Defence Counsel Adama Sillah has filed a “Reply on Points of Law” in the Sukuta-Jabang Traffic Lights shooting trial, arguing that the State’s case against Amie Bojang (2nd Accused) is legally hollow and built upon an investigation that was “wishy-washy, incomplete, and filled with needless loopholes”.
The detailed points of law submitted before Justice Jaiteh of the High Court, challenge the prosecution’s application of the law and its reliance on precedents that the defence claims do not apply to the facts of the case.
Counsel Sillah argues that the prosecution has “woefully failed” to prove the ingredients of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code. Citing the Supreme Court of The Gambia in Batch Samba Faye v. The State (2014-2015), Counsel Sillah maintains that the prosecution must prove not just that a death occurred, but that the act of the accused actually caused it.
While the defence counsel Sillah acknowledges that the death of two police officers was proven through the testimony of Pathologist Professor Gabriel Ogun (PW7), Counsel Sillah contend there is “no linkage or nexus” between these deaths and the first accused, Ousainou Bojang.
Defence counsel points out that while ballistics experts (PW12) matched shell casings to a recovered pistol (Exhibit P28), it’s irrelevant because the prosecution provided zero evidence matching that weapon to Ousainou Bojang.
Counsel Sillah contends that the prosecution’s reliance on Akpan v. State and Archibong v. State is misplaced because, in those cases, there was a clear link between the accused and the weapon a link the defence insists is missing in the case of the accused.
Counsel Sillah’s points of law highlight procedural failure by the police to conduct an identification parade. Counsel Sillah argues that relying on the “speculation” of a witness describing a “tall man” violates the accused’s right to a fair hearing under Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution.
Counsel Sillah references Henry Otti v. The State emphasizes that an identification parade is essential when the police must determine if a suspect committed the crime. Counsel Sillah argues the court cannot rely on the “weak or uncertain” description of a “tall man,” labelling it “mere conjecture”.
Counsel Sillah challenged the terrorism charges arguing that the State failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Counsel Sillah asserts that Section 60 and the Second Schedule of the Act require the video recording of a detained person during their period of detention.
Counsel Sillah added that no interactions between the police and Ousainou Bojang were video recorded, maintaining that the terrorism allegations cannot legally stand and are legally void.
For the charge of being an accessory after the fact, the defence argues the State failed to prove Amie Bojang acted “knowingly and deliberately” to help her brother evade detection.
Counsel Sillah argues that Amie Bojang maintained under oath that she only helped her brother travel to seek spiritual help from a marabout because a “white lady” was threatening to leak nude videos of him.
Counsel Sillah notes that prosecution witnesses (PW9 and PW11) provided zero testimony indicating Amie knew about the deaths of the police officers at the time of the trip.
Counsel Sillah also brought to the attention of the court regarding Amie Bojang’s treatment in custody highlighting that Amie testified she was held beyond the 72-hour constitutional limit, a “gross breach” of her fundamental rights under Section 19 of the Constitution.
Counsel Sillah claimed Amie was detained in the same cells as male suspects, which Counsel Sillah argue violates the Women’s Act 2010 and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Counsel Sillah further criticised the “unsupported” evidence of top State officials (DW6, DW7, and DW8) who held a press briefing a day after the incident. Counsel Sillah the official claimed the assailant was part of a six-member rebel group from Casamance claims they later admitted were “not verified” and based on “unclosed” informants.
Counsel Sillah contends that because the prosecution failed to prove the principal offence of murder against Ousainou Bojang, the secondary charge of being an “accessory” against Amie Bojang must also fail.
Citing the Nigerian Court of Appeal in Major Hamza Al-Mustapha v. The State, which cautioned against “wishy-washy” investigations, Counsel Sillah concludes that the prosecution’s case has collapsed.
Counsel Sillah maintains that because the prosecution failed to prove the principal offence of murder against Ousainou Bojang, the secondary charge of being an “accessory” against Amie Bojang must also fail and urges the court to acquit and discharge Amie Bojang.
