the call log indicated that he was at the Brufut junction.
Detective Sowe responded in the positive and stated, “That is why on the log you could see on that particular day was only SMS, no call. Clearly indicating that it was casual, which has nothing to do with my profession.”
“So, the reason why is not shown that you were at the traffic lights, is because you were never there,” Counsel LJ Darboe told Detective Sowe.
“My lord, this is a call log, and if I did not receive any call or SMS while at that particular place, it will definitely not be indicated in my call log. But my Qcell line would clearly indicate that I was at the crime scene,” Detective Sowe told the court.
“I am putting it to you that Ismaila Bojang, the military officer (PW1) was never at the crime scene,” Counsel LJ Darboe submitted.
“That’s not correct because I met Ismaila Bojang at the crime scene,” Detective Sowe responded.
“I am further putting it to you that PW2, Bakary Jarjou was never at the crime scene,” Counsel LJ Darboe submitted again.
“That is also not correct, I met the same witness at the crime scene,” Detective Sowe told the court.
Detective Sowe further told the court that he also met Omar Jallow, another military officer, at the crime scene.
The case has been adjourned to Tuesday for continuation.