The acquittal and discharge of Ousainou Bojang and his sister by the High Court in connection with the tragic September 23, 2023 Sukuta–Jabang traffic lights shooting has once again exposed a deeply troubling pattern within our national discourse: the dangerous tendency to reduce serious criminal matters into partisan political contests.
Two officers of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) were brutally killed while on active duty, and another officer sustained injuries. These were not mere statistics in a court record. They were sons, fathers, brothers, and public servants who wore the uniform and swore an oath to protect society.
The fundamental question confronting the nation should therefore be simple and solemn: Who killed these officers, and how will justice be served?
Yet in certain quarters, the public reaction has shifted away from this central question. What has instead emerged is an atmosphere of celebration—not necessarily because justice has been achieved, but because the accused persons have been freed.
Such a reaction should give every serious citizen pause.
The Legal Meaning of an Acquittal
In criminal law, an acquittal does not automatically establish factual innocence. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the high evidentiary threshold required in criminal trials.
This standard exists to safeguard society against wrongful convictions and remains a cornerstone of modern justice systems. However, it also means that a failure of proof does not necessarily mean that a crime did not occur or that the real perpetrators are known.
Legal history across many jurisdictions offers numerous examples where innocent individuals were wrongfully convicted, while in other cases real perpetrators walked free because of weak investigations, flawed prosecutions, or procedural failures.
Such outcomes may arise from miscarriages of justice, poor evidence gathering, weak witness preparation, prosecutorial shortcomings, or the failure of investigators to strictly follow due process.
For that reason, the acquittal in this case should not be interpreted as a political victory for any group, nor should it be framed as a defeat for the State. It is simply a legal outcome arising from the evidentiary process within the justice system.
Justice Is Not a Political Contest
Unfortunately, sections of the political and activist space have chosen to frame the case as a trial of the State itself, rather than what it fundamentally was: a criminal case concerning the killing of two law enforcement officers.
Even more concerning is the conspicuous silence from many who claim the mantle of human rights advocacy when it comes to the victims of this tragedy.
Human rights advocacy must be universal and principled. It cannot selectively defend the rights of accused persons while ignoring the rights of victims and their grieving families. Justice demands balance.
The rule of law protects both the accused and the victims.
In this case, the accused were fully entitled to the protections of the law—the presumption of innocence, access to legal representation, and a fair trial based strictly on evidence presented before the court. These rights were respected.
However, the families of the fallen officers are equally entitled to truth, accountability, and justice. Their loss cannot be erased simply because a prosecution has failed to secure a conviction.
A Troubling Public Reaction
Equally disturbing is the tone of celebration seen on the streets and across social media following the acquittal.
In any mature democracy governed by the rule of law, the appropriate reaction to such a verdict should be sober reflection—not jubilation.
Two officers were killed in cold blood while carrying out their duties. When society celebrates the collapse of a murder prosecution without equal concern for the victims, it risks sending a dangerous message: that political allegiance matters more than justice.
No responsible society should travel that path.
Recognizing the Broader Democratic Context
While many on social media platforms are commending the defence lawyer Lamin J. Darboe for his legal performance in the case, it is equally important to acknowledge the broader democratic context that made such legal representation possible.
The government of President Adama Barrow deserves recognition for fostering an atmosphere that is legally conducive for lawyers—including those who once lived in exile—to return freely and defend accused persons in Gambian courts without fear or intimidation. The fact that a lawyer who once lived outside the country can appear in court, vigorously defend his client, and secure a favorable verdict speaks volumes about the current state of judicial independence and legal freedom in The Gambia.
Such realities stand in stark contrast to the era of dictatorship under Yahya Jammeh, when many lawyers, journalists, and activists were forced into exile simply for standing on the side of the law and justice.
The ability of defence counsel to operate freely, challenge the State’s case, and win in court is not a weakness of the system—it is evidence that the rule of law and judicial independence are taking root in post-dictatorship Gambia.
The Legal Process Is Not Over
It is important to emphasize that the legal process in this matter is not necessarily concluded.
The State retains the constitutional right to appeal, and the accused persons have been granted court bail pending any further legal proceedings. The appellate courts may now review critical legal issues arising from the judgment, including the evaluation of evidence and the interpretation of law.
This is how justice systems function. Courts correct potential errors through structured appellate processes—not through political outrage or celebratory street reactions.
The Question That Still Remains
Despite the verdict, one question continues to weigh heavily on the conscience of the nation:
Who killed the PIU officers?
Until that question is answered through credible investigation and lawful prosecution, justice remains incomplete.
The families of the slain officers deserve answers. The security services deserve accountability. And the Gambian people deserve the truth.
A Call for Sobriety and Responsibility
Recognizing the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang and his sister does not mean declaring them the killers. Nor does raising concerns about public celebrations amount to an attack on the judiciary.
Courts decide cases based solely on the evidence placed before them. When that evidence fails to meet the threshold required by law, acquittal is the only lawful outcome.
However, society must also acknowledge that legal outcomes can sometimes leave unresolved moral and investigative questions.
This case should therefore serve as a national reminder of the importance of professional investigations, diligent prosecution, proper witness preparation, and strict adherence to due process.
Without these foundations, justice—whether for the accused or the victims—can easily slip through the cracks.
Conclusion
The acquittal of the accused should not divide the nation along partisan lines. Instead, it should reinforce a fundamental principle that must guide any democratic society: the rule of law must prevail, and justice must ultimately be done.
Two police officers lost their lives while serving the public. Their memory deserves solemn reflection, not political theatre.
As the legal process continues, the nation must remain committed to the pursuit of truth, accountability, and justice.
For while justice delayed may be painful, justice abandoned is far worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment