Lamin J. Darbo, the attorney representing Ousainou Bojang, the alleged Sukuta Traffic Light shooter, announced this evening that he was granted permission to visit his client. During this visit, he engaged in a 45-minute conversation with Mr. Bojang. In his statement following the meeting, Mr. Darbo conveyed that his client acknowledged receiving proper sustenance but expressed concerns about mosquito bites during his detention.

“Good evening, advocates of justice for the murdered police officers and their injured colleague at Sukuta traffic lights, as well for the accused Ousainou Bojang (my Client) under police custody.

“The justice of the case is inseparable, not mutually exclusive, as ultimately the State is the minister of justice in all cases criminal. Its interest is to see justice done and on that overriding principle it has no interest other than a fair ventilation of the facts at trial.

“After the denial of access last week, I am pleased to announce I saw my Client and had a private discussion with him for some 45 minutes this afternoon after securing cooperation with the Government panel constituted to investigate the case. This development was quite an improvement on last Thursday, when access was unlawfully denied.

“He informed me the police avail him food and water, but complained about mosquitoes feasting on him at night when understanding from duty staff can be at its lowest ebb.” Mr. Darbo wrote.

Furthermore, Mr. Darbo registered his objection to the government’s prolonged detention and continuous questioning of his client beyond the legally mandated 72-hour period without filing any formal charges, which he asserted contravenes the Constitutional timelines governing lawful detention.

“Although I am pleased to access my Client, the Constitutional architecture around him is not fully complied with by the police, and ultimately the State. His continued detention and questioning must stop, and the State must file an “information which shall be in the form of an indictment and shall state in writing the charge against the accused” (see section 175B (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. My Client’s continued detention beyond 72 hours without filing an “information” against him runs counter to the Constitutional timelines on lawful detention.”

The veteran attorney raised concerns about his client’s ongoing detention at the police station, which directly contradicts a court order stipulating that the client should be held at Mile 2 prisons. Mr. Darbo urged the government to promptly present his client before a competent court for a swift resolution.

“In addition, holding him at a police station when a Court ordered his detention at Mile 2 Central Prisons is also unlawful.

“I urge the State to put my Client before a competent Court without further delay.

“The justice of the case demands that!” the statement concluded.