Bureau Worker Breaks Down Recounting Alleged Knife Attack During Attempted Robbery

A cashier at an AMM Forex Bureau branch in Manjai Kunda broke down in tears before the High Court on Thursday as she described what prosecutors say was a violent attempted robbery in which she was held at knifepoint, tied up, and threatened with death before a bystander intervened.

The witness, Halimatou Bah, 34, testified before Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh in the trial of Basirou Sarr, who is charged with attempted robbery with violence under Section 249(2)(a)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025. Prosecutors allege that on Feb. 10, 2026, Mr. Sarr attempted to rob Ms. Bah while she was working at the Western Union outlet operated by AMM Forex Bureau in Manjai Kunda.

Ms. Bah told the court that she first encountered the accused earlier that day when he entered the bureau to ask about the U.S. dollar exchange rate. She said she informed him the rate was D73, after which he left the premises.

According to her testimony, Mr. Sarr returned a short time later and asked her to respond to what he described as his “granny.” Ms. Bah said she was unsure whether he meant his grandmother or grandfather. After picking up her veil, she jokingly asked whether he would not disturb his grandparents, and he replied that he would not.

As she moved to open the door, she testified, the accused pushed her back inside, locked one of the bureau’s doors, and placed the key in his pocket.

Fighting back tears, Ms. Bah told the court that Mr. Sarr then pinned her against a wall, produced a knife, and warned that he would kill her if she screamed. When she asked what he wanted, she said he demanded money.

She testified that he removed a rope from his pocket, tied her hands, and used her veil to cover her face while repeatedly threatening to kill her if she raised an alarm. She pleaded with him to spare her life and take the money, she said.

Ms. Bah told the court that the accused picked up a bag containing cash before throwing her to the floor. A struggle followed, during which she suffered a cut to one of her fingers while trying to wrestle the knife from him.

Her screams, she said, drew the attention of Lamin Bojang, who entered the bureau and pulled the accused away from her, causing the knife to fall to the floor.

The incident was later reported to Manjai Police Station, and she was taken to a hospital for treatment. She told the court the attack had left her traumatized and fearful.

During cross-examination, defense lawyer C. Mendy questioned how Mr. Bojang had entered the bureau after Ms. Bah testified that the accused had locked the door and kept the key in his pocket.

Ms. Bah explained that the bureau has two doors. She said the first door had only been pushed shut, while the accused locked only the second, allowing Mr. Bojang to enter after hearing her cries for help.

Mr. Mendy also challenged her account of the struggle over the knife, arguing that it was inconsistent because she had testified that her hands were tied and her face covered. Ms. Bah responded that the rope had not been securely fastened, allowing her to resist as the accused attempted to leave.

When defense counsel suggested she was fabricating her account, Ms. Bah firmly rejected the allegation.

“I would not stand under oath and falsely accuse someone of an offence he did not commit,” she told the court.

During the proceedings, Mr. Sarr became visibly emotional and cried in the dock. When Justice Jobarteh asked why he was weeping, the accused replied that he was feeling dizzy.

The hearing also featured a dispute over the admissibility of a police statement made by Ms. Bah. After the defense sought to tender the document into evidence, State Counsel A. Drammeh objected, arguing that the proper legal foundation had not been established.

Justice Jobarteh upheld the objection, ruling that Ms. Bah had not confirmed that the document presented was in fact her police statement. The application to admit the statement was rejected, and the document was marked “Rejected 1.”

The trial was adjourned until July 27, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., when the prosecution is expected to call its second witness.