The application of the defence team was made during the testimony of Major Bubacarr Bah, a military officer who conducted the ballistic examinations on the weapon used in the alleged shooting of the three PIU Officers. He recounted that in September 2023 he received ballistic request from Gambia Police Force dated 27 September 2023 to conduct ballistic examination on a small arm called pistol.
Bubacarr Bah, who stood as prosecution witness 12 (PW12), added that there was an earlier request to conduct a ballistic examination on the pistol and 3 empty shells of cartridges that were fired from a weapon and one of which was a live bullet not fired.
He added that the ballistic request of the 27th September 2023 was connected to the earlier ballistic request from the police on the small ammunition -a pistol and bullets, which he recalled. He said he conducted ballistic examinations on the bullets and the pistol, a report of which was dated and signed 10th October 2023, which he sent to the police.
Pw12 continued that after conducting the ballistic examinations he was out of the jurisdiction of the office and the reports were signed by his Junior in the person of Major A. Dacosta with a covering letter signed by Lieutenant Colonel Yerro Jallow and sent to the Gambia Police Force.
He testified that after his return to the office, since it was his responsibility, he checked the reports and made a signature for his own records.
DPP AM Yusef, during his examination, asked the witness to identify the said report and confirmed, which the witness eventually did.
AM Yusef then applied to tender the report as evidence and marked as exhibit 29, which was subsequently objected to by LJ Darboe stating “the witness [PW12] is not the author of the report and it was not signed by anyone. Thus he applied for the author to come and tender the report in the person of Major A. Dacosta.
“No evidence or foundation was laid as to why the officer was not here to tender the report. My Lord under this circumstances I urge the court to reject the document,” he applied.
Counsel LJ Darboe further stated that Major Bah (PW12) signed a ballistic report different from the report dated 10th October, that he should tender not a report signed by another officer.
Counsel O. Sillah, defence for the second accused, said he associated himself with LJ Darboe and rejected admissibility of ”the document which has 2 signatures” in the submission of Lt Colonel Yerro Jallow.
Additionally, he said, the entity of the report appeared to be signed by A. Dacosta “who is not before the court with no reason, whilst PW12 is before the court to tender the report”.
He noted: “I apply that the report should be rejected and marked as rejected.”
AM Yusef, sequel to the application, stated that it was an evidence before the court that PW12 signed subsequently for his own records and the evidence he wanted to tender in court was authored and signed by the witness and “it is the same document that the witness identified” as the report he prepared from the ballistic examination for the pistol and 4 ammunition.
For the record, he added, there is nothing contrary to the evidence of the witness. Relying on section 3 of the Evidence Act, he said, “the documents sought to be tendered are relevant in this trial.”
He added that with regard to the two signatures on the document as highlighted by counsel to the 2nd accused, “it is evident” that PW12 prepared the document and a cover letter was signed by Yerro Jallow and sent to the police. “There were nothing like 2 signatories to the report,” he added.
He urged the court to disregard the objection of both counsel and admitted the documents into evidence: “It is in the interest of justice; no technicalities should be allowed to override the interest of justice.”
Subsequently, Justice E. Jaiteh, in his ruling on the admissibility of the report by the defence team, that after carefully examining the report which was signed by the ballistic officer who testified that he was out of the office and the report was signed on his behalf but he also signed the report, said: “The test of admissibility of evidence is relevant before the court.” Thus he overruled the objection of the defence team and marked the report as exhibit P29.
The case was adjourned till 25 June 2024.
