By Landing Ceesay
The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), AM Yusuf, has Informed Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court of the Gambia that his office would appeal against the court’s decision to admit Detective Ebou Sowe’s Call Records into Evidence.
During questioning, Detective Sowe informed the court of his possession of two telephone numbers. He proceeded to write down his official number, providing it to the court for verification.
Following this confirmation, Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing Ousainou Bojang, presented a printed call record from Qcell.
Counsel LJ Darboe then passed the call records to Detective Sowe to cross-reference if his telephone number was included.
After a thorough review of the document, Detective Sowe affirmed to the court that the number listed therein matched his official telephone number.
Furthermore, Detective Sowe stated that the document correctly identified him as the subscriber, listing both his name and telephone number.
Counsel LJ Darboe proceeded to request the admission of the call records as evidence, supported by a certificate from the producing company, Qcell. However, Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) AM Yusuf raised an objection to the submission of Detective Sowe’s call records as evidence, citing Section 22 of the Evidence Act, which pertains to computer-generated documents.
“My lord, we have an objection. The call log sought to be tendered is a computer generated document,” DPP Yusuf told the court.
DPP Yusuf informed the court that the document bears the endorsement of Omar Cham, identified as the Legal Officer of Qcell, who previously testified solely in the capacity of Qcell’s Legal Officer, not as a computer analyst.
DPP Yusuf contended that the court’s ruling stipulates that only the creator of a document can present it, and since Omar Cham is not the creator, he cannot produce the document.
During his response to DPP Yusuf, Counsel LJ Darboe contended that Omar Cham, in his capacity as the Legal Officer of Qcell, acted within the bounds of his authority by providing the requested documents. He emphasized that such requests typically go through the Legal Officer of the company, and the accompanying document attested to the computer’s flawless condition when the data was generated.
Furthermore, Counsel LJ Darboe asserted that the information in question was already contained and preserved in the Qcell call log, merely necessitating printing.
Concluding his argument, Counsel LJ Darboe urged the court to overrule the objection and accept the document as evidence in the interest of justice.
In rendering his decision, Honorable Justice Jaiteh stated that the objection raised by DPP Yusuf is immaterial, given that the computer was functioning correctly. Additionally, Detective Sowe himself verified that the document contained his number.
Additionally, Justice Jaiteh stated that the document satisfied the criteria laid out in Section 22 of the Evidence Act.
Furthermore, the judge ruled that Detective Sowe had already authenticated the information on the document, leading to its admission into evidence and its designation as Defense Exhibits D4 and D4E.
Shortly after Hon. Justice Jaiteh’s Ruling, DPP Yusuf informed the court that they would exercise their constitutional rights and appeal against the decision to admit the document into evidence.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh then asked him to pick up the ruling on Tuesday.