Defence Counsel Tambedou argued that Military Officer Babucarr Ngum, who served as a prosecution witness, failed to establish the chain of custody of the substance allegedly found in the waistband of the first accused. Tambedou contended that Ngum repeatedly distanced himself from the handling of the substance, asserting that it was the responsibility of the Drug Law Enforcement Agency (DLEAG) officers.
Furthermore, Tambedou pointed out inconsistencies in the description of the substance, which was initially said to be in block form but was later described as a mixture of block and powder.
Tambedou objected to the tendering of the substance, emphasising that the chain of custody had not been established. “It is the custodian of the substance who should come to court and tender it, not this witness,” he argued, saying there was no clear indication of who had control of the substance from the time of arrest through analysis and up to the trial.
In response, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, dismissed the necessity of proving a chain of custody as a legal requirement for tendering exhibits. The Prosecution maintained that the key consideration for admissibility is relevance and urged the court to disregard the objection of the defence.
Delivering his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, acknowledged the defence’s concerns regarding inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony and the chain of custody.
However, he emphasised two key issues: whether the witness was a proper person to tender the substance, and whether the evidence was relevant to the case.
On the first issue, the judge ruled that although there were discrepancies in the witness’s description of the substance, his presence during its retrieval made him a competent witness to tender it. The court also clarified that Section 130 of the Evidence Act, cited by the defence, primarily concerns the custody of documents rather than physical evidence.
Regarding the relevance of the substance, the court held that since the accused persons were charged with drug-related offences, the substance in question was directly linked to the case. Citing Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1994, which establishes relevance as the main criterion for admissibility, the judge concluded that the evidence met the necessary legal standard.
Having resolved both issues in favour of the Prosecution, the court overruled the defence’s objections. The substance, described as small blocks and powder wrapped in black plastic nylon, was officially admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit P15.
The weight to be given to the evidence would be determined at the end of the trial in accordance with Section 96 of the Evidence Act, the court stated.
The case was adjourned until 12 May 2025.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
‘Local capacity and knowledge in mitigating Climate Change, a necessity’
Jan 14, 2021, 1:17 PM
