Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The murder trial of Hadim Jeng, Muhammed Njie, and Muhammed Touray continued on February 24, 2026, before Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh at the High Court in Banjul, with the court admitting into evidence voluntary and cautionary statements allegedly made by the accused, despite vigorous objections from the defense.
The three men are standing trial in connection with the killing of Ousman Jarju, a former staff member of the National Audit Office (NAO), who was allegedly stabbed to death during a robbery near the Palma Rima Beach area on September 8, 2021. They face charges of conspiracy to commit a felony, robbery with violence, and murder.
Defense Seeks Bail for Ill Accused
At the start of proceedings, defense counsel informed the court that the third accused, Muhammed Touray, was unwell and made an oral application for bail on medical grounds to allow him to seek proper treatment.
However, Justice Jaiteh noted lingering concerns over the authenticity of birth certificates previously presented in court. The issue has been central to earlier rulings in which the court determined that the accused should be tried as adults rather than juveniles.
Independent Witness Credibility Challenged
The hearing was dominated by a tense cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1), Lamin S. Manneh, as defense counsel sought to undermine the reliability of statements obtained from the accused at the Kotu Police Station.
A key point of contention was the role of Mattar Ceesay, who served as an independent witness during the recording of the statements. Defense counsel presented a court document suggesting that Ceesay does not speak Mandinka, the language in which the statements were allegedly given.
The prosecution objected, arguing that the defense had failed to properly link the document to the claims made in court. Under oath, Mr. Manneh maintained that the independent witness was capable of understanding the language.
“The witness [Mattar Ceesay] speaks Mandinka. He converses in Mandinka,” Manneh testified.
The defense further alleged that Mr. Ceesay was frequently used by police as a “professional” independent witness, sometimes without being physically present. However, Manneh rejected this claim, insisting that Ceesay was properly invited and that the procedures followed were lawful.
State Counsel Drammeh also objected strongly to this line of questioning, accusing the defense of attempting to waste the court’s time by raising issues from unrelated cases.
Questions Over Documents and Identity
The defense also raised concerns about documentation in the case file. When presented with ten documents, Manneh confirmed his signature on most but disowned two, explaining that they were photocopies lacking his official credentials.
Another dispute arose over the name appearing on the statements. While the documents bore the name “Lamin Manneh,” the witness clarified that his official name is “Lamin S. Manneh.” He also explained that while initial statements were taken in 2021, additional investigative developments were recorded in 2022.
Court Admits Statements, Adjourns Case
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Jaiteh admitted the voluntary and cautionary statements into evidence, noting that there was no formal objection at that specific point to prevent their admission.
The prosecution witness was subsequently discharged, and the case was adjourned to March 23, 2026, for continuation.
The three accused remain in custody at the Mile 2 Central Prison as the trial proceeds.
