By Ousman Saidykhan
In a significant ruling today, the court dismissed a request by the Director of Public Prosecutions, AM Yusuf, to summon a cobbler to testify about the shoe measurement process tied to a pair of combat boots already admitted as Exhibit P26 in an ongoing murder trial involving Ousainou Bojang, the man accused of killing two police officers. The decision came after defense counsel J. Darboe objected, arguing that the prosecution’s case had already closed and that the move was procedurally flawed.
Presiding Judge Jaiteh rejected the prosecution’s request, citing “several procedural and ethical concerns” that could undermine the trial’s fairness. The boots in question are central to the prosecution’s claim that the defendant, Ousainou Bojang, wore them on the night of an alleged killing on September 12, 2023. However, the defense has contested this, pointing to a December 4, 2024, courtroom demonstration where Bojang’s feet failed to fit into Exhibit P26.
“The prosecution is bound by its timeline for presenting evidence,” Judge Jaiteh emphasized in his ruling. “Allowing testimony at this stage, during the defense’s presentation, risks compromising the fairness of the trial and the rights of the accused.” He added that such a move could be seen as an improper attempt to introduce new evidence mid-trial, a practice he deemed “contrary to the principles enshrined in criminal procedure.”
The dispute over the boots escalated during a March 24 hearing when the DPP used a measuring tape to compare Exhibit P26 with a white pair of boots, Defense Exhibit D30, which Bojang confirmed as his own and which fit him comfortably. Today’s ruling underscored that any further testimony from a cobbler would disrupt the defense’s right to present its case without interference.
Judge Jaiteh left the door open for the prosecution to revisit the issue but insisted it must file a formal application grounded in legal provisions. “This will allow the court to consider the matter properly and ensure all parties are given a fair opportunity to respond,” he concluded.
The trial continues to draw attention as the court balances procedural integrity with the contentious evidence at its core.
