By Isatou Sarr
Defence counsel Adama Sillah has urged the High Court to acquit Amie Bojang, the second accused in the Sukuta-Jabang Traffic Lights shooting case, citing gaps in the investigation and legal inconsistencies.
In a reply on points of law filed before Justice Jaiteh, Sillah argued that the State’s case is weak, incomplete, and based on irrelevant legal precedents. He said the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Batch Samba Faye v. The State (2014–2015), he stressed that the State must prove both that a death occurred and that the accused caused it.
The defence acknowledged the deaths of two police officers, confirmed by pathologist Professor Gabriel Ogun (PW7), but said there is no link between the deaths and the first accused, Ousainou Bojang.
Sillah also challenged the ballistics evidence. He said although an expert (PW12) matched shell casings to a recovered pistol (Exhibit P28), the prosecution failed to connect the weapon to Ousainou Bojang. He rejected the relevance of Akpan v. State and Archibong v. State, noting that those cases involved a direct link between the accused and the weapon, which is absent in this case.
On procedural issues, the defence highlighted the absence of an identification parade. Sillah said relying on a witness description of a “tall man” amounts to speculation and violates Amie Bojang’s right to a fair hearing under Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution. He referred to Henry Otti v. The State, which underscores the importance of identification parades when a suspect’s identity is disputed.
The defence further contested the terrorism charges, arguing that the State did not comply with mandatory provisions under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Sillah said Section 60 and the Second Schedule require video recording of suspects during detention, which was not done, rendering the allegations legally untenable.
Regarding the accessory charge, the defence said the State failed to prove that Amie Bojang knowingly helped her brother evade arrest. She testified that she assisted him in seeking spiritual guidance after threats from a “white lady” to leak private videos. Prosecution witnesses (PW9 and PW11) provided no evidence that she knew of the killings.
The defence also raised concerns about her detention, saying she was held beyond the 72-hour constitutional limit under Section 19 and in the same cells as male suspects, violating the Women’s Act 2010 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Sillah criticised statements by senior State officials (DW6, DW7, DW8) during a post-incident press briefing, which alleged that the assailant was part of a six-member rebel group from Casamance. He said these claims were later admitted to be unverified.
Citing the Nigerian Court of Appeal ruling in Major Hamza Al-Mustapha v. The State, Sillah argued that poorly conducted investigations undermine the prosecution’s case. He said that since the State failed to prove the principal murder offence against Ousainou Bojang