As the sixth prosecution witness in the trial of Ousainou Bojang, the first accused, and Amie Bojang, the second accused, police detective Ebou Sowe told the court that a panel tasked with looking into the deaths of two police officers suggested that the accused duo be brought to justice.
Amie Bojang is accused of being an accessory after the fact to murder, while Ousainou Bojang is charged with the deaths of two Gambia Police Intervention Unit (PIU) members.
During the cross-examination conducted by the defence attorneys representing Ousainou and Amie Bojang, Detective Sowe revealed the prosecution’s suggestion.
“What was the Panel’s recommendation?” Amie Bojang’s attorney, Counsel Sillah, questioned Detective Sowe.
Detective Sowe informed the court, “The recommendation was for the accused to be prosecuted.”
In response to a question concerning Amie Bojang’s whereabouts at the crime site, he said they were unaware of her presence.
Ousainou Bojang’s attorney, Lamin J. Darboe, questioned him over his purported attendance at the Crime Scene and gave him Detective Sowe’s call log from Africell.
Counsel LJ Darboe instructed Detective Sowe, “Detective Sowe, look at the entries of the 12th September 2023, Defence Exhibit D5, and tell the court where you were.”
“There are three columns on the defence exhibit D5, and the timings are 17:27, 17:51, and 21:24. Detective Sowe informed the court that these sites are, respectively, Serekunda and Bambo.
In his testimony, Detective Sowe stated that he went to Brufut on September 13, 2023, with a group of investigators from the Anti-Crime Unit. Furthermore, Detective Sowe told reporters that they later made their way back from Brufut to the Police Anti-Crime Unit in Banjulinding.
According to your phone log, if you review the entries from September 12 to September 13, 2023, were you present at the scene of the incident? Detective Sowe was asked by Attorney LJ Darboe.
“His call log indicates that the site does not appear to be the crime scene. because my official working line is not this specific number. Detective Sowe to the court, “This is my personal line, and the Brufut junction on the call log had to do with my movement on that specific night.”
“However, you were obviously at the Brufut intersection, weren’t you?” LJ Darboe, Counsel, questioned Detective Sowe. In response, Detective Sowe said, “Yes, I was.”
Counsel LJ Darboe questioned Detective Sowe further, pointing out that the call record showed that he was at the Brufut junction, even though he disputed that the number was his official one.
Detective Sowe gave a positive response, saying, “That’s why there was only one SMS on that specific day, no call on the record. demonstrating unequivocally that it was informal and unrelated to my line of work.
Counsel LJ Darboe informed Detective Sowe, “Therefore, the reason it is not shown that you were at the traffic lights is because you were never there.”
“My lord, this is a call log. It will not have any information indicating that I did not receive a call or SMS while at that specific location. However, my Qcell line would unmistakably show that I was present at the scene of the crime, Detective Sowe said the court.
Counsel LJ Darboe stated, “I am putting it to you that Ismaila Bojang, the military officer (PW1) was never at the crime scene.”
Detective Sowe shot back, saying, “That’s not correct because I met Ismaila Bojang at the crime scene.”
Counsel LJ Darboe made another submission, saying, “I am further putting it to you that PW2, Bakary Jarjou was never at the crime scene.”
Detective Sowe informed the court, “That is also not correct; I met the same witness at the crime scene.”
In addition, Detective Sowe reported to the court that he had encountered another military commander at the crime scene named Omar Jallow.
Tuesday is the new date set aside for the case’s continuance.