Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
" /> Voice Out Digital
Published On: Tue, Dec 12th, 2023

PW4 Testifies “The Person Threw The Gun At Me”

Lamin Fofana (PW4) the Fourth state witness in the state Vs. Ousainou and Amie Bojang testified in court that the Shooter tried to hit him with the gun.

Lamin Fofana, a watchman residing near the Sukuta traffic light, when asked by State Counsel A.M Yusuf to narrate the incident that happened on 12th September 2023.

Lamin Fofana (PW4) narrated that he cannot remember the date, but when he returned from Mosque prayers, he saw his uncle, Jobe, chasing someone whom he referred to as a thief. So he Lamin (PW4) threw a stone at him, but the person threw something back at him which he managed to dodge.

He further said, he chased after the person to apprehend him, but couldn’t catch him. He had to return because his house door was not locked. So he went back to where he was sitting and saw a gun.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf further asked where the gun came from to which Lamin (PW4) replied he does not know where the gun came from, but when the person running threw something an (object), he bent his head to avoid being hit which he believes is the gun.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf further clarified “So, the person running threw the gun at you?” And Lamin (PW4) replied “Yes, he tried to hit me with the gun”.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf asked Lamin (PW4) what he did when he saw the gun to which Lamin (PW4) responded that he picked it up and threw it away. When asked where he threw it he further said he threw it in an empty land next to his house. State Counsel A.M Yusuf asked him to tell the Court where exactly the location is and he (PW4) said

It was a compound opposite their compound.

State Counsel AM Yusuf further inquired whether the person running was wearing any clothing to which Lamin (PW4) confirmed yes and he was further asked What type of color and he (PW4) affirmed that he cannot state the color, but it was a haftan.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf also asked him if he can remember what the man looks like and he (PW4) said No, he cannot remember him.

State Counsel further asked “If you see the man can you identify him?” At that point, defense Counsel J. Darboe interrupted, objecting to the question as leading the witness. To Which the Judge overruled the objection.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf reframed and asked if the witness can recognize the appearance of the person running to the witness (PW4) responded that he cannot remember. When further asked If he was to see the person, would he be able to identify him and he the witness (PW4) said No, he would not be able to recognize the person.

State Counsel A.M Yusuf asked the witness (PW4) “After throwing the gun in the empty land, what happened next?” The witness (PW4) said “I called my boss, Ansumana Tunkara, who instructed me not to tell anyone about what happened. He said he would arrange for someone to retrieve the gun.”

State Counsel AM Yusuf further asked “Was this on the same night of the incident?” Witness (PW4) responded “Yes, it was the same night”.

He was also asked if he had informed anyone, as per his boss’s instructions and he said No, he did not inform anyone.

State Counsel asked “Did your boss eventually arrange for someone to collect the gun?” And he (PW4) responded yes.

He was also asked when did that happen and he (PW4) responded that it was on Friday.

When also asked by State Counsel A.M Yusuf if he remembers the type of gun and he (PW4) replied “You know, I don’t know much about guns. So, how can I answer that?”

Defense Counsel J. Darboe then took the floor to cross-examine the witness regarding his testimony. Counsel J. Darboe started by questioning the witness about the day he provided his statement to the police.

The Witness (PW4) responded that he remembers, so he was asked by Counsel J Darboe if he can recall the exact day but he (PW4) said It was on a Friday but when asked by Counsel J Darboe if it was the first Friday after the incident to which the witness (PW4) said he cannot recall which Friday, but it was a Friday.

He (PW4) was further asked if he can remember the telephone number he provided to the police to which he responded yes.

Counsel j Darboe asks “Can you provide the number?” And the witness stated “7957745.”

Counsel j Darboe further inquired if he (PW4) has any other telephone numbers but he (PW4) responded “No that is the only number I have”.

Counsel j Darboe also asked “Did you provide any other numbers to the police apart from your own?” Witness (PW4) replied “No, I only provided my number.”

Counsel j Darboe also asked the witness (PW4) about his age and occupation to which he (PW4) said he is 23 years old and a watchman.

Counsel J Darboe also asked “Did you thumbprint your statement?” The witness responded “Yes, I did.” When also asked by

Counsel j Darboe “And you left your statement with the police?” He (PW4) replied “Yes, I left it with the police.”

Counsel J. Darboe then requested the production of the witness’s statement and applied for it to be admitted as an exhibit. With no objections from both the state counsel and the second defense counsel, the document was marked and admitted as Exhibit D4.

Counsel J. Darboe also confirmed with Lamin (PW4) about his lack of knowledge about the gun, to which (PW4) confirmed “Yes, I have no knowledge about the gun”.

Counsel J. Darboe further asked “When you picked up the gun, was it dismantled or assembled?” And the Witness replied “It was dismantled.”

Counsel J. Darboe also asked “How did you manage to gather the pieces together?” And the witness (PW4) responded “I only grabbed them and threw them away.”

Counsel J. Darboe also inquired if the witness (PW4) has any idea about the type of gun it was but he (PW4) responded No, he doesn’t know.

Counsel J. Darboe further said “In your statement, you mentioned two people, Ansumana Tunkara and Amara Tunkara. Are they the same individuals?” The witness replied “No, they are different people. Ansumana Tunkara is my boss.”

Counsel J. Darboe concluded his cross-examination, stating that he had no further questions for the witness. The defense counsel for the second accused did not question the witness either, and the state counsel had no plans for re-examination.

With no further question, the presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh discharged the witness and adjourned the case to tomorrow for the testimony of the fifth state witness.

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