The prosecution in a high-profile female genital mutilation (FGM) case suffered a setback after the court ruled key police statements inadmissible, citing procedural violations in their procurement.
The trial involves three women—Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh, and Oumie Sawaneh—accused of carrying out a female circumcision that allegedly led to the death of an infant, Baby Sarjo Conteh. The alleged incident occurred on August 9, 2025, in Wellingara.
In his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice I. Janneh, rejected the cautionary and voluntary statements obtained from the accused, finding that investigators failed to comply with the legal requirements governing the taking of such statements.
The accused faces multiple charges under the Criminal Offences Act 2025 and the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2015. The bill of indictment includes one count of conspiracy to commit a felony, contrary to Section 341 of the Criminal Offences Act 2025, and three counts relating to the prohibition of female circumcision and complicity under Sections 32A and 32B of the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2015.
According to the prosecution, the first accused, Fatou Camara, allegedly performed the circumcision that resulted in the infant’s death. The second accused, Hawa Conteh, is alleged to have requested and facilitated the procedure, while the third accused, Oumie Sawaneh, is charged with failing to report the planned circumcision to the authorities despite having knowledge of it.
The proceedings continued with the testimony of the third prosecution witness, Police Officer Joof, who is attached to the Bundung Borehole Police Station. He told the court that on August 9, 2025, he received information from a civilian acquaintance that a child brought to the Bundung Maternity Hospital had been pronounced dead, with suspicions that she had undergone female circumcision.
Officer Joof testified that he visited the hospital, where he met colleagues who had already interviewed the child’s mother and aunt. After relevant documents were collected, the child’s body was transported to the mortuary in Banjul. He further stated that the suspects were arrested at the hospital and later escorted to the Wellingara Police Station, where he recorded his statement.
Under cross-examination by Defence Counsel Darboe, representing the second and third accused, Officer Joof conceded that he was not present during the initial interviews of the child’s relatives and that his knowledge of events was based on information provided by colleagues and a civilian source.
The prosecution then called Sub-Inspector Mam Fatou Saidy, the fourth witness, and a police officer with 20 years of service. She testified that she interrogated the suspects and recorded their statements. According to her evidence, the third accused allegedly stated that her daughter had been taken “to the bush,” a term commonly used to refer to female circumcision, after being collected by the first and second accused.
When the State sought to tender the statements into evidence, Defence Counsel L.S. Camara objected, arguing that the statements were obtained in violation of Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act. Counsel contended that no independent witness was present when the statements were initially taken at night, and that the independent witness only appeared the following day to sign the documents. He also raised concerns about language barriers, noting that the statements were recorded in English without evidence that they were translated back to the Mandinka-speaking accused.
“The law is very clear,” Counsel Camara argued. “Statements must be taken in the presence of an independent witness to ensure that the accused was not threatened, beaten, or induced.”
State Counsel W.S. Madu responded that the process was continuous and that the accused persons’ signatures validated the statements. However, Justice Janneh rejected the argument and ruled in favour of the defence, declaring the statements inadmissible.
During further cross-examination, Defence Counsel Darboe questioned whether the accused were informed of their right to legal representation before giving their statements. Sub-Inspector Saidy admitted that the suspects were not advised to consult lawyers prior to questioning, though she maintained that their rights were explained to them.
The matter has been adjourned to January 15, 2026, for the continuation of proceedings.
Comments are closed.