Lawyer Lamin Camara, the defense counsel for Capt. Bunja Darboe, and Emmanuel Fagbenle, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) yesterday addressed the court martial on the trial within trial of the cautionary statement of Capt. Bunja Darboe.

In his earlier submission, lawyer Camara stated that the trial within trial is to determine the voluntariness of the undated cautionary statements which were confessional. He noted that for that purpose, the prosecution called two witnesses namely the maker of the statement- Detective 1203 Boto Keita and the independent witness Babou Loum.

He said the prosecution witnesses who sought to prove the voluntariness of the statement did not measure up to the expectation of the court as they failed to do that, adding that the burden to prove the voluntariness lay with the prosecution. He asserted that the reasons are that the prosecution witnesses are so inconsistent and unreliable that the court should not rely on them. He argued that none of the prosecution witnesses has said the truth. He cited Officer Keita’s admission in his testimony that Capt. Bunja Darboe had requested for the presence of his lawyer and the independent witness’s claim that he did not hear such as a case in point.

Lawyer Camara further submitted that the foregoing scenario presupposes that the presence of an independent witness when a statement is taken is immaterial since the prosecution witnesses cannot agree on their account of anything that transpired in their presence. He therefore inferred that the prosecution witnesses have failed to prove the voluntariness of the statement.

Conversely, lawyer Camara argued that the defense have proven that the cautionary statement was not obtained voluntarily but with severe torture as the accused was in the hands of the state. He said the x-ray films and medical folder tendered by the defense in support of the case have corroborated the testimony of Capt. Bunja Darboe prior to him making the statement. He therefore argued that the defense have proven the involuntariness of the undated statement and urged the court to reject the statement.

For his part, Emmanuel Fagbenle, the DPP, submitted that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the statement which burden, he contended, has been discharged by the prosecution. He said that to prove the voluntariness of the statement, the prosecution called two witnesses, Officer Keita and Babou Loum. He adduced that Officer Keita, who obtained the statement, narrated the process leading to the obtaining of the statement. He said Capt. Bunja Darboe admitted that in the month of May 2006, he was not tortured in any form. He said the independent witness was present at the time the statement was being made and that as such the prosecution witness’s testimony is consistent.

DPP further submitted that the duty of an independent witness in witness the obtaining of confessional statements is to ensure that the statement was obtained without any form of torture.

He countered that the testimony of the accused was supported by the medical report and dismissed the allegation that the accused suffered any injury at the NIA office. He therefore urged the court to admit the cautionary statement.

The hearing continues today.