By: Dawda Baldeh
Bob Keita’s lead defense counsel LS Camara on Tuesday 11th October denied the admission of the DNA report to be tendered as evidence in court after the forensic expert from Ghana Superintendent Edward Kofi Abban opened it in court.
The forensic officer, who told the court that he holds a doctorate degree in forensic science, began his testimony by explaining to the court how he got involved in the case. However, the DNA expert could not proceed for the court to know the paternity of deceased Baby Muhammed as senior defense counsel LS Camara insisted on the admissibility of the DNA report as evidence.
“My lord, I received information from my commissioner CID informing me that the Inspector General of Police of The Gambia had a case that requires a DNA and that they would need the forensic lab in Ghana to assist the IGP in Gambia have a DNA examination; so, we should prepare the laboratory to receive the blood samples from The Gambia for analysis,” the forensic expert from Ghana told the court.
Mr. Abban told the court that on 6th September the forensic office in Ghana received an officer in the name of Francis Jatta who came to the lab with the blood samples collected from The Gambia.
The witness further informed the court that the samples were received and on the 7th September he personally completed a chain of custody and signed to have received the blood samples in the laboratory.
“According to the protocols of the laboratory, once samples are received, they are sent for storage. My lord, when the samples arrived, I checked them to make sure that what is labelled at the back of the envelope is the same as what is labelled inside the envelope or whatever package. The samples were then kept in secure storage pending further analysis. The analysis of the samples has been done and the report duly submitted. My lord, since the request for DNA examination came from the IGP of The Gambia, the envelope was addressed to the IGP office in the Gambia.”
There was an argument on the admissibility of the DNA report.
“My lord, we have an extensive objection for the DNA report to be admitted as evidence. The document said to be tendered as evidence is not admissible under any law in this country dealing with the admissibility of the expert evidence,” defense lawyer LS Camara told the court while objecting as senior state counsel P Gomez prayed for the court to admit the DNA report as evidence.
Defense counsel LS Camara told the court that the law requires the prosecution to serve the defense with every document it intends to rely on.
The case was adjourned to Wednesday 12 October 2022 for the defense to continue its objection on the DNA report to be admitted as evidence in court.
