A High Court judge in Kanifing, on Monday, acquitted six current and former employees of the Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation (SSHFC), dismissing all 62 corruption-related charges after ruling that prosecutors failed to present evidence sufficient to justify calling a defense.
Justice G. A. Kwabeng of the Kanifing High Court said the state’s case collapsed largely because prosecutors did not call key witnesses—including individuals alleged to have paid bribes—whose testimony was central to nearly every count.
“The evidence presented was woefully insufficient,” Justice Kwabeng said in his ruling, delivered after defense lawyers filed a no-case-to-answer motion under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025. The judge emphasized that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against any of the defendants.
The accused—Amie Sarr, Modou K. Sarr, Caroline Siga Sarr, Andrew Demba, Alhagie Fatty, and Assan Jatta—had faced a sprawling set of charges under the former Criminal Code, including corrupt practices, official corruption, and obtaining goods by false pretenses. The alleged offenses occurred before the country enacted its new Criminal Offences Act earlier this year.
The prosecution, led by state counsel Fatou Touray, had alleged schemes tied to land allocations at SSHFC, accusing staff of taking cash commissions ranging from D20,000 to more than D800,000 in exchange for facilitating land deals. The bulk of the charges—58 counts—were brought against the first accused, Ms. Sarr, who the state claimed accepted a series of illicit payments from individuals seeking land.
But Justice Kwabeng noted that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from complainants who never appeared in court. Those witnesses included Alieu Camara, named in many of the most serious counts, and Sheriffo Touray, whose testimony was central to the charges against the second and third accused. The state told the court that Mr. Camara’s testimony was “critical,” yet he failed to attend despite being summoned, informing authorities he was on annual leave.
Only six prosecution witnesses ultimately testified, including an SSHFC staff member, Aji Fatou Kah, whose testimony was limited to a small portion of the allegations and, the court found, unsupported by documentary evidence.
Kwabeng cited the 1981 English case R v. Galbraith, which sets out the test for ruling on no-case submissions, and stressed that the court could not rely on patchy or inconsistent evidence to call on the defendants to mount a defense. He further relied on the principle from Woolmington v. DPP (1935) that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.
For Ms. Sarr, the prosecution’s failure to produce the complainants or corroborating documents proved decisive. The only witnesses who mentioned payments had knowledge of a “small fraction” of the 58 counts, the judge said.
For Modou K. Sarr and Caroline Siga Sarr, the case hinged on an alleged D50,000 commission from a complainant who never testified. The absence of this “material witness,” Kwabeng said, was “fatal” to the prosecution’s case.
The sole charge against Andrew Demba, accused of accepting D20,000 from an individual named Ebrima Kinteh, similarly failed because Mr. Kinteh did not appear in court.
For Alhagie Fatty and Assan Jatta, who were jointly charged with Ms. Sarr on several counts, the court found that the state presented no witness linking them to any of the alleged payments, including a purported D190,000 transaction.
Kwabeng also examined the defendants’ cautionary and voluntary statements (PE1 to PE11), but found that even if admitted in full, the statements did not provide evidence strong enough to support a conviction.
The judge repeatedly cited constitutional protections, including Section 24(3)(a) of the 1997 Constitution, which establishes the presumption of innocence. By the close of the prosecution’s case, he said, “no reasonable tribunal could safely convict” based on the evidence presented.
Under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he added, the court is obligated to dismiss a case when the state fails to produce evidence requiring an accused person to mount a defense.
“All six accused persons are acquitted and discharged,” Justice Kwabeng ruled, clearing the defendants of all charges.