Ousainou Bojang in Court
The High Court on Monday admitted a mobile phone believed to belong to Ousainou Bojang into evidence as his trial for the alleged killing of two police officers continues.
Mr. Bojang faces multiple charges, including murder and committing a terrorist act, stemming from a shooting incident on Sept. 12, 2023, at the Sukuta traffic lights. Prosecutors allege that Mr. Bojang opened fire on three police officers, killing two and critically injuring a third. He has pleaded not guilty.
The case has drawn national attention, not only because of the deadly attack but also due to the involvement of Mr. Bojang’s sister, Amie Bojang, who has been charged as an accessory after the fact.
During the latest court session, defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe presented the mobile phone to Mr. Bojang and asked him to examine it. Mr. Bojang identified the phone as similar to his own, specifying the model as a Tecno Spark 8.
Mr. Darboe told the court he had previously planned to call a technician to help Mr. Bojang access his Google account by retrieving his email and password but later decided against it. The presiding judge accepted this change in strategy without objection.
Mr. Darboe further pressed Mr. Bojang, asking: “Is the phone you are holding the same as yours”?
Ousainou replied, “Yes, it is the same phone,”.
Counsel Lamin J. Darboe continued efforts to establish whether the phone in question belonged to the defendant by asking Ousainou what identifiable features on the device indicated it was his. In response, Ousainou stated that the back of the phone had a scratch identical to the one on the device presented before the court. However, he noted that the phone’s cover was not his.
Following this, Counsel Darboe applied to tender the phone into evidence without the cover. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, objected, arguing that the phone and its cover were presented together and should therefore be tendered as a single unit.
In response, Counsel Darboe contended that the DPP’s objection was misplaced, asserting that the phone and the cover were two distinct items. The DPP maintained his stance, insisting that the phone must be presented with the cover.
Subsequently, Counsel Darboe urged the court to overrule the DPP’s objection. The DPP, however, requested the court to direct the defence to summon the individual from whom the phone was retrieved to clarify how the phone’s cover was changed.
Counsel Darboe refuted this claim, stressing that the phone was not retrieved from any individual but was instead taken from the accused’s residence. In response, the DPP argued that the investigative team would be best positioned to explain the circumstances surrounding the phone’s retrieval.
“The test of admissibility is relevant, and the phone is one of the central pieces of evidence in this case, and the cover is not necessary,” Counsel Lamin J Darboe submitted.
A.M. Yusuf urged the court to act suo moto—a legal term meaning an action taken by the court on its own initiative, without a request from either party—and summon the team of investigators who retrieved the phone.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated that he had considered the application made by the 1st Defence Counsel, Lamin J. Darboe, seeking to tender the Techno Spark 8 mobile phone without its cover, arguing that the cover did not belong to the accused.
Justice Jaiteh further noted that the court had thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both parties, along with the prosecution’s objections. He concluded that the Techno Spark 8 and its cover should be treated as a single entity and, therefore, admitted together as one unit.
However, Justice Jaiteh pointed out that, despite the objections raised, both parties had indicated no opposition to the separate admission of the device itself.
“It is imperative to clarify that the Techno Spark 8 mobile phone and its cover are, in fact, two distinct and separable units,” Justice Jaiteh said.
Justice Jaiteh further noted that the distinction between the phone and its cover had been clearly established, as demonstrated by the testimony of the witness (DW1), who identified the Techno Spark 8 mobile phone by the scratches on its back but did not recognize the green cover.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated that the prosecution had presented the Techno Spark 8 in court as the mobile phone belonging to the first accused. In the interest of justice and based on the evidence provided, he admitted the Techno Spark 8 mobile phone into evidence as a separate entity, marking it as Defence Exhibit D22.
The case was then adjourned to 3rd March 2025 at 14:15 for continuation.