Defence Objection Overruled After ‘Inconsistent’ Gun Testimony

Laughing gas and gun - Images not from incident.

By Fatoumata Jaiteh,

Inconsistencies in the widely followed trial of an alleged shooting outside a Fajara nightclub after a disagreement over the sale of laughing gas were the main bone of contention on 4th March 2026, as the defence’s objection to the witness statement was overruled.

The accused person in this case is Salieu Gaye, a US-based Gambian male currently standing trial for the alleged shooting incident that took place on 19th January 2026 outside Envy Nightclub.

According to an earlier witness testimony, the accused allegedly drew a firearm and discharged it, resulting in gunfire. A victim identified in court as Muhammad Buhari-Mendy was reportedly injured and taken to the hospital.

Gaye is charged with attempted murder, meaning he is alleged to have unlawfully shot at another person with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Proceedings at the Kanifing Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate A. Manneh featured sharp exchanges between the prosecution and the defence over alleged inconsistencies in a key witness’s testimony about the use of a gun.

The prosecution is led by Inspector Jallow, while Counsel B. Badjie represents the accused. The day’s hearing featured the continuation of the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 2 (PW2), Mr Abdou Faal.

During questioning, defence counsel Badjie asked the witness to confirm whether the accused was present when a firearm was shown to him at the police station. The witness responded that the accused was not present at the time the gun was presented to him.

The defence further suggested that the sound the witness claimed to have heard during the incident might not have been a gunshot. Counsel Badjie put it to the witness: “It might be correct that the sound that you heard might be something else different from the sound of a gun.”

To this, the witness responded, “Maybe.”

Highlighting that the day the incident happened “was the day that Senegal won the AFCON final and the place was crowded and some people were stunting their vehicles in celebration,” the witness insinuated that he might have heard the sound of vehicle horns instead of a gunshot.

Seizing on this response, Inspector Jallow sought to highlight what he described as a contradiction in the witness’s account. He reminded the court that during his evidence-in-chief, the witness had testified that when the accused fired the gun, he ran and entered a taxi and that the accused followed him into the taxi.

“You said the sound you heard might be something else aside from the sound of a gun,” the prosecutor stated. “But in your evidence-in-chief, you said when the accused fired the gun, you ran and entered a taxi and the accused followed you into the taxi.”

Inspector Jallow argued that there was a clear mismatch between the two statements and asked the witness how he would reconcile the apparent inconsistency.

At this point, defence counsel Badjie rose to object, arguing that the prosecution’s line of questioning was improper and contrary to Section 192(3) of the Evidence Act 1994.

Section 192(3) of the Evidence Act 1994 provides that when a witness is cross-examined about a previous statement in writing or reduced into writing, and it is intended to contradict the witness by that statement, the witness’s attention must first be drawn to the specific parts of the statement that are to be used for the purpose of contradiction before the document can be proved. The provision is designed to ensure fairness by giving the witness an opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies.

Counsel Badjie argued that the prosecution’s question sought to improperly compel the witness to reconcile statements without properly laying the legal foundation required under the law.

However, the magistrate made it clear to the witness that he had to stop flipping around.

“You cannot say one thing now and something else at another point,” she said, adding that “we are not here to joke”.

In her ruling on the matter, Magistrate A. Manneh considered the objection raised by the defence but ultimately overruled it.

The presiding magistrate noted that the witness’s testimony already revealed an inconsistency on the face of the record. She held that the prosecution’s question did not introduce a new fact but merely sought clarification of statements already made in court. Accordingly, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed.

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

In addition to the attempted murder allegation, he faces a charge under the Arms and Ammunition Act for having a firearm without a lawful licence or authority and using it.

If convicted, each offence carries severe penalties. According to section 77 of the Criminal Offences Act 2025, a person found guilty of discharging a firearm could be sentenced to three years in prison.

However, under The Gambia’s Arms and Ammunition Act, discharging a firearm without a licence can attract a maximum D50,000 fine and, in default of payment, up to 10 years’ imprisonment with or without hard labour.

According to section 168 of the Criminal Offences Act 2025, any person found guilty of attempted murder may be imprisoned for up to seven years.

The case has been adjourned to Monday, the 16th, at 11:30 am and Tuesday, the 17th of March 2026, at 10:30 am for the hearing of PW3’s evidence-in-chief.