Africa-Press – Gambia. In the ongoing murder trial of Ousainou and Amie Bojang, court proceedings took a dramatic turn Wednesday as video evidence was presented showing National Security Adviser Abubakary Sulayman Jeng’s earlier statement alleging that Ousainou Bojang obtained a weapon from Casamance and was affiliated with a rebel group there.
Representing the prosecution, Director of Public Prosecutions A.M. Yusuf faced off against defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe and Adama Sillah, who represent the accused. Jeng was reminded of his oath before resuming testimony.
Counsel Darboe revisited Jeng’s involvement in a police press briefing held on September 15, 2023, during which Jeng participated in a recorded question-and-answer session with the media. The presiding judge, Justice Jaiteh, approved a request to play the video footage in court.
On the recording, journalist Kebba Ansu of Alkamba asked Jeng to identify six individuals he claimed were involved in the shooting incident. Jeng responded that Ousainou Bojang and six others were implicated but declined to name them, citing “security reasons,” and clarified that none were security personnel.
Most notably, the video footage captured Jeng stating, “The suspect Ousainou Bojang, from his mouth, told us that he acquired the weapon from Cassamance, and he’s part of the rebel group in Cassamance.”
Counsel Darboe immediately probed whether this claim was documented in an audio or video recording. Jeng admitted the information was conveyed verbally and that he had not sought any such recording. Stating, “I have no doubt in the people who provided the information,” he testified.
Further questioning revealed that Jeng had not personally spoken with Ousainou Bojang prior to the charges being filed, nor had he ever seen the alleged firearm. When asked how he communicated his reports to the president in his capacity as National Security Adviser, Jeng stated that it was “through intelligence information” and confirmed that he had briefed the president accordingly.
Jeng reiterated his public assertion that the weapon was not part of the Gambian armoury but acknowledged that he had only received a description of the gun and had not seen it firsthand. The court upheld an objection raised by Director of Public Prosecutions Yusuf regarding Jeng’s testimony about the type of gun, given that Jeng admitted to never having seen the weapon.
When questioned about whether he had established a motive for the incident, Jeng responded, “No.” He was also unable to confirm if the ECOMIG mandate had been extended following the incident or to identify the six alleged suspects. Jeng explained that he did not know the suspects personally unless he had met them face-to-face. He maintained that his assertion regarding the weapon’s origin was based solely on the intelligence he had received.
Counsel Adama Sillah, representing the second accused, Amie Bojang, then took over the cross-examination, focusing on Jeng’s role as National Security Adviser.
Jeng affirmed his position but clarified, when asked whether it was supervisory, “No, I only coordinate.”
Counsel Sillah questioned why Mr. Jeng held a press briefing if his responsibilities were limited to coordination. In response, Jeng asserted that addressing the media was “part of my mandate.”
Pressed further about the origin of the information he shared during the briefing, Jeng replied that it was “information I was given.”
Counsel Sillah questioned whether the press briefing might have compromised the investigation, a claim Jeng denied. Sillah pointed out that the press briefing referenced six individuals being involved, yet this information was never introduced as evidence in court. Despite an objection from the DPP, the court allowed the matter to proceed.
Adviser Jeng stated that he was unsure if the information he provided differed from what was before the court and refused to disclose the source of his statement for the briefing without a court order.
Counsel Sillah successfully requested the production of the statement Jeng delivered during the press briefing. The DPP complied, submitting the document, which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit DD4 without opposition.
After reviewing the statement, Jeng confirmed its accuracy. When directed to paragraph 19, where it mentioned “A CCTV footage was recovered…,” Jeng acknowledged he had neither seen the footage nor knew whether it had been obtained by the investigation or its current location.
Adviser Jeng acknowledged that his claim regarding the arrest of six individuals was “based on the information I was given,” but once again declined to identify the source. He further admitted that he had not personally seen the six alleged suspects.
When questioned about his decision to hold a public rather than a private briefing, Security Adviser Abubakary Sulayman Jeng said the incident was “unprecedented” and warranted public disclosure to “calm fear and keep the public informed.” He noted that this was his first press briefing in his current role, despite previous murder cases occurring during his tenure. He justified the move by emphasizing that the case “involves an officer of the security force.”
Jeng added that he had no knowledge of any forensic or DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. He denied being compelled to hold the press briefing and said he was unaware whether a female suspect was among those implicated.
Counsel Lamin J. Darboe resumed questioning.
“How much Individual CCTV footage have you recovered from the incident?” he inquired.
“I’m not in a position to tell how many individual CCTV footages were recovered”, Jeng responded.
Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh then interjected, highlighting the critical role CCTV footage could play in clarifying the incident and identifying those responsible. He urged the government to expand CCTV camera installations nationwide.
With no further questions, Abubakary Sulayman Jeng was excused.
Counsel Lamin J. Darboe subsequently requested that military officer Omar S. Jallow, initially slated as a state witness but never summoned, be called to testify for the defense. Neither counsel raised objections to this request.
Justice Jaiteh’s ruling favored the application, mandating Omar S. Jallow, a military officer stationed at the Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) Training School, to appear as a defense witness. The judge referenced key human rights guarantees within the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia (Section 24(3)(d)), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 7(1)(c)), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Article 14(3)(e)), alongside the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance (2001), all of which uphold an accused’s right to present and question witnesses.
Justice Jaiteh emphasized that precluding an accused from calling a pertinent witness who had already made a statement would compromise the integrity and fairness of the trial.
In accordance with Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court ordered Mr. Omar S. Jallow to appear before the High Court on July 7th, 2025, at 2:15 p.m., to offer his testimony under oath. Furthermore, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) of the Gambia Armed Forces was instructed to ensure Jallow’s presence without hindrance, with a stern caution that failure to comply would lead to contempt of court charges.
The case has now been adjourned to July 7th, 2025.
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
