Ousainou Bojang to Begin Defence Next Month Following Court’s Rejection of ‘No Case’ Application
Ousainu and Amie Bojang at the high court ( PhotoCredit Kexx News)
By Landing Ceesay
Ousainou Bojang, accused of killing two police officers at the Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights in 2023, is set to present his defence after Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court of The Gambia dismissed his “no case to answer” application, citing a lack of merit.
Bojang faces six charges, including the murder of two Police Intervention Unit (PIU) officers. His sister, Amie Bojang, is also charged as an accessory after the fact of murder. During the trial, the prosecution called thirteen witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined by the defence.
Following the prosecution’s case, the defence teams for both Ousainou and Amie Bojang filed “no case to answer” applications. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, representing Ousainou Bojang, argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case. Similarly, Counsel Lamin K. Mbodge, representing Amie Bojang, urged the court to acquit and discharge his client.
In response, Director of Public Prosecution AM Yusuf urged the court to dismiss the applications, stating that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, warranting the accused to enter their defence.
In his ruling, Hon. Justice Jaiteh upheld the prosecution’s argument, stating that the court’s role at this stage is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed, not to assess the credibility of the witnesses or the weight of their evidence.
“I have carefully read the written briefs of arguments filed by the respective counsels for the 1st and 2nd Accused persons and the Prosecution with great interest. It is my considered opinion that there is only one issue for determination, which is whether the accused persons have a case to answer.In as much as I have looked at the testimony and the argument of the defence counsel in detail in order to ensure fairness, I will only limit my comments, my observations, and my findings to the law as it relates to a no-case submission in The Gambia,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh said.
Justice Jaiteh emphasized that a prima facie case exists when there is enough evidence to support the charges, unless rebutted. He referenced legal precedents, such as Godwin Chianugo v. State and Igabele v. State, to support his decision.
Justice Jaiteh cited the case of GODWIN CHIANUGO v. STATE (20061 1CLPR) on page 71, in which it was held that a prima facie case “only means that there is a ground for proceeding. But a prima facie case is not the same as proof, which comes later when the court has to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty, and the evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is sufficient to prove the case against the accused.”
Justice Jaiteh explained that “a prima facie case is said to exist when there is evidence sufficient enough to support the allegation made in the absence of further evidence rebutting the same.”
He referenced the case of IGABELE v. STATE [2005] 1 NCC on page 64. In this case, the criteria for a no-case submission were outlined as follows: “There was no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence, and The evidence adduces have been so discredited as a result of Cross-examination; The evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can safely convict on it, and, further it, however, a reasonable tribunal can convict on evidence so far led, there is a case for the accused to answer.”
“Counsel for the first accused person raised issues in his brief, which, in my view, are premature at this stage of the proceedings as the test to apply is not beyond reasonable doubt but where there is ground for the court to proceed with this trial. The issues of ballistic reports, video recordings and the like will be considered at the end of the trial, where the test “beyond reasonable doubt” will be applied. At this juncture, the test that is applied is whether there is a prima facie case made out,” he said.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh stated that the prosecution had submitted into evidence the autopsy reports for the unlawful deaths of two individuals, as well as extrajudicial confessions by Ousainou Bojang admitting to the crimes. Witnesses have testified in court that Bojang confessed to committing the unlawful killings as alleged by the prosecution. “I am not at this stage required to look into the credibility of the witnesses’ testimonies or to consider what weight should be attached to such evidence. This is not the moment. The question I ask is: has the prosecution produced evidence to support the allegations on the offences charged, and to that I must hasten to answer yes. “Without wishing to go into the evidence or facts of the case, I believe the evidence adduced by the prosecution is such that it requires someexplanation from the first accused person (Ousainou Bojang): Where was he at the material time of the alleged shooting?; What did he say to PW3 Mama Jabbie whilst in Jululung?; What did he discuss with PW5, Momodou Sowe in the vehicle from Giboroh post to Anti-crime Unit?; What did he say to PW6, Ebou Sowe?; What did he say to the PW13, Alfusainey Darry whilst in Jululung?,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh said.
Justice Jaiteh stated that the issues raised, among others, are matters that Ousainou Bojang must clarify in court.
Additionally, Jaiteh ruled that Amie Bojang, the second accused, is also required to explain why she was assisting and escorting the first accused to travel to the Senegal border through Dassilameh into the Casamance region of Senegal.
“I must state clearly that the prosecution has adduced direct and circumstantial evidence before this Honourable Court linking the Accused Persons to this case. Therefore, a prima facie case has been made against the Accused persons, and the arguments on the submissions of no case to answer lack merit and are hereby dismissed. The accused persons are now called upon to open their defence,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh ruled.
The case has been adjourned to November 5th, for Ousainou Bojang to begin his defence.