State Files Appeal to Overturn Acquittal of Ousainou and Amie Bojang

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Banjul — The Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice has filed a formal appeal seeking to overturn the acquittal and discharge of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, following the High Court ruling delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh.

In a Notice of Appeal filed on March 31, 2026, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) A.M. Yusuf described the trial court’s decision as “unreasonable and erroneous,” urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and substitute it with convictions and sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

According to the filing, the State has advanced seven grounds of appeal, arguing that the trial judge committed several errors in both law and fact in arriving at the acquittal.

Ground One: Confessional Statements

The State contends that Justice Jaiteh erred in law by reducing the evidentiary weight of Ousainou Bojang’s extra-judicial statements, tendered as Exhibit P6, on the basis that they lacked corroboration. The prosecution argues that the statements were obtained in compliance with due process and were sufficiently corroborated. It further maintains that a properly established confession can legally sustain a conviction even if the accused later retracts it.

Ground Two: Burden of Proof and Alibi

The prosecution also argues that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the State to disprove what it describes as an “afterthought alibi” raised during the trial. The State further submits that WhatsApp messages tendered as Exhibit D38 do not conclusively establish the accused’s physical location. It also faults the court for relying on testimony from witnesses described as close associates or relatives of the accused—identified as DW3, DW4, and DW12—whose evidence, the State argues, required careful caution due to their potential interest in the case.

Ground Three: Circumstantial Evidence

In its third ground, the State maintains that the judge focused too narrowly on visual identification principles, commonly referred to as the Turnbull guidelines, while overlooking what it describes as a “compelling web of circumstantial evidence.” The prosecution asserts that this body of evidence led investigators to Ousainou Bojang’s residence, where a kaftan allegedly linked to the case was recovered, and where the location of the alleged murder weapon was identified.

Ground Four: Flight to Senegal

The State further argues that Ousainou Bojang’s departure to Senegal on September 13, 2023, shortly after the incident, constitutes strong evidence of a “consciousness of guilt.” According to the prosecution, the trial judge failed to adequately scrutinize the accused’s explanation that he fled because of allegedly circulating nude photographs on social media. The State claims that the clandestine nature of the journey and attempts to avoid police checkpoints point instead to deliberate evasion.

Ground Five: Video Recording of Detention

The appeal also challenges the judge’s treatment of procedural issues surrounding the failure to video-record the accused’s detention under provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The State argues that once the court admitted the confessional statements following a voir dire, it should not subsequently have deemed them unreliable solely because of procedural non-compliance.

Ground Six: Alleged Role of Amie Bojang

With respect to Amie Bojang, the State submits that if the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang is overturned, the case against her as an accessory would automatically be revived. The prosecution points to testimony suggesting that she arranged transportation for her brother while allegedly aware that he intended to avoid public places.

Ground Seven: Overall Assessment of Evidence

Finally, the State argues that the High Court’s judgment was “unreasonable, excessive, and unwarranted” when assessed against the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

The prosecution is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court’s ruling and replace the acquittal with a conviction.

The case is expected to proceed before the Court of Appeal at a date yet to be announced.