Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The State has filed a 17-ground amended notice of appeal challenging the High Court’s acquittal and discharge of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, and is seeking to have the judgment overturned and replaced with convictions and sentences.
The appeal, signed and filed by Director of Public Prosecutions Abdurrahman Maitama Yusuf on April 29, 2026, contests the entirety of the judgment delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh on March 30, 2026. The matter is now before a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Naceesay Salla-Wadda, Bassiru.V.P. Mahoney, and Amina Saho-Ceesay.
The State is asking the appellate court to set aside Justice Jaiteh’s ruling and substitute it with convictions and sentences “commensurate with the gravity of the offenses charged.”
However, before the substantive appeal can proceed, the Court of Appeal must first determine the State’s application seeking leave to regularize the filing process.
Confessional Evidence at the Centre of Appeal
A major plank of the State’s challenge concerns the trial judge’s treatment of Ousainou Bojang’s cautionary statement, admitted into evidence as Exhibit P6 following a voir dire proceeding.
According to the appeal, Justice Jaiteh erred by requiring corroboration for the confession before relying on it.
Prosecutors argue that a direct and unequivocal confession can, in law, sustain a conviction on its own and that Bojang’s subsequent retraction during his defense amounted to an afterthought that did not diminish its evidential value.
The State further contends that the trial judge failed to consider the confession alongside testimony from prosecution witnesses, including PW3 and PW13, resulting in what it describes as a selective assessment of the prosecution’s evidence.
The appeal also challenges the court’s acceptance of Bojang’s alibi defense. Prosecutors argue that the alibi was raised for the first time during the defense stage rather than during police investigations, thereby denying investigators any opportunity to verify it.
According to the State, the trial judge wrongly attached probative value to the late alibi despite what prosecutors describe as compelling evidence, including multiple confessional statements linking Bojang to the offenses.
Dispute Over Identification and Flight
The State also disputes the High Court’s approach to identification evidence.
In its filing, the prosecution argues that Justice Jaiteh imposed an unnecessary burden by requiring positive visual identification under the principles established in R v Turnbull. Prosecutors maintain that Bojang’s identity had already been established through his confessional statements and the testimony of several witnesses.
Another key issue concerns Bojang’s departure from the country shortly after the incident.
The prosecution argues that the trial judge treated his flight as insignificant after accepting the explanation that he fled because a white woman had circulated a nude photograph of him on social media.
The State contends that flight immediately after the commission of an offense is recognized circumstantial evidence that may indicate consciousness of guilt and should have been accorded greater weight.
Challenges to Evidence and Exhibits
The appeal also attacks the High Court’s findings regarding the weapon allegedly used in the incident.
Prosecutors insist that testimony from prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 consistently identified the weapon as a pistol and that this evidence was supported by ballistic expert PW12, Bubacarr Bah, who identified it as a 9mm Makarov pistol.
Several grounds of appeal focus on documentary and digital exhibits admitted during the trial.
The State argues that Exhibit D38, an audio recording obtained from Kerr Fatou Online Media and converted by defense witness DW13, lacked a proper legal foundation because the witness had no direct knowledge of its source or authenticity. Prosecutors also point to what they describe as inconsistencies regarding the computer used to process the recording.
Exhibit D37, a WhatsApp printout produced from defense counsel’s computer, is challenged as secondary evidence because the original device was not tendered before the court.
The State also questions the authenticity of Exhibits D16 and D36, both Africell call logs, citing identical timestamps with court summonses and alleging that one document contained markings suggesting possible tampering.
In Ground 14, prosecutors accuse the trial judge of evaluating individual pieces of evidence separately rather than assessing their cumulative effect. They argue that while each strand of evidence may have appeared insufficient in isolation, the totality of the evidence pointed to Bojang’s involvement.
State Challenges Amie Bojang’s Acquittal
The State is also appealing the acquittal of Amie Bojang on the charge of being an accessory after the fact.
According to prosecutors, the High Court’s findings regarding Ousainou Bojang directly influenced her discharge. The State argues that the court failed to properly consider evidence alleging that Amie Bojang arranged transportation that facilitated her brother’s escape to Senegal on September 13, 2023.
The final ground of appeal asserts that the judgment was “unreasonable, unwarranted, and cannot be supported” when considered against the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.
The State has also reserved the right to file additional grounds once the complete trial record becomes available.
Leave a Reply