When asked how he acquired the footage, Jallow stated that Mr. Barracks sent it to him via WhatsApp. He then transferred it to his laptop using a USB cable and subsequently copied it onto the flash drive that has now been admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit P30.
The witness was given the flash drive to verify its authenticity, and he confirmed that it was the correct one. Following this, State Counsel F. Drammeh applied to tender the flash drive containing the CCTV footage through PW6.
However, Defence Counsel T.B. Jallow objected, arguing that the Defence had not been served with the CCTV footage. He submitted that disclosure is a constitutional requirement in criminal proceedings and cited The State vs. Halifa Sallah in support of his argument.
In response, Prosecution Counsel maintained that the CCTV footage had indeed been filed as part of a Notice of Additional List of Exhibits and properly served on Counsel Samuel Ade, the substantive Defence Counsel on record.
The Prosecution argued that the Defence’s objection was misconceived and lacked both legal and factual basis.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated that the sole issue for determination was whether the flash drive containing the CCTV footage had been disclosed to both the Court and the Defence.
A review of the case file revealed that a Notice of Additional List of Exhibits was filed on 20 November 2025, and the flash drive containing the footage was attached. The record further showed that service had been duly effected on Defence Counsel Samuel Ade, meaning the Defence was already in possession of the footage.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that Counsel Jallow’s objection was “frivolous, unfounded, and betrays a lack of proper briefing or understanding of the current state of the proceedings.”
He added that counsel appearing before the Court has a professional obligation to be fully informed about the case’s history and developments before raising objections that may unnecessarily delay the administration of justice.
“The Court will not entertain objections made without due diligence, nor tolerate attempts to obstruct the truth-finding process with baseless procedural claims. The CCTV footage is clearly relevant within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1994, as it forms part of the factual matrix the Court must consider in determining the issues at trial.
“The record further confirms that the footage was disclosed to the Defence, and thus the objection on grounds of nondisclosure is wholly without merit. Defence Counsel is strongly admonished to ensure proper briefing and full appreciation of the case record before raising objections. Counsel must exercise greater care and professionalism to avoid making unwarranted, frivolous, or obstructive objections in the future.”
The objection was therefore overruled. The flash drive containing the CCTV footage was admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit P10.
In continuation of the examination, the Prosecution requested that the CCTV footage be played in court for the witness, and it was accordingly played.
The Prosecution asked the witness whether it was the same video he had previously referred to, and he confirmed that it was.
The witness explained that the location shown in the video is Westfield, where the incident occurred.
When asked what he observed in the footage, the witness stated that he saw the deceased wearing an orange dress running out of the bureau while being chased by the accused, who was holding a knife. After the deceased fell to the ground and was surrounded by a crowd, the accused then began stabbing himself.
The matter was adjourned until 16th December 2025.
