Court admits statements of alleged PIU shooter, unconvinced by his testimony

The ruling was based on the objections raised by defence counsel L.J Darboe regarding the admissibility of cautionary and voluntary statements made by the 1st accused, Ousainou Bojang.

The court highlighted that the extra-judicial statements admitted were binding on the court until further to determine the weight to be attached to it before proceeding to act on them.

The presiding judge led that the cautionary statement of the 1st accused, Ousainou Bojang, recorded by Police Officer Ebou Sowe, the first prosecuting witness, was in the presence of an independent witness and the accused was cautioned in Wolof and Mandinka languages and thumb-printed to the fact that he was cautioned.

The accused also said in court that he was beaten to confess and thumbprintblank papers. However, Justice Jaiteh argued that a reasonable person who was beaten to confess would not merely thumbprint blank papers without knowing the content,hence was not convinced by Ousainou Bojang’s testimony.

According to the testimony of PW1, Ebou Sowe, the accused was not beaten or administered with any drug to give his cautionary statement, adding that the accused was in sound health and did not make any complaint of ill health.

The independent witness, Alieu Cham, also testified that he did not see anyone beating the accused or administering any drugs to him. The court, however, ruled that the cautionary statement of the accused was given voluntarily.

The court noted that the guiding principles of the police and other persons concerned in the investigation of a crime, as to the interrogation of persons, the manner of recording statements, and the admission in evidence of statements, whether verbal or written, made by the accused are governed by the Judges’ Rules.

He pointed out that the voluntary statements of the 1st accused where he accepted the various charges levelled against him by the police fell under the Judges’ Rules, except one exhibit under the police diary that did not fall under the Judges’ Rules.

Justice Jaiteh said that keeping a police diary was a matter of effective and efficient administrative practice and the failure to record the cautionary or voluntary statements in the police diary would not vitiate a confessional statement or other documents made by an accused person.
The court pointed out that the recording of the exhibits was in full compliance with the Evidence Act and the Judges’ Rules except one that was done in the absence of an independent witness.