The first prosecution witness in the mini-trial in the alleged PIU shooter case was directed by the High Court, presided over by Justice E. Jaiteh, to provide the station diary containing the accused’s statement from September 13, 2023.
After recording the first accused’s voluntary and cautionary remarks, defense attorney L. Mboge for the second accused, Amie Bojang, referred the witness to his statement from November 10, 2023.
According to the witness’s testimony in court, on September 13, 2023, Ousainou Bojang told him he was too weary to make a statement, which he claimed to have noted in the station notebook.
Ebou Sowe, the witness and police officer attached to the police Anti-Crime Unit in Banjulinding, informed the court during the accused Ousainou Bojang’s interrogation in front of a panel of security personnel that while interactions with the accused are typically recorded, he was unsure if this particular one had been.
L. Darboe, the defense attorney for the first accused, for his part, questioned the witness on his knowledge of the independent witness who was present during Ousainou Bojang’s narration. The independent witness was met by the witness Ebou Sowe within the Anti-Crime complex, he testified before the court.
In his testimony, Sowe also stated that the independent witness informed him he had a problem to resolve and that neither the Anti-Crime nor any other security agency he knew worked with the witness.
The witness further stated that the independent witness had to be there for the entire process of recording the accused’s comments, which ended at about noon.
When defence attorney L. Darboe questioned him about what he did with the independent witness for an hour prior to the cautionary statement starting, he replied that the accused had given the full story and that the statement had since been received.
When asked if he, the witness, had contacted a friend, relative, or other person the accused trusted to serve as an independent witness, he replied that doing so would have undermined the role of an independent witness.
The public would have had more faith in that procedure than in a covert one, Counsel Darboe informed him, if the witness had gone out with his agency and organized someone to act as an independent witness in the sake of fairness and transparency.
The witness added, “The police do not have ready-made independent witnesses,” and stated that there was no covert process and that the established processes were appropriately followed.
He also revealed that neither audio nor video records were made while the accused was narrating.