The High Court has sentenced two men to 20 years in prison after finding them guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony and armed robbery in connection with the 2021 knifepoint robbery of a businessman in Tallinding.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh convicted Modou Badjie and Ebrima Camara, ruling that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony, corroborating evidence, recovered stolen property, and the defendants’ own confessional statements.
The case stemmed from an attack in the early hours of August 19, 2021, when businessman Bakary Sabally was preparing to travel to Gambisara for the funeral of his younger brother. While seated in his vehicle in Tallinding Farokono between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., Sabally was confronted by two men, one of whom held a knife to his throat while the other threatened him with a broken bottle.
The assailants stole two mobile phones—a Samsung and a Tecno handset—and D15,000 in cash before fleeing.
Sabally later identified Badjie after encountering him in the neighborhood the same day. According to the evidence, Badjie allegedly attempted to stab Sabally during the confrontation before being restrained. Police subsequently arrested both men.
At trial, the prosecution called four witnesses. Sabally testified that he recognized both defendants from previous encounters, identifying Badjie by name and Camara by his street nickname, “Guchi.” Although the defense questioned the reliability of the identification because the robbery occurred before dawn during heavy rain, Sabally maintained that he clearly recognized both men.
The prosecution also presented testimony from a mobile phone dealer who said Camara sold him the stolen phones, which police later recovered. The investigating officer testified that both defendants led investigators to the buyer and that their voluntary and cautionary statements were obtained after legal procedures, including a trial-within-a-trial to determine their admissibility.
Both defendants denied any involvement. Badjie claimed police deceived him into thumb-printing prepared statements, while Camara denied knowing either Badjie or the phone dealer and rejected allegations that he had sold the stolen devices.
In his judgment, Justice Jaiteh reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but found that burden had been met.
He held that the defendants’ confessional statements independently corroborated one another and were supported by the complainant’s testimony, the recovery of the stolen phones, and other prosecution evidence. The judge also found Sabally’s identification to be one of recognition rather than identification of strangers, making it more reliable.
Justice Jaiteh concluded that the evidence established both the conspiracy and the armed robbery, finding that the defendants acted together to threaten the victim with weapons, steal his property and later dispose of the stolen phones.
Before sentencing, defense counsel urged the court to show leniency, noting that both men were first-time offenders who were about 18 years old at the time of the offense, had spent nearly four years in custody awaiting trial and had expressed remorse.
Justice Jaiteh acknowledged those mitigating factors but said they were outweighed by the seriousness of the crime. He noted that the victim was vulnerable, the robbery occurred in the early hours when help was unlikely, the attackers were armed with dangerous weapons and acted in a coordinated manner.
Addressing young people in his sentencing remarks, the judge said there was “dignity in honest labour” and warned against seeking wealth through violence.
“There is honour in acquiring skills, pursuing education, engaging in lawful employment, and building one’s future through hard work and perseverance,” he said. “There is no honour in terrorising innocent people, threatening them with deadly weapons, or enriching oneself through violence and fear.”
Justice Jaiteh sentenced each defendant to five years’ imprisonment for conspiracy and 20 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. The sentences will run concurrently, leaving each man to serve an effective 20-year prison term, with time already spent in custody to be credited toward their sentences.
The court also informed both convicts of their right to appeal their convictions and sentences.
Comments are closed.