The matter was scheduled for the hearing of the second defence witness. However, before the witness could testify, defence counsel F. C. Anyanwu informed the court that the defence had earlier written to the headquarters of QCell Limited requesting the CCTV footage relating to the alleged crime scene at the company’s premises.
Counsel told the court that a letter dated 12 February 2026 was sent to QCell Limited requesting the footage.
In response, the Human Resource and Legal Affairs Manager of QCell Limited, Omar Cham, replied in a letter dated 24 February 2026.
In the letter, Cham confirmed that police investigators had conducted an investigation at the QCell premises in connection with the incident and that the relevant CCTV footage was handed over to the police officers assigned to the investigation.
According to the letter, the footage was provided to the investigators for investigative purposes and the company did not retain any duplicate or copy after handing it over to the police.
Relying on this information, defence counsel Anyanwu applied under Section 221 of the Evidence Act 1994 for an order directing the Inspector General of Police to instruct the investigating officers attached to the Latrikunda German Police Post in the Kanifing Municipality to produce the CCTV footage before the court.
However, State Counsel F. Drammeh opposed the application, submitting that the prosecution’s records did not contain any reference to CCTV footage in the case file. Counsel argued that the defence application was unnecessary and urged the court to dismiss it.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh explained that Section 221 of the Evidence Act empowers the court to summon any person or institution to produce documents that may be relevant to proceedings before the court.
He noted that the provision grants the court broad discretionary powers to compel the production of documents even where the person or institution in possession of them is not a party to the proceedings.
According to the judge, the purpose of the provision is to ensure that the court is not deprived of relevant evidence merely because such documents are in the custody of third parties, including public institutions such as investigative agencies.
Justice Jaiteh stated that after carefully considering the submissions of both counsel, the central issue before the court was whether it should exercise its powers under Section 221 of the Evidence Act to compel the production of the CCTV footage allegedly handed over to the police by QCell Limited.
The judge noted that the letter from Omar Cham clearly confirmed that a police investigation was conducted, that CCTV footage from the QCell premises was provided to the police officers assigned to the case, and that QCell Limited did not retain any duplicate copy of the footage.
“In light of this communication, it is reasonable to infer that if the CCTV footage still exists, it is most likely in the custody or control of the police investigators who received it during the investigation of the case,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
He further explained that the fact that the footage was not reflected in the prosecution’s record does not necessarily mean that it never existed or is not in the possession of investigators.
Justice Jaiteh emphasised that the prosecution is not synonymous with the police investigators and that it is not uncommon for investigators to have custody of materials that have not yet been transmitted to the prosecuting authority.
The court further stated that where credible information is placed before it suggesting that potentially relevant evidence exists and may be in the possession of a third party, the court has a duty to ensure that such material is produced if available.
Justice Jaiteh also noted that CCTV footage can constitute objective and contemporaneous evidence of events at the alleged crime scene and may either support or undermine the case of either party.
“In the interest of fair trial rights, transparency and the proper administration of justice, the Court must ensure that any such evidence, if it exists, is made available,” the judge stated.
He further clarified that the defence application does not presume that the police currently possess the footage but simply seeks clarification and its production if it remains in their custody or control.
Justice Jaiteh therefore held that the defence application was reasonable, lawful and properly grounded in Section 221 of the Evidence Act.
“The objection by the prosecution is therefore without sufficient merit. The defence application is hereby granted,” the judge ruled.
Consequently, the court directed the Inspector General of Police to instruct the investigating officers attached to the Latrikunda German Police Post to produce the CCTV footage relating to the alleged incident at the QCell headquarters before the court which, according to QCell Limited, had earlier been handed over to police investigators.
The court further ordered that if the footage is in the custody or control of the police, it must be produced before the court on the next adjourned date.
However, if the footage is no longer in the possession of the police or cannot be located, the investigating officer responsible for the case must appear before the court to provide a clear explanation under oath regarding the whereabouts or status of the footage.
The Registrar of the court was also directed to serve the order on the Inspector General of Police for immediate compliance.
Before concluding his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasised the critical role of investigating authorities in the administration of justice, noting that evidence gathered during investigations must be properly preserved, documented and made available to the court when required.
He stressed that materials such as CCTV recordings must be handled with the utmost care and transparency so that the court can rely on them in determining the case.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until 5th May 2026 ,
