Lamin J. Darboe, the defense attorney in the case involving Ousainou Bojang and his sister, who are accused of murdering two and injuring one police officer, alleged that prior to obtaining Ousainou Bojang’s statement, anti-crime unit law enforcement officials drugged and assaulted him.

The proceedings resumed in the presence of Justice Jaiteh of the High Court. State witness Directive Ebou Sowe, who was previously engaged in his testimony prior to the Christmas break, has since continued his testimony.

Under the direction of Director of Public Prosecution A.M. Yusuf, the witness disclosed that on September 15, 2023, he obtained voluntary statements from the defendants. According to him, each count was documented under the supervision of an independent witness. Additionally, the accused was duly informed of his rights to avoid self-incrimination, and the statements were translated for him.

When queried about the whereabouts of these statements and his ability to identify them, the witness responded that they were enclosed with the file and that he could discern their authenticity based on his signature, name, and handwriting.

In response to the prosecution’s request to submit the documents as exhibits, Lamin J. Darboe, the defense attorney, formed objections. Counsel J. Darboe argued that the statements obtained from the accused, Ousainou Bojang were not obtained voluntarily and claimed that he had been coerced (drugged) into providing them.

Additionally, defence counsel J. Darboe contended that prior to the collection of the statements, the accused (Ousainou Bojang) had been physically abused (beaten) by the police officers. Furthermore, the defense lodged an objection regarding the failure to serve the statements prior to their submission as evidence and expressed apprehensions regarding the absence of an impartial witness throughout the statement-taking phase.

Finally, counsel J. Darboe objected to the tendering of the documents on the grounds that, in the absence of an independent witness, it failed to comply with the requirements of the Evidence Act.

Additionally, defense counsel L. Mboge objected to the submission of the documents, citing insufficient information and the absence of the signature of an independent witness.

Legal counsel L. Mboge emphasized the lack of an independent witness’s signature and contended that the legal obligations were not fulfilled. He implored the court to reject the documents that were requested as tender.

A.M. Yusuf, the Director of Public Prosecution, refuted the claim that the defendant had been inebriated and assaulted, instead suggesting a voir dire, a pre-trial procedure designed to ascertain the veracity of the accusations.

Upon careful examination of the arguments presented by both parties, Justice Jaiteh rendered a verdict stating that although the cautionary statement dated September 13th was not objected to, he admitted it as evidence. The mini-trial will ascertain the admissibility of the documents dated September 14th and 15th. He subsequently issued a decision to halt the primary trial in order to conduct a voir dire proceeding.

The legal term “voir dire” refers to a pre-trial procedure that is employed to ascertain the admissibility of specific evidence. It transpires when one party contests the admissibility of evidence that the opposing party intends to introduce.

For tomorrow, January 30th, at 14:15, the voir dire (mini-trial) to commence, the court has adjourned the proceedings.