Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL) – In a dramatic turn of events during the trial of Ousainou Bojang and his sister for alleged murder, a crucial piece of evidence was admitted into the court record despite objections from the State. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing the defendants, tendered a call log printout of Detective Ebou Sowe into evidence during cross-examination. However, the State objected to its admissibility.

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh ultimately ruled in favor of admitting the printout of the call log, detailing Detective Sowe’s calls. The State expressed its intention to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal.

During the cross-examination, Senior Counsel Lamin J. Darboe questioned Detective Sowe about the events surrounding the alleged murder. He asked about the actions of the group chasing the accused and the details provided by witnesses. Detective Sowe confirmed that the accused was not caught at the scene, despite the presence of military officers.

Darboe also questioned Detective Sowe about the recovery of the gun allegedly used in the murder. Detective Sowe stated that he was present when the gun was found but left before it was lifted. He clarified that the gun was found dismantled, and he had personally seen only some of the pieces.

The cross-examination took a crucial turn when Darboe presented a printed call log record from Qcell to Detective Sowe, verifying that the number on the document matched his own. Detective Sowe confirmed this, stating that his name and number were noted on the document as the subscriber.

Counsel Darboe then requested to submit the call log associated with the number into evidence, accompanied by a certificate from Qcell. The Director of Public Prosecution objected, citing that the document was computer-generated and the signature on it did not belong to the maker of the document.

Despite the objection, Justice Jaiteh ruled in favor of admitting the document into evidence, stating that it met the legal requirements as outlined in the Evidence Act. The State indicated its intention to appeal this ruling.

The trial is adjourned to allow the State to pick up the ruling for their appeal. The admission of this evidence could have significant implications for the outcome of the trial.