Amie Bojang, the second accused in the Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights murder trial involving Ousainou Bojang, the first accused, had her bail plea denied by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court of the Gambia.
Amie Bojang submitted the bail request in order to be released until the murder charges are heard and decided. An original summons dated September 25, filed on September 26, 2023, was taken into consideration by the court. In addition to asking for release under conditions the court judged suitable, the applicant sought permission to present the case while on vacation.
An additional 9-paragraph statement signed by legal assistant Mariama Bah on October 3, 2023, was added to the application, which was backed by a 15-paragraph affidavit by Bah. On November 6, 2023, the State submitted a 13-paragraph affidavit in opposition to the application, sworn by Fatou Waggeh.
The court ordered, filed, exchanged, and considered accepted the argument briefs.
Counsel LK Mboge, who is representing the applicant, Amie Bojang, has brought forward a single matter for consideration: whether or not his client is qualified for bail until the outcome of the first trial. Counsel LK Mboge has called the court’s attention to pertinent legislative provisions in support of this position, including sections 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sections 202 and 28 of the Criminal Code, and sections 19 (1) and 24 (3) (a) of the 1997 Constitution.
Additionally, in support of the bail request, Counsel LK Mboge has referenced a number of case law authorities, highlighting the merits of the case and pleading with the court to grant release to Amie Bojang.
The State only raised one question in its argument brief: whether Amie Bojang, the applicant, may be released on bond pending the outcome of the main trial.
The State recommended the Court to ignore paragraph 11 of the affidavit, citing section 92 of the Evidence Act and claiming that it did not comply with the Act.
The State also pleaded with the Court to dismiss and reject the motion.
Justice Jaiteh ruled on the bail application on Monday, finding that Amie Bojang, the petitioner, had not shown any unique or extraordinary circumstances that would support the granting of release. Judge Jaiteh said that he had carefully gone over both the affidavit in opposition and the affidavits presented in favor of the application.
“Let me begin by emphasizing that the law is very clear about the factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether or not to grant bail: the type of charge, the seriousness of the punishment, the caliber of the evidence that is available, the possibility that the accused will evade custody or interfere with witnesses, the accused’s criminal history, if any, and the likelihood that the offence will be repeated if bail is granted.
This is by no means an entire list; it has been declared in several instances. According to Hon. Justice Jaiteh, “Section 99/1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (the CPC) undoubtedly gives this court the discretion to grant bail to any person other than a person accused of an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life. See the cases of ALBERT SAMBOU V THE STATE (UNREP MISC. APP. NO. 37/02); DOKUBO ASARI V ERN (2007) VOL 152 LRCN 116 @ 120 – 121 HELD 1.
Justice Jaiteh stressed that the discretion of the court must be used carefully, keeping in mind the particular facts and circumstances of the case as well as any legal requirements pertaining to the granting of bail. Amie Bojang is accused of being an accessory after the fact to murder in the matter at hand, Justice Jaiteh said. Justice Jaiteh further said that he looked at section 202 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10, volume 3, laws of The Gambia, which is the pertinent legislation that applied to Amie Bojang’s charges.
According to Hon. Justice Jaiteh, accessory after the fact to murder is defined under section 202 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows: “A person who becomes an accessory after the fact of murder commits a felony and is liable on conviction to life imprisonment.”
According to section 202 of the Criminal Code, Justice Jaiteh declared that the mandatory punishment for being an accessory after the fact to murder is life in prison. Furthermore, he pointed out that section 39 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code creates a legislative foundation for judges to make bail decisions in the context of Gambian criminal law.
Justice Jaiteh also said that under Section 99(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, anybody may request bail when they appear in court, either willingly or as a result of a warrantless arrest. This excludes those who are accused of crimes that carry a death or life sentence. Upon entering into a recognizance, the court may, at its discretion, release the individual with or without sureties, provided that they show up at the designated time and location.
“If an individual, excluding those charged with capital punishment or life imprisonment, appears in court on a process or is apprehended without a warrant and is willing to post bail at any point during the legal proceedings, the court may, at its discretion, release the individual upon their entry, in the form and by the means hereinafter provided, into a recognizance, with or without a surety or sureties, subject to their appearance before the court at the time and place specified in the recognizance.” The Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 99(1) gives the court discretion when granting bail for crimes that do not entail a death or life sentence, as Honorable Justice Jaiteh went on to clarify.
This implies that the accused individual may only be granted bail by the court if they are charged with a crime and the specified punishment does not include life in prison or the death penalty. The applicant in this instance faces charges related to a crime that carries a life sentence in prison. I have to say that accessory after the fact murder is a severe offense that carries a life sentence in jail. For this reason, an accused person may not be granted bail.
I questioned myself whether this court had the authority to issue bail in light of the offense that the prosecution claims was committed and the objectives of section 99 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant’s attorney said, “The Applicants shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He refers this Court to section 24(3) of the 1997 Constitution which deals with the presumption of innocence.”
Section 24(3)(a) of The Gambia’s 1997 Constitution, which states that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he or she is proved or has pleaded guilty,” is recognized by Justice Jaiteh as enshrining the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence, which guarantees that those accused of crimes are given the basic safeguard of being assumed innocent, is a cornerstone of The Gambia’s criminal justice system, according to Justice Jaiteh, who expressed his strong opinion in this regard.
In addition, Justice Jaiteh acknowledged that society has a strong interest in protecting the public from those who really represent a harm to people or property and in seeing that the accused appears in court.
Citing SHELDRAKE v. DPP (2004) UKHL 43(9), Justice Jaiteh explained that the presumption of innocence is neither absolute or unqualified.
“For a crime that carries neither death penalty or life in prison, Section 99 (1) of the Criminal Code establishes a presumption in favor of bail. According to Hon. Justice Jaiteh, “the applicant’s interest must be weighed and balanced in the context of the presumption in relation to section 99 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
In addition, Justice Jaiteh emphasized the claims made in paragraph 7 of the supporting affidavit and said that he had carefully reviewed the additional and supporting affidavits. According to this passage, Amie Bojang, who was diagnosed as having hypertension and asthma, gave medical records from the Gambia Armed Force Medical Services at the Yundum barracks.
Amie Bojang’s medical records were provided while she was being held in the Anti-crime unit, according to Justice Jaiteh. As such, he claimed that she is still entitled to medical care in the Remand wing until the outcome of the trial.
“I have read the affidavit in opposition, and I refute the claims made in paragraphs 10 and 11 that the applicant was held in police cells and that she was treated with the utmost respect and dignity as a human being during her detention. Nothing in exhibit MB1’s content indicates that the applicant is “asthmatic,” and the applicant’s diagnosis was given by the Anti-crime Unit police clinic rather than the Gambia Armed Forces.
“I have read the medical certificate in exhibit MJ1, and while the respondent is partially correct that the said medical paper is from the Gambia Police Force Anti-Crime Police Clinic rather than the Gambia Armed Forces, the second page of exhibit “MJ1” is from the Gambia Armed Forces Medical Services, Yundum Barracks, and “Asthmatic” is inscribed on the face of MJ1,” he added.
Amie Bojang is being charged with one count of accessory after the fact of murder, according to Justice Jaiteh. He raised concerns about the severity of the sentence and the possibility that, should she be freed, she will violate her bail.
Justice Jaiteh further pointed out that the supporting documents for the bail application as well as Counsel LK Mboge’s oral argument are no longer relevant. This is because the State is committed to prosecuting the matter in a timely and equitable manner within a reasonable timetable, and the trial is still underway before the High Court.
“I have compared the affidavit in opposition with the averments made by the applicant, Amy Bojang, and I believe that, on the balance of probability, the applicant has not shown the court any unusual or extraordinary circumstances that should be taken into account for granting bail. I’ve taken into account the concerns expressed by the applicant in their affidavit bolstering the application.
It should be mentioned that the applicant has already been charged and is pending trial before the High Court of The Gambia. The trial is proceeding within a reasonable time frame, and if the respective attorneys cooperate, the case will be resolved quickly and the applicant will know her fate in the criminal trial. In light of everything said above, I firmly believe that continuing with business as usual won’t result in egregious injustice in this case,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh declared.
In addition, the Honorable Justice concluded that Amie Bojang is not eligible for bail due to the seriousness of the offense, the objective expressed in section 99(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the previously indicated grounds.
The bail request is subsequently denied and dismissed as a result. I will issue the following directive: The applicant will get medical care and attention from the Mile 2 Central Prisons Director General whenever it is practical and required. Judicial Officer Jaiteh, Hon.
Context of the Case
When Ousainou and Amie Bojang first appeared in front of Principal Magistrate Omar Jabang of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on September 21, 2023, they were charged with crimes pertaining to the shooting incident at Sukuta Jabang Traffic Lights, which on September 12, 2023, claimed the lives of two PIU officers and seriously injured another.
At first, the accused was facing four accusations from the police: two counts of murder, one count of terrorism, and one count of accessory after the fact to murder. The murder trial was then moved to the Special Criminal Division of the High Court of The Gambia by Principal Magistrate Omar Jabang.
The matter was brought before Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the Gambia High Court on October 12, 2023.
Six charges and one charge were filed by the State on October 19, 2023, against Ousainou Bojang, the main suspect in the killings of two Police Intervention Unit (PIU) officers, and his older sister, Amie Bojang.
Ousainou and Amie Bojang filed not guilty pleas to the charges on October 24, 2023.