By: Nicholas Bass
Banjul High Court yesterday rejected moves by prosecution to tender the fourth prosecution witness, Lamin Bojang’s statement as exhibit.
The court presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh rejected the prosecution’s admissibility of Bojang’s statement in the ongoing murder case of Ousainou Bojang, accused of killing two police officers and injure another.
The court’s decision came up when the fourth defence witness, Lamin Bojang under cross-examination with the Director of Public Prosecution confirmed giving a statement to police officer Malang Sanyang on 13 September, 2023.
The Director of Public Prosecution, Am Yusuf then applied to the court to have the cautionary statement of Lamin to be admitted and marked as exhibit.
But counsel Lamin .J. Darboe, representing the 1st accused, Ousainou Bojang vehemently argued that the prosecution’s application was not in accordance with the Evidence Act.
Counsel Darboe deduced that the cautionary statement of DW4, Lamin did not indicate the presence of an independent witness at the time it was taken, adding that Lamin [DW4] did not sign to authenticate that the statement in question came from him.
Counsel Darboe claimed that the police who took the cautionary statement of Lamin failed to sign which according to him was contrary to the Evidence Act.
Counsel Adama Sillah, appearing for the second accused, Amie Bojang stated section 31 (2) required the presence of an independent witness when taking cautionary statement which according to him such should also be signed or thump printed by the giver and taker of the statement.
‘’Extra-judiciary statements must be made in the presence of an independent witness,’’ Counsel Sillah pointed out.
Justice Jaiteh ruling on that stated that extra-judiciary statements should be made in the presence of an independent witness, adding that both the maker and the taker of the statement should sign to authenticate the statement.
He stated that the court in its finding revealed that the cautionary statement of DW4, Lamin Bojang did not bear the signatures of the witness and the police officer, noting that a statement made during police investigation ‘’must’’ be signed by the maker and the taker of the statement.
In his conclusion, Justice Jaiteh stated that the absence of the signatures of the maker and the taker of the statement undermined the authenticity of the statement, deduced that no witness was presented by the prosecution surrounding the circumstance why such should be admitted as exhibit. He ruled that the court finds out that the statement was unsigned, but marked it as P rejected.
