Justice Z.N. Mboob
The High Court on Monday acquitted Bilali Jallow, 66, a traditional herbalist accused of raping a 28-month-old girl, ruling that prosecutors had failed to meet the demanding standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Z.N. Mboob, the court found significant gaps in the State’s case, including the absence of eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and exclusive access to the alleged crime scene.
The prosecution’s case relied largely on the testimony of the child’s mother, who told the court that she had briefly left her daughter in a pit latrine in Silver Kunda while fetching water. She testified that upon returning, she heard distressing cries and saw Mr. Jallow exiting the toilet.
She said she found her child bleeding from her genital area and rushed her to the hospital, where medical staff later confirmed signs consistent with penetration.
Prosecutors argued that although no one witnessed the alleged assault, the circumstantial evidence was compelling, noting that Mr. Jallow was the only person observed leaving the immediate vicinity of the latrine.
A medical report submitted to the court confirmed injury to the vaginal opening. But medical testimony introduced uncertainty. A doctor told the court that while a child of that age was unlikely to have caused such injuries herself, the bleeding and infection observed could have resulted from several causes, adding that the child had a pre-existing infection at the time of examination.
Mr. Jallow, who told the court he is a father of 15, denied the allegations. He testified that he had been washing plates outside his home when the incident occurred and said he never entered the toilet.
He also claimed that the child’s parents later approached him at a police station seeking 30,000 dalasis in exchange for withdrawing the case — an allegation they denied. “I told them I would not pay money for something I did not do,” he said, adding that he would “leave judgment to God.”
Defense counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to present direct evidence or sufficient corroboration linking Mr. Jallow to the crime. The defense emphasized that the latrine was a public facility located in an unfenced compound accessible to residents and students, and that another man living on the premises had been present shortly before the incident.
Police officers testified that they found no bloodstains in the toilet and none on Mr. Jallow’s clothing or in his room.
In her ruling, Justice Mboob underscored what she described as the “golden thread” of criminal law: that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.
She noted that no one had witnessed the alleged assault and that a visit to the scene revealed a broken toilet door and unrestricted public access. The court also heard evidence that multiple men lived in the compound, including a younger resident who had been nearby shortly before the child was discovered injured.
The absence of forensic links to Mr. Jallow, Justice Mboob said, left open the possibility of other perpetrators.
“The presence of other residents and the lack of exclusive access to the scene create reasonable doubt,” she said, concluding that the evidence fell short of the high threshold required for conviction.
Comments are closed.