A High Court judge on Thursday rejected a key medical report in the prosecution of three women accused in connection with the death of a one-month-old infant following an alleged female genital mutilation, dealing a significant setback to the state’s case.
Justice I. Janneh ruled that the report, which purported to link the child’s death to complications from circumcision, was inadmissible because prosecutors failed to comply with mandatory requirements under the Evidence Act.
The defendants—Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh, and Oumie Sawaneh—are charged after the infant was brought in dead to Bundung Maternal and Child Hospital, where medical staff suspected that she had undergone female circumcision.
Prosecutors attempted to introduce the medical examination report through Dr. Stephanie Awa Mendy, the deputy head of obstetrics and gynaecology at the hospital. The report’s author, Dr. Irma Fonst, has since left The Gambia after completing her assignment and returned to Cuba.
Testifying in court, Dr. Mendy said the infant had been diagnosed with hypovolemic shock resulting from female circumcision, based on the hospital’s clinical history and findings discussed during a morning staff meeting. She acknowledged, however, that she had not personally examined the child.
When the state sought to tender the report under Section 40 of the Evidence Act, defense lawyers L. S. Camara and F. K. Darboe objected, arguing that the prosecution had failed to satisfy what they described as the law’s “clear, specific, and mandatory” conditions.
They contended that Section 40 requires such reports to be introduced by a head of department, not a deputy, and that prosecutors had provided no explanation for the head’s absence or any evidence that authority had been delegated to Dr. Mendy. They also noted that Dr. Mendy did not testify that she was familiar with Dr. Fonst’s handwriting or signature.
Justice Janneh observed that the document itself bore the names of two doctors but carried only one signature, making it impossible to determine its true authorship.
Because Dr. Mendy did not conduct the examination, the court found that she could not be meaningfully cross-examined on the contents of the report.
In delivering her ruling, Justice Janneh said that while the State had argued the document’s relevance, relevance alone could not override statutory safeguards.
“The court cannot presume compliance with a statutory requirement,” she said, adding that the rights of accused persons to a fair hearing and to examine witnesses are fundamental constitutional guarantees.
She acknowledged that excluding the report might appear to frustrate justice in a case involving the death of an infant, but stressed that substantial justice is only achieved through the faithful application of the law.
The medical report was formally marked “Rejected 5” and excluded from the evidence.
Comments are closed.