By: Dawda M. Jallow
Kanifing Magistrate Court yesterday marked a black pistol connected to the Fajara shooting case for identification purposes.
Presiding Magistrate A. Manneh designated the firearm as ID1.
The matter arose during the last adjourned sitting on 16 February 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender the pistol through witness PW2, who testified that the firearm shown in court was the same one he observed at the police station.
Defence counsel E. Badjie objected, arguing that the prosecution had not laid a proper foundation for the pistol’s admissibility.
Citing the Evidence Act 1994, Badjie said the law does not expressly provide for items to be “tendered for identification.” He further pointed out that the pistol had not been properly described in terms of make, model, serial number, or distinguishing marks, and noted that PW2 was not the recovery officer. Counsel argued that the sudden introduction of the firearm amounted to a trial by ambush and urged the court to reject the application.
In response, Inspector Cherno Baba Jallow clarified that the pistol was being tendered strictly for identification, not as a formal exhibit.
He described the defence’s objection as misconceived and requested the court to overrule it.
In her ruling, Magistrate Manneh noted that while the Evidence Act does not specifically mention “tendering for identification,” it also does not prohibit the practice. She explained that marking items for identification is a standard procedure in criminal cases, allowing objects to be preserved for the record pending the laying of a proper evidential foundation.
The court acknowledged that before an exhibit is formally admitted, the prosecution must provide evidence of relevance, identification, and, where applicable, recovery and chain of custody. At this stage, PW2’s testimony served only to recognize the pistol, and he was not the recovery officer. Formal admission would require further evidence.
Addressing concerns of trial by ambush, the magistrate held that merely showing a physical object during witness testimony does not, on its own, violate the accused’s right to a fair hearing.
Magistrate Manneh concluded that the pistol was prima facie relevant to the charges of attempted murder and unlawful possession of a firearm.
She ruled there was no legal barrier to marking it for identification, overruled the defence objection, and formally marked the black pistol as ID1.
