The court warned that failure to comply may amount to contempt and would attract the full coercive powers of the court.
The order came after Famara Bojang, the 3rd defence witness, testified under oath that he was arrested and detained for three days at the Anti-Crime Unit, where he provided a statement to the police. The said statement was however not among the documents submitted to the court by the prosecution.
The court, citing its constitutional and statutory duty to ensure a fair trial, declared the contents of Famara’s alleged statement materially relevant to the case.
The order directed the Commissioner of Anti-Crime Unit to produce any written statements or records obtained from Mr Famara Bojang during his detention, on or before the next adjourned date. The order further required the Commissioner to submit an affidavit if no such statement exists, explaining the basis for the denial, and to comply immediately, upon receiving the order, via the Office of the Inspector General of Police.
The witness Famara Bojang testified that on the night of the alleged incident, Ousainou Bojang visited him around 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. to apologise for an allegation involving a white woman. After apologizing to both his stepfather and brother (Pa Bojang), Ousainou later returned around 11:00 p.m. and briefly visited Pa Bojang’s house again.
Famara said Ousainou asked him to watch his lodge while he went to a nearby shop. As they stood together, a man named Junior returned and informed them of a post on What’s On Gambia about two police officers being shot. Together with Bakary, they viewed the post on Junior’s phone and were shocked.
He further explained that Ousainou then left for the shop and returned later, telling Famara he was turning in for the night. Famara said he eventually received multiple calls from Ousainou expressing distress over a relationship issue with a white lady. He agreed to speak with their brother and later suggested Amie Bojang could help.
The following day, Famara said, he learned from his younger brother about news circulating online involving Ousainou. He said he received a picture and an audio message from a woman identified in the audio as Mama Jabbi.
Under cross-examination by Director of Public Prosecutions A.M Yusuf, Famara confirmed he works as a welder in Tanji and recognised the woman shown to him by Ousainou, although she was not the same woman he had seen previously.
He testified that the police came to their home, but spoke to Pa Bojang and asked for Ousainou’s phone, which Pa Bojang produced and later returned to retrieve clothes from Ousainou’s house, which they put in an envelope. Famara said the investigators proceeded to Ousainou’s workplace and returned to their house.
“They asked about the shoes in the veranda, and I said they were mine. One of them took out his phone, showed me a picture comparing another shoe with mine, and claimed they were the same. I disagreed, but he told me to shut up,” defence witness Famara stated.
He added: “The officer then picked up another shoe and said it was not Ousainou’s, suggesting it could be tested with Ousainou. Even though Ousainou was there, he still told me to shut up.”
Famara further said the officers attempted to link a shoe found in the compound to Ousainou.
Famara said he denied the shoe belong to Ousainou and claimed he was threatened with arrest when he objected. He stated that the other shoes belonged to a labourer at the compound.
The following day, Amie Bojang, Pa Bojang, and a woman named Ndey were arrested, the witness said, and he identified two pairs of shoes as his when they were presented in court. Upon wearing them, the court confirmed they fit his feet.
Famara confirmed he was arrested and detained for three days at the Anti-Crime Unit, where he made a statement to Officer Ceesay.
Defence Counsel Lamin J. Darboe informed the court he had previously requested this statement, but it had not been provided, stating that the DPP admitted the statement was not among the disclosed documents.
This led to the court’s decisive order for the Anti-Crime Unit to produce the statement or submit an affidavit explaining its absence, setting a firm deadline and threatening contempt proceedings should there be any failure to comply.
The case was adjourned until 2 June 2025.
