Augustine Bangura, the alleged killer of the British Lady in court
The state prosecution has called three witnesses to testify in the murder trial of a British woman. Augustine Bangura stands accused of killing her by striking her with a hammer. To support its case, the prosecution presented its 5th, 6th, and 7th witnesses before Justice Jaiteh.
The first witness, Ebrima Bah, a businessman dealing in clothes and shoes, testified that he recognized the accused as a customer.
According to Bah, on February 16 or 17, 2024, Bangura visited his shop to purchase a pair of shoes. Instead of taking the new pair with him, he left behind the ones he had been wearing.
Bah further stated that Bangura offered to sell him a camera, but he declined, explaining that he did not trade in cameras. However, he offered to ask his friends if anyone was interested.
On the following Friday, Bangura returned. Bah informed him that his friend was not interested, but another person present mentioned knowing a cameraman who might be. Bangura then suggested leaving the camera with them while they confirmed the buyer’s interest.
Bah testified that he did not hear from Bangura again. When he later tried calling him, a police officer answered and asked if he knew what Bangura had done. Bah said he was unaware of any wrongdoing.
Subsequently, the police visited Bah and took him to the Brusubi Police Station, where his statement was recorded before he was released on bail.
During the trial, state counsel F. Drammeh sought to admit Bah’s statement as evidence. However, the defense objected, arguing that the witness had not identified it by name or signature as required. Drammeh countered that Bah had verified the statement through its content.
Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh overruled the objection and admitted the statement as an exhibit.
Under Cross-examination by F.T Sonko
“You said the accused is your customer,” Counsel Sonko asked.
“Yes,” Witness Bah replied.
“Did he tell you the price?” Counsel Sonko asked
“No, he didn’t mention the price,” Witness Bah answered.Defense Counsel Sonko confronted witness Ebrima with his written statement, which indicated that the accused, Augustine, was selling the camera for 7,000 dalasis. Sonko then asked Ebrima to clarify which statement was accurate. In response, Ebrima explained that he had told the police the price was between 5,000 and 7,000 dalasis, but not exactly 7,000.
The second witness, Saikou Samasa, a mobile repairer and seller residing in Sanchaba, testified that he recognized the accused. He recalled that on a particular Thursday, Augustine visited his shop with a laptop, a Samsung A10, a Samsung A14, and a tablet, offering to sell them for a total of 11,000 dalasis. Saikou paid 5,000 dalasis upfront, with a promise to pay the remaining amount later.
He further stated that while unlocking the phone and tablet, he noticed a woman’s image displayed on the screen. Later, Augustine returned to his shop with a camera and a wristwatch for sale. Saikou informed him that he was not a cameraman but would consult a friend about it. He took a picture of the camera and proceeded to purchase the wristwatch.
Saikou identified multiple items he had bought from the accused, including a silver Dell laptop, an HP laptop, a wristwatch, a Samsung A10, a Samsung A14, a camera, a hard drive, and a flash drive. He added that six months later, Augustine returned with another Dell laptop, which he sold for 10,000 dalasis.
He recounted that the police later visited his shop with Augustine Bangura and instructed him to return the items he had purchased. He complied and was taken to the Brusubi Police Station before being detained at the Bundung Police Station for three days. Following his statement, he was released on bail.
During cross-examination by Defense Lawyer F.T. Sonko, Saikou clarified that he had maintained a good customer relationship with the accused for repairs and purchases. He noted that he had never encountered issues with any items bought from Augustine—except in this instance.
The third witness, Saikou Sanneh, a police officer attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at Brikama Police since 2022, testified that he recognized the accused, who had been brought to his office by Chief Inspector Danso. He was briefed about the case, which had been transferred from the Tujereng Police Station.
Sanneh stated that he was instructed to take the accused’s statement. After reading the cautionary warning, he recorded the statement in the presence of an independent witness, Mr. Kuyateh. Upon completion, he read the statement back to Augustine, who confirmed and signed it along with the independent witness and the officer himself. Sanneh emphasized that the statement was obtained under conducive conditions. Additionally, a voluntary statement was taken after the charges were read to Augustine, who acknowledged them.
The prosecution then presented the witness with the cautionary and voluntary statements, asking him to confirm their authenticity. After reviewing them, Sanneh verified their accuracy, and the defense raised no objections. Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh admitted the statements as evidence and marked them as exhibits.
During cross-examination, Sanneh was asked whether he knew that the accused had been employed by the deceased. He confirmed that Augustine had informed him of his employment. When questioned on whether he had allowed the accused to write his own statement, Sanneh admitted that he had not. However, he emphasized that the statement was recorded in the presence of an independent witness, who had been brought by another officer.
The case was adjourned to March 12, 2024.