Ousainu Bojang, first accused.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, has intensified the cross-examination of Ousainou Bojang, who stands accused of fatally shooting two police officers and injuring another at the Sukuta-Jabang traffic light on September 12, 2023. Bojang has denied the allegations, and the prosecution’s cross-examination aimed to challenge the credibility of his testimony.
During the proceedings, the DPP questioned Bojang on various aspects of his personal and financial dealings, particularly regarding his management of an apartment owned by Claudette Francis. Bojang confirmed that he managed the apartment from April to September 2023 and was granted power of attorney by Claudette, which he claimed was based on trust and love.
The cross-examination also delved into allegations of financial mismanagement, with the DPP probing whether Bojang had mishandled rental funds. Bojang denied any wrongdoing, stating that maintenance contributions were collected by another individual, Sharon, and that he was not responsible for any discrepancies reported by Claudette.
The prosecution further examined Bojang’s interactions with key individuals, including Famara Sarjo, who reported him to the police. When asked whether Sarjo had knowledge of any financial mismanagement, Bojang claimed that Claudette informed him that Sarjo had provided her with information regarding alleged mismanagement. However, he could not recall the exact date of the conversation.
Here are key Highlights from the Cross-Examination:
Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) A.M. Yusuf sought to introduce a photograph as evidence in court. However, Lawyer Lamin J. Darboe objected, arguing that the prosecution had not furnished the defence with the picture despite prior requests for full disclosure of all evidence intended for use in the case.
Counsel Darboe further contended that ambush tactics in prosecution are not permissible within the jurisdiction and urged the DPP to uphold fair trial principles.
In response, the DPP informed the court that when the defence requested disclosure of all items seized from the accused, the Anti-Crime Commission had handed them over. He maintained that Lawyer Darboe had been invited to his office, shown all the items, and given the opportunity to select those he deemed relevant. Therefore, the defence was aware of the picture’s existence.
The DPP urged the court to overrule the objection and admit the photograph as evidence.
After considering the arguments, Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh admitted and marked the photograph as evidence, affirming its relevance and noting that its weight would be determined during the trial.
The prosecution then continue with his cross examination of the accused:
DPP: In your evidence-in-chief, you stated that exhibit 26 (a shoe) belongs to your brother.
Ousainou: Yes.
DPP: You said the police saw the shoe on the veranda and took it?
Ousainou: Yes.
DPP: If you see other shoes belonging to your brother, would you recognize them?
Ousainou: Yes.
DPP: You were photographed by the police while the shoes were being collected.
Ousainou: I don’t know about that.
The DPP presented the photograph to Ousainou for confirmation. After examining it closely, Ousainou testified that the image depicted a shoe belonging to his brother.
Subsequently, the DPP applied to submit the photograph as evidence, and with no objection from the defence, it was duly admitted.
The DPP then asked Ousainou to verify whether the shoes in exhibits 26 and 27 also belonged to his brother. Ousainou confirmed that they did, adding that he had informed the police at the time of their seizure.
Once again, the DPP sought to tender the photograph into evidence, and with no opposition from the defence, the court admitted it.
DPP: On the first day when they brought you to your company, they took pictures of you inside your house.
Ousainou: I’m not aware of them taking pictures of me.
DPP: I’m telling you that on that day, you were wearing jeans and a T-shirt.
Ousainou: I can’t remember, but I know I was wearing a shirt and trousers.
The DPP presented a photograph to Ousainou Bojang and asked if he recognized the background and the individual depicted. In response, Bojang identified the background as his residence and confirmed that he was the person in the picture.
With no objection from the defence, the DPP moved to submit the photograph as evidence. The court admitted and marked it as P36.
DPP: Mr. Bojang, you stated that D30 (a shoe) belongs to you.
Ousainou: Yes, it belongs to me.
The DPP then requested that Ousainou wear the shoe in court. Ousainou put on the shoes, and they fit him properly. The court recognized that the shoe fit Ousainou’s foot.
DPP: You said that you and your brother don’t wear the same shoe size.
Ousainou: Yes.
DPP: What shoe size do you wear?
Ousainou: Size 45.
DPP: What about your brother?
Ousainou: I don’t know, but I wear the larger size.
DPP: So, you attended school from grade 1 to 12?
Ousainou: Yes, but I started in primary 4 in The Gambia.
The DPP then picked up a white shoe and a combat boot, asking Ousainou to identify their sizes. After examining them, Ousainou informed the court that neither shoe had a visible size marking.
The DPP then pointed out that the combat boot, which Ousainou claimed belonged to his brother, appeared larger than the white shoe he identified as his own. However, Ousainou insisted that the white shoe was actually larger than the combat boot.
To clarify the discrepancy, the DPP used a measuring tape, determining that the white shoe (D30) measured 11 ½, while the combat boot measured 11 ½ plus 3/8. Despite this, Ousainou maintained that the white shoe was longer. The DPP, however, stood by the measurements.
At this juncture, Lawyer Lamin J. Darboe interjected, arguing that a measuring tape could not accurately determine a shoe’s size.
In response, the DPP requested the court registrar to take the measurement. However, the court advised that any size determination should be conducted by an expert, as a tape measure alone was insufficient for accurately assessing shoe size.