By Sainabou Sambou
The Court of Appeal on Monday adjourned the State’s application seeking leave to appeal the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang to Monday, 8th June 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The adjournment was to afford the respondents two clear days to file their response to the motion.
The matter was heard by a three-member panel comprising Justice N. Salla-Wadda (President of the Court of Appeal), Justice Basiru V.P. Mahoney, and Justice Amina Saho-Ceesay.
Director of Public Prosecutions A.M. Yusuf, together with F. Touray, appeared for the State. The respondents, B.M.O. Badjie (holding brief for J. Darboe), L.K. Mboge, and J. Jeng, were present in court.
B.M.O. Badjie informed the court that the respondents were served with the State’s application on 29th May 2026. The panel noted that the rules entitle the respondents to two clear days to respond. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing to 8th June 2026 for definite hearing of the motion.
The State is challenging the High Court judgment delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh on 30th March 2026, in which both Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang were acquitted and discharged after a full trial.
Following the acquittal, the State filed a Notice of Appeal on 31st March 2026. Realizing that leave of the Court of Appeal was required under Section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, the State filed an amended Notice of Appeal on 29th April 2026 and subsequently brought a Motion on Notice.
The motion prays for four reliefs: leave to appeal the acquittal, a declaration that the original Notice of Appeal was validly filed, leave to amend the notice, and an order declaring the amended notice as properly before the court.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Kaddijatou A. Bah, a Legal Clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Justice. She deposed that granting the application would not occasion any prejudice to the respondents.
In opposition, Ousainou Bojang filed an affidavit through Ebrima Charty of Dabanani Chambers. He argued that he was not properly served with the appeal processes, that the State failed to comply with the rules of appeal, and that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, and lacking in merit. He further claimed the State’s action was meant to frustrate him after a successful defense at the High Court.
On 20th May 2026, the same panel expressed concern about the improper service of the processes. The court observed that the DPP’s office failed to provide adequate information to the court’s process server and directed that proper personal service be made on both respondents. That directive has now been complied with.
The outcome of the motion will determine whether the Court of Appeal will entertain the State’s challenge to the controversial acquittal.
