State Counsel M. Mballow appeared for the prosecution, while Senior Counsel L.S. Camara represented the accused.
Colley told the court that before the deceased was shot, the accused allegedly fired at a bulldozer clearing land at the disputed site. He confirmed that the machine was occupied at the time and said he instructed the operator to switch off the engine after the shot was fired.
The witness recounted that the incident occurred around 10 a.m. while he and others from Gunjur were demarcating and clearing land. He said they had cleared about 300 metres when more than ten people from Berending arrived, approaching from behind the bulldozer.
Colley confirmed that some members of his group carried cutlasses to clear grass and trees, though he could not recall the exact dimensions of the land. He testified that upon arrival, the accused fired a shot into the air before shooting at the bulldozer.
He further told the court that he confronted the accused by holding the barrel of his gun and questioning his actions. During the scuffle, Colley said he noticed another man behind him holding a knife and preparing to stab him. He released the gun and turned to face the man, who told him the fight was not his concern after learning he was from Brikama.
Cross-Examination
Under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Camara, Colley admitted that he did not know the accused prior to 16 March 2019 and that no one had identified him on the day of the incident. He also confirmed that he did not personally know the deceased, though he said the deceased was known to his father.
When asked whether he was aware of any land dispute before going to the site, Colley maintained he had no knowledge of such a dispute and insisted they would not have gone there had they known.
Camara suggested to the witness that he did not see the accused at the land that day and did not see him carrying a gun. Colley firmly denied these claims, insisting he saw the accused with a firearm.
The defence referred Colley to a statement he made at the police station less than a month after the incident. Colley confirmed the statement as his own. Justice Cham admitted the statement into evidence as Defence Exhibit 4 (DE4) without objection from the prosecution.
When asked whether he could still recall events clearly after several years, Colley maintained that he had not forgotten anything, stating the incident had traumatised him and remained fresh in his memory. He added that he had fully explained the incident to the police and assured them of his availability whenever needed.
The matter was adjourned until 19 February 2026.
