Famara
Kambi, the fifth prosecution witness in the case involving Babucarr Njie, a
soldier found with a gun at King Fahd Mosque in Banjul, testified on 19 June
2017 before Magistrate Janneh-Njie of the Banjul Magistrates’ Court.
He
told the court that he lives at Bakau and he is a police officer attached to
Major Crime Unit, adding that he recognised the accused at his office.
He
testified that on 10 February 2017, he was on duty in Banjul, adding that the
accused was brought to their office together with a bag containing a pistol.
Mr
Kambi adduced that the accused was alleged to have been in possession of a bag
containing a gun when the president was at King Fahd.
He
added that the accused was cautioned and charged for being armed in public,
adding that the case file was sent for prosecution of the accused.
Mr
Kambi further stated that he was investigating the matter as to whether the
accused was armed at King Fahd Mosque.
He
posited further that the accused admitted to being in possession of the gun,
adding that he prepared a report.
He
said he would be able to recognise the report because it bore his signature.
The
report was then given to him, and he identified it.
Sub-Inspector
Bojang applied to tender the said report but the defence counsel, Sheriff Kumba
Jobe, raised an objection.
He
argued that the report contained witness statements of which some of the
witnesses had never been called to testify.
Counsel
Jobe submitted that if the statements were admitted, it would amount to hearsay
which is prohibited to be admitted in evidence, citing the Evidence Act.
He
further argued that witness of whose statement contained in the report could
not be admitted in evidence through the witness.
He
said it lacked the necessary prerequisite to admit witness statement that the
witness in the dock was not the author, adding that the court could not admit
the report in evidence.
Counsel
Jobe adduced that to make matters worse, the cautionary and voluntary
statements of the accused which were rejected were contained in the report.
He
added that under no circumstances should a document which had been rejected
earlier be brought to court.
He
further argued that the entire report was a hearsay which could not be
admitted. He urged the court to reject the report sought to be tendered by the
prosecution.
In
response, Sub-Inspector Bojang said that the witness was the investigating
officer in the matter and the witness said that he prepared the report, adding
that hearsay statements are admissible in court.
He
argued that the statements obtained from the ECOMIG soldiers had already left
the country, and this was why they could not be brought to court.
He
urged the court to dismiss the objection raised by the defence.
Magistrate
Janneh-Njie ruled that the report would be admitted and its weight would be
determined by the court.
Under
cross-examination, the witness was reminded that he stated that he singled
handedly prepared the report, and he answered in the positive.
The
word ‘Gendarmerie’ was in the report he prepared but when he was asked by the
defence counsel to spell it out, he could not.
Instead
of Helman, he said the name of the gun is Haiwal.
Mr
Kambi stated that he did not know the person who arrested the accused, adding
that the report was prepared on 23rd but could not remember the month and the
year.
He
testified that he could not remember how long it took him to prepare the
report.
He
adduced that two of them prepared the report namely Jally Senghore and himself.
It
was put to him that Jally Senghore had told the court in his evidence that he
(Jally) was not part of the investigating team.
The
witness was asked whether he would not be surprised. He said he would be
surprised.
The
case was adjourned until 22 and 28 June 2017