Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The High Court of The Gambia has ruled against admitting a cautionary statement in the trial of Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang, citing procedural and evidentiary flaws.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, delivering the decision on Tuesday, said the statement, allegedly made by Defence Witness 4, Lamin Bojang, failed to meet the legal standards for admissibility under Gambian law.
The prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions Abdurrahman Maitama Yusuf argued that the statement was relevant to their case. However, defense counsels Lamin J. Darboe and Adama Sillah strongly opposed its inclusion.
Lawyer Darboe, representing the first accused, said the statement was unsigned by both the alleged maker and the recording officer. “The purported cautionary statement bears no signature of DW4, Lamin Bojang,” he told the court, adding that it did not meet basic evidentiary requirements.
Counsel Sillah, for the second accused, highlighted that the document was a photocopy without any legal basis for admitting secondary evidence. He also noted the absence of an independent witness during the recording, a requirement under Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act.
Although the prosecution contended that the statement concerned only the first accused, the judge held that it could also affect the second accused, who is jointly charged with conspiracy. “The second accused has sufficient legal standing to challenge any piece of evidence that could impact her defense,” Justice Jaiteh said.
In his ruling, the judge cited several key deficiencies in the statement. “The cautionary statement bears neither the signature of the alleged maker nor that of the officer who recorded it,” he noted. “Such a document cannot demonstrate voluntariness, authorship, or authenticity, undermining its reliability.”
On the photocopy issue, the judge pointed out that the prosecution failed to explain why the original was unavailable. “No witness testified to the loss or destruction of the original, and the criteria for admitting secondary evidence have not been met,” he said.
The court further emphasized the absence of an independent witness during the statement’s recording, calling it a serious procedural breach. “This omission raises serious concerns about the legality of the statement,” Justice Jaiteh concluded.
As a result, the court rejected the statement, marking it as “Rejected 1” and excluding it from the record. The trial continues at the High Court in Banjul.
