Gambiaj.com – (Banjul, The Gambia) – The High Court of The Gambia, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, on Monday admitted into evidence an audio recording between journalist Bakary Mankajang and prosecution witness Mama Jabbie in the ongoing trial of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang following the assassination of two police officers at Sukuta Traffic Lights.
The proceedings resumed with the continuation of the testimony of defence witness 10 (DW10), Bakary Mankajang, who told the court that he had conducted an interview with Jabbie prior to the institution of the case. He confirmed that both edited and unedited versions of the audio were in his possession.
Defence Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing the first accused, disclosed that although the recordings had not been shared with the prosecution earlier, he was now in possession of three versions—both edited and unedited—and moved to tender the unedited version.
The recordings were played in court in the Mandinka language, after which Justice Jaiteh directed that the clearer, unedited version be transcribed and translated.
Darboe argued that the audio was relevant, as it captured the witness’s own version of events given voluntarily. Counsel Adama Sillah, representing the second accused, Amie Bojang, raised no objection.
However, the prosecution team, led by Counsel A. A. Wakawa and Counsel F. Touray objected strongly, citing Section 22 of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate of authenticity for computer-derived evidence.
The prosecution argued that the recordings lacked certification and were therefore inadmissible. In response, Darboe insisted that the evidence was not computer-generated but a direct recording of a conversation, and should be admitted without certification.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh invoked Section 220 of the Evidence Act, which obliges a witness to produce documents in their possession when directed by the court, unless public interest is at stake—a factor not applicable in this case. He emphasized that the key test of admissibility under Section 3 is relevance.
“Upon listening to the content, the court found that the audio recording is relevant to the issues in controversy in this case,” he ruled.
Justice Jaiteh dismissed the prosecution’s objection as “misconceived,” clarifying that the flash drive containing the recording was merely a storage device and not computer-generated evidence within the meaning of Section 22. He warned against overextending the law to cover ordinary digital documents such as pleadings or affidavits.
“The flash drive in question merely stores the audio interview; it does not generate or process the data,” he said.
The court admitted the flash drive into evidence as Exhibit D37 and ordered that the contents be transcribed, with copies of the transcript to be provided to both the prosecution and the defence.
The matter was adjourned to Tuesday, 14 October 2025, for the continuation of DW10’s evidence-in-chief.
