The Banjul High Court, under the authority of Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, has rejected a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P.) to summon a cobbler as a witness in the Defence’s case concerning the alleged PIU shooter case.
The accused, Ousainou Bojang, denied ownership of a pair of combat shoes alleged to belong to his brother, while acknowledging that he owned a different pair of white shoes that fit him during the court examination.
The prosecution requested to summon a cobbler to provide testimony regarding the shoe measurement process, connecting it to Exhibit P26, which is already part of the evidence on record. The unexpected action prompted an immediate response from Defence Counsel L.J. Darboe, who pointed out procedural irregularities and contended that the prosecution had already concluded its case.
The Court agreed with the defence, highlighting that permitting such testimony at this point, while the first accused (Ousainou Bojang) was being cross-examined, would violate established criminal procedure and compromise the fairness of the trial.
“This practice is not only unsuitable but also in direct opposition to the principles established in the criminal procedure,” the ruling stated. “The Defence has the right to present its case free from the undue influence or interruption of ongoing prosecutions.”
The Court compared the scenario to bringing in a mobile technician during the trial to unlock a phone, emphasising that although such evidence might be essential and relevant in certain circumstances, the matter of shoe measurement has already been resolved through the evidence that is currently available.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, the presiding judge, determined that allowing the cobbler to testify at this stage would lead to procedural impropriety and could jeopardise the integrity of the judicial process. The prosecution was recommended to submit a formal application should they desire to revisit the matter, adhering to legal standards and appropriate procedure.
This Court is dedicated to guaranteeing that both parties receive fair and equal chances to present their cases. The ruling concluded, “It is essential to preserve the rule of law and due process.”
The hearing has been postponed until 14 May 2025.
