Ousainou Bojang and the Defense Counsels Failed to Convince Justice Jaiteh to Rule in their Favor

By: Alieu Jallow

Following the just-concluded testimonies by both the state witnesses and the two accused persons (Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang), as the court addressed by both counsels, Ousainou and his defense team’s submissions couldn’t stand the test of time in convincing Presiding Judge Justice Ebrimsa Jaiteh to rule in their favor following allegations of the first accused being beaten and drugged to obtain voluntary and cautionary statements from him by the police anti-crime unit. In his address, Justice Jaiteh said the ruling was predicated upon an objection raised by Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, counsel for the 1st Accused person, on the admissibility of the cautionary and voluntary statements allegedly made by the 1st Accused Person. The 1st Accused testified that he was given coffee and he drank it and went into sleep.

“The 1st Accused did not state how the coffee affected his health other than putting him to sleep and did not raise any complaint to the police or any other person of any ill-health as a result of the coffee he drank. He also did not produce or subject himself to any toxicology test to suggest that he was drugged. The 1st Accused testified that he was beaten to confess, but he refused to confess by the officers who beat him, and I wonder why did he then thumbprint blank/empty papers without knowing the content of the said papers? By the 1st Accused thumbprinting, he thus authenticates the content of the papers. At this juncture, the testimony of the 1st Accused person raises more questions on his credibility as to the involuntariness of the cautionary and voluntary statements,” Justice highlighted.

Justice Jaiteh went on to emphasize that in his view, a reasonable person who was mercilessly beaten to confess but refused to do so would not merely thumbprint blank papers without knowing the content that would be written on it, noting how that defeats logic and reason to believe the testimony of the 1st Accused person in this situation.

“I am not convinced and persuaded by his testimony as to the involuntariness of the extra-judicial statements. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that Exhibit VD2 to VD14, the cautionary statement and voluntary statements, are in compliance with section 31(2) of the Evidence Act and thus substantially complied with the Judges’ Rules and therefore admissible in evidence as exhibits, and this I shall hold as a fact. There was no evidence led on the witness statement of Ebou Sowe, and therefore the same shall be admitted into evidence as an exhibit,” he outlined.

The presiding judge further outlined that having perused the record of proceedings, the 1st Accused did not accept charges as stated on prosecution Exhibits P2, P3, P4, and P5(a),(b)&(c); however, he accepted the charges on Exhibits VD3 to VD14, thus confirming that the 1st Accused accepted some charges but denied others charges.

“It follows, therefore, that the testimony of the independent witness is credible, and I believe him. I do not believe that the independent witness receiving and making calls during the recording of the extra-judicial statement violates the law or the Judges’ Rules and cannot vitiate said statements. In view of the fact that the recording of Exhibits VD3 to VD14 is in full compliance with the Evidence Act and the Judges’ Rules, the said statements are admissible. I am also mindful that the 1st accused denied the charges and subsequently accepted the said charges will be considered in light of the totality of the evidence adduced at the end of this trial. The fact that the police have adhered to these Rules in their investigation of a crime would guide this court in determining the weight to be attached to any confessional statement made by the 1st Accused person. The extra-judicial statements were read over to the 1st Accused and confirmed in the presence of an independent witness is sufficient to render the said statements admissible. It would be in the interest of justice to admit these extra-judicial statements as they are relevant in this trial, and the weight to be attached shall be determined at the end of the trial.”

In his conclusion, Justice Jaiteh noted from the foregoing reasons and in the interest of justice and fairness, he admitted the following statements into evidence as exhibits and marked them as follows:

1. Exhibit VD2 as Exhibit P6 – cautionary statement of the 1st Accused person dated the 15th September 2023;
2. Exhibit VD3 as Exhibit P7 – voluntary statement of the 1st Accused on the charge of Assault Causing Grievous Bodily harm dated the 15th September 2023;
3. Exhibit VD4 as Exhibit P8 – Voluntary statement on Grievous Bodily Harm dated the 15th Sept. 2023;
4. Exhibit VD5 as Exhibit P9 – Voluntary statement on Grievous Bodily Harm dated the 15th Sept;
5. Exhibit VD6 as Exhibit P10 – Voluntary statement on Attempt to murder dated the 15th Sept. 2023
6. Exhibit VD7 as Exhibit P11– Voluntary statement on Attempt to murder dated 15th Sept. 2023
7. Exhibit VD8 as Exhibit P12– Voluntary statement on Attempt to murder dated the 15th September 2023;
8. Exhibit VD9 as Exhibit P13 – Voluntary statement on the charge of murder dated the 15th September 2023;
9. Exhibit VD10 as Exhibit P14 – Voluntary statement on the charge of murder dated the 15th September 2023;
10. Exhibit VD11 as Exhibit P15– Voluntary statement on the charge of murder dated the 15th September 2023;
11. Exhibit VD12 as Exhibit P16 – Voluntary statement on the charge of prohibition of acts of terrorism dated the 15th September 2023;
12. Exhibit VD13 as Exhibit P17 – Voluntary statement on the charge of prohibition of acts of terrorism dated the 15th September 2023;
13. Exhibit VD14 as Exhibit P18 – Voluntary statement on the charge of prohibition of acts of terrorism dated the 15th September 2023;
14. Exhibit VD15 as Exhibit P19 – The witness statement of Ebou Sowe dated the 10th November 2023.
15. Exhibit VD1 as REJECT 1 – the cautionary statement of Ousainou Bojang dated the 14th September 2023.

“In spite of the fact that these extra-judicial statements are now admitted into evidence, it is incumbent upon this court to determine the weight pursuant to section 96 of the Evidence Act, 1994, to be attached to it before proceeding to act on them,” he concluded.

The case resumes today for a continuation of the main trial.