The trial of three men accused in connection with a violent robbery at the United Vegetable Oil Company resumed on Tuesday with testimony from a senior police officer, as the court grappled with the admissibility of key statements attributed to the defendants.
Testifying as the prosecution’s third witness, Police Officer Karalang Badjie told the court he obtained both cautionary and voluntary statements from two of the accused—Abdoulie Jallow and Losseni Diabate—following their arrest in relation to the alleged December 31, 2024, robbery at the company’s premises near Saro Denton Bridge in Banjul.
The three defendants—Mr. Jallow, Mr. Diabate, and Ansumana Jarju—face charges of conspiracy to commit a felony, robbery with violence, and disabling to commit a felony or misdemeanor.
Officer Badjie, assigned to the Serious Crime Unit in Banjul, said he interviewed Mr. Jallow on February 16, 2025, after being directed to obtain a formal statement from him. He testified that Mr. Jallow agreed to provide a statement voluntarily and that an independent witness—a carpenter named Wahab Manneh—was present during the process.
He outlined the statement-taking process as follows: “I first asked him whether he wished to make any statement with regard to what he disclosed to the police during the investigation, and he affirmed by saying yes. I then looked for an independent witness, and, with the help of the in-charge, I was able to get an independent witness, one Wahab Manneh.”
According to Officer Badjie, Mr. Jallow opted to provide his statement in English. The statement was documented, read back to him for accuracy, and thumb-printed by both Mr. Jallow and the independent witness.
Officer Badjie further testified that a separate voluntary statement was obtained from Mr. Jallow after informing him of the charges to be brought against him—robbery and conspiracy under Section 368 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Jallow reportedly confirmed the contents and again affixed his thumbprint in the presence of the independent witness.
The same procedure, Officer Badjie said, was followed on February 10, 2025, in obtaining cautionary and voluntary statements from Mr. Diabate, who chose to speak in Mandinka. Officer Badjie said Mr. Diabate also confirmed the statements before they were signed and submitted.
State Counsel M.D. Mballow, leading the prosecution, moved to tender both sets of statements into evidence. However, the defense opposed the move, triggering a heated exchange over their admissibility.
Defense counsel E. Sanneh raised a two-pronged objection to the prosecution’s motion, arguing that the statements made by the first accused, Abdoulie Jallow, were not given voluntarily. Saying, “Simply, the first accused, Jallow, made that cautionary statement as well as the voluntary statement because of the threat he received,” Sanneh told the court.
He further contended that upon his arrest, Mr. Jallow consistently denied any involvement in the alleged offense. “when the first accused was arrested, he did not admit anything to the police apart from telling the police he was not aware of the allegation. His elder brother, Alagie Juldeh Jallow, was arrested and kept in custody for four days at Barra police station.”
State Counsel Mballow challenged the submission, contending that Counsel Sanneh’s reference to Alagie Juldeh Jallow constituted a factual assertion made from the bar—one not supported by evidence and therefore not subject to cross-examination. He urged the court to strike that portion of the argument from the record.
In response, Counsel Sanneh contended that State Counsel Mballow had misinterpreted the applicable legal standards.
He maintained that a legal submission must be accompanied by relevant factual context, asserting,”counsel is entitled to know the position of the law he cited with the fact leading to that legal submission,” and that his submissions were not in isolation but “in support of the legal submissions made earlier and because they are relevant as cited in the Evidence Act.”
Sanneh concluded by asserting that the submission was crucial “to give the court our clear position of the objection in law” and “for the court to have a totality of the nature of our objection so that it can adjudicate fairly.”
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, when it is expected to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of the statements in question.