The Director of Public Prosecution, A.M Yusuf objected the documents sought to be tendered and stated that the documents were computer-generated and the provisions of the Evidence Act had not been complied with.
He further argued that the certificate was signed by a particular person he said he did not know whether the person was the driver or executive officer of the company.
Counsel Darboe opposed the objections that the requirements of the said provisions had been fulfilled, stating that the test of admissibility was relevant and the documents sought to be tendered were relevant to the trial before the court.
Defence Lawyer L.J Darboe further said he believed that the call logs came from a proper custody and they were produced in the court and a summon to produce was given to Africell. He added that such summons would go to the Chief Executive Officer who would give directions.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh pointed out two issues which were whether the call logs were computer-generated documents and whether the call logs had met the legal requirements of the Evidence Act.
The presiding judge stated that the defence had produced a certificate which showed that the computer that generated the call log documents was operating properly during the period that the said computer was used regularly to store and process information.
He, therefore, said that the certificate had met the legal requirements of the Evidence Act, and admitted both the Africell call logs and the certificate as exhibits.
After referring to the call log documents, defence counsel L.J Darboe put it to the witness that he was nowhere near the Traffic Light where the alleged shooting happened.
However, the witness disagreed with the defence counsel and said the document marked as an exhibit was “inaccurate” as per the area of his location.
The case was adjourned until 22 April 2024.
