By: Cecilia E.L Mendy
The High Court on Thursday admitted several items recovered during the investigation of the robbery and assault case involving accused Salieu Bah, dismissing defence objections over non-disclosure.
Investigative officer Dodou Ndom of Brusubi Police Station, appearing as witness PW1, identified a white T-shirt, a small bottle allegedly containing alcohol with a red top, a pair of grey plastic slippers, and a broken bottle in a blue bag as items linked to the alleged offence.
The prosecution argued that the items, being physical exhibits rather than documents, are not subject to statutory disclosure requirements under the Evidence Act, 1994.
Defence counsel E. Colley objected, particularly to the T-shirt, claiming it had not been disclosed prior to trial. The defence cited the Court of Appeal case Halifa Sallah, Omar Jallow, and Hamat Bah v The State (2002–2008) GLR Vol. 2 at 381, asserting that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to provide full disclosure, including witness lists, statements, documents, and other evidence. Colley also sought the exclusion of the small bottle, arguing it was irrelevant.
State counsel A. Gibba said physical exhibits fall outside the statutory definition of documents, and that failure to disclose does not automatically render them inadmissible. He cited previous rulings allowing procedural remedies, such as cross-examination or further disclosure, to address potential prejudice to the defence.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh ruled that, although the defence’s concerns were valid, there was no evidence of an ambush by the prosecution. The court found the items relevant to the investigation and directed that the defence be allowed to examine them during cross-examination. The small bottle was also deemed relevant due to its connection to the events under investigation.
The court admitted the white T-shirt, small bottle with a red top, grey slippers, and broken bottle in a blue bag into evidence. The prosecution was ordered to immediately disclose all materials relating to the exhibits, and the defence was granted full liberty to challenge their evidential value during the trial. The judge noted that the probative value of the exhibits would be assessed in the context of all evidence presented.
The case was adjourned to 21 April 2026 for the continuation of proceedings.