Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
" /> Voice Out Digital
Published On: Wed, Jul 10th, 2024

Defense Counsel Re-Cross Examines PW2 in Alleged Sukuta Jabang Shooting Incident

Defense Counsel Lamin J Darboe for the 1st accused person Ousainou Bojang, re cross examines second Prosecution witness Bakary Jarju, a solider attached at the Yundum Barracks in the recalling of witnesses in the alleged Sukuta Jabang shooting incident against Ousainou and his sister Amie Bojang, where three PIU Officers were shot, killing two and leaving one critically injured. 

Counsel J Darboe first asked the witness if he was from Yundum, to that he replied yes, he was further asked if he recalls the time, he visited Palma Rima beach on the 12th of September 2023 with Ismaila Bojang and Omar S Jallow, to that he said it was in the evening but he cannot recall the time as it was a long time. When asked if he went to the beach after work he responded with a yes.

The witness was asked if he went to the traffic lights from the beach, he said yes if his memory serves him well, when also asked if he recalls when he went to New Yundum, he answered he cannot remember the time. He was then asked to look at a document containing a number and confirm if it was his number, to that he confirmed that it was his. Counsel J Darboe applied to tender the call logs of the witness, from 1st of September 2023 to 31st October 2023 as an exhibit. With no objection from the DPP, the Africell call log was admitted and marked as Exhibit D13.

Counsel J Darboe further asked the witness to look at the document (call log) page 5, last two entries which he did and he was asked if it is correct that those calls are from him. To that he answered he does not know. Counsel then put to the witness that those two calls were from him to Ismaila Bojang and Omar S Jallow.

At this point, DPP stated that the document is before the court and it speaks for itself hence if Counsel puts to the witness and he responds, it does not change the content of the document hence the question put is irrelevant. Counsel J Darboe in response, stated he does not agree with DPP, highlighting as this is cross examination hence, he can put the content to the witness who has the opportunity to respond. Noting that would clarify issues before the court as it is an open trial and everyone is entitled as he further urged the Court to order the witness to answer.

Justice Jaiteh in his ruling, stated whatever answer the witness gives does not change the content, highlighting, the question is allowed as the document indicates that the calls were made to Ismaila Bojang and Omar S Jallow hence who made the calls was relevant.

The witness replied that he does not know who made the call. Counsel J Darboe then put to the witness, he did not come to the Traffic Lights that night from Palma Rima, to that the witness responded, of course he did. Counsel J Darboe further put to him again that, he came to the Traffic Lights from his home village of New Yundum. He replied that, he came from Palma Rima to the Traffic Lights.

Counsel J Darboe further put to the witness, it would not be necessary for him to call Omar S Jallow and Ismaila Bojang if he was together with them, to that he replied, when Omar went to buy Afra that was when the person called but he forgot who called, to tell him the location where they were. He was further asked to tell the court, why he called Ismaila Bojang if he was together with him, to that he answered, he cannot remember calling Ismaila Bojang. Counsel put to the witness again, he was coordinating a transaction between himself, Omar S Jallow and Ismaila Bojang. To that he replied, he cannot remember at all. That was all Counsel had for the witness, the witness was then discharged

About the Author

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

unemployment tax management