‘Alleged PIU shooter was never beaten’

‘Alleged PIU shooter was never beaten’

The first prosecuting witness in the voir dire (trial-within-trial) of the alleged PIU shooter case said before Justice E. Jaiteh of the High Court that the alleged PIU shooter was never beaten nor drugged during the course of the investigation.

It would be recalled that the High Court suspended the main trial of the alleged PIU shooter case and focused on other matters subsidiary to the main trial.

Recently, Defence Counsel L. Darboe told the court that the accused, Ousainou Bojang, was beaten and drugged by Anti-Crime officers when he was giving his cautionary statement.

Ebou Sowe, the first prosecuting witness, said that he first got in contact with the accused the very first day he was arrested, which was on 13 September 2023.

During his examination in chief, the Director of Public Prosecution AM Yusuf, asked the witness how he obtained the cautionary statement of the accused and he responded that the statement was recorded around 1300 hours on 15 September 2023 and it was done in the presence of an independent witness named Alieu Cham.

He further testified that the voluntary statement of the accused person was also obtained on 15 September 2023 on the charges of murder, attempted murder, assault causing grievous bodily harm and prohibition of acts of terrorism.

The witness confirmed in the court that at the time of recording the voluntary statement of the accused he was of sound mind, adding that the accused was never beaten nor administered any drug before, during and after the entire process of the investigation.

Mr Sowe disclosed in court that during the entire process of the investigation, he engaged the accused three times: 13th, 14th, and 15th September 2023 in obtaining his cautionary statement, adding that he engaged him twice for the purpose of obtaining his voluntary statement. 

The documents were shown to the witness in court for confirmation and he confirmed that he recorded both the cautionary and voluntary statement of the accused, adding that he could recognise the documents by his handwriting, signature, police document number and his surname.

DDP AM Yusuf applied to tender the documents and the first and second defence counsel did not object.

The case continues today.

Source: The Point

Post a Comment

Translate »