When the defence counsel Lamin J. Darboe showed the mobile phone to the accused to tell the court if that phone resembled his phone and the accused admitted ownership and also observed that his mobile phone had a scratch which was seen on the same phone he was holding.
The accused further disclosed that his mobile phone was the mark of a Tecno Spark 8 which was the same mobile phone he was holding in court. However, he denied the cover of the phone.
When defence counsel L.J Darboe applied to tender the mobile phone without the cover, the Director of Public Prosecution, A.M Yusuf objected that the phone and the cover came along and that they would have to be tendered as a unit and not just the phone.
Counsel Darboe said the objection of the DPP was “misconstrued” because the phone and the cover “are two different thing”. No phone “comes with a cover”. He therefore urged the court to overrule the objection made by the DPP.
The DPP said the person whom the phone was retrieved from should come and tell the court how the cover of the phone got changed or the team of investigation could be in the right position to tell how they retrieved the phone of the accused. In response, defence counsel Darboe said the phone was not retrieved from anyone, the phone was taken from the accused’s house.
Counsel Darboe further said the test of admissibility was relevant and the phone was one of the central pieces of evidence in the case, adding that the cover was not necessary.
In the ruling, the court stated that the Tecno Spark 8 mobile phone and its cover were in fact two distinct separate units. “This distinction has unequivocally been established as evidenced by the witness (the accused) in the courtroom, who identified the Tecno Spark 8 mobile phone by the scratches presented on its back. But it did not recognise the real cover.
The presiding judge, Justice Jaiteh, stated that the prosecution presented the Tecno Spark 8 in court as the mobile phone belonging to the first accused. Therefore, the judge said it was of justice that in light of the evidence presented, the Tecno Spark 8 mobile phone was to be tendered as evidence and as separate entity with the cover.
Case was adjourned until 3 March 2025.
