During cross-examination by Director of Public Prosecution A.M. Yusuf, the accused Ousainou Bojang confirmed that he managed Claudette’s apartment from April to September 2023 under a power of attorney. He maintained that he never mismanaged rental funds, despite allegations made against him. He also stated that Sharon, a resident of the same compound, was responsible for collecting maintenance contributions before he took charge.
A key issue in the case was the allegation that Bojang mismanaged funds of his girlfriend, Claudette, with claims that Famara Sarjo, who was his friend and was not employed at the same workplace as Bojang, reported the matter to Claudette. However, Bojang insisted that Claudette herself informed him of the allegations but he could not recall the exact date.
The prosecution presented photographs taken by the police during a search of Bojang’s residence. The defence, represented by Lawyer Lamin J. Darboe, initially objected to the pictures being tendered, arguing that the prosecution had not disclosed them in advance. Darboe accused the prosecution of conducting a “trial by ambush”.
The DPP countered that the defence had been shown the evidence in his office, and counsel Darboe had chosen what to rely on. Justice Jaiteh ruled in favour of the prosecution, allowing the pictures to be admitted as evidence.
Among the items seized from Bojang’s home were a white shoe and a combat boot, which Bojang initially claimed belonged to his brother. However, when asked to wear the white shoe in court, it fit him perfectly.
Bojang had previously stated that he and his brother did not wear the same shoe size, claiming his own was a size 45. However, when the prosecution measured the shoes, they argued that the combat boot, which he said belonged to his brother, was larger than the white shoe. Bojang disputed the findings, maintaining that the white shoe was actually bigger.
Lawyer Darboe challenged the accuracy of using a measuring tape to determine shoe size, prompting the DPP to request expert measurement. The court ruled that an expert would need to conduct the measurement to resolve the dispute.
The trial continues today.
