The High Court, presided over by Justice S.K. Jobarteh, has upheld a no-case submission in the criminal trial of The State v. Salifu Keita, resulting in the acquittal and discharge of the accused, Salifu Keita.
Keita had been standing trial on an amended single count of manslaughter contrary to Section 186 of the Criminal Code. He was accused of causing the death of Abdoulie Badjie in February 2025 at Kuloro Village.
According to the prosecution, the accused and deceased engaged in a physical altercation during which Badjie fell and sustained a severe spinal cord injury that resulted in his death. The accused pleaded not guilty. Over the course of the trial, the State called six witnesses and tendered three exhibits in support of its case.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel T.B. Jallow submitted that the State had failed to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to enter a defence. He argued that no credible evidence linked Keita to any unlawful act, the essential ingredients of manslaughter were not proven, and the prosecution’s case was marred by “gaps, contradictions, and unreliable testimony.”
In response, the prosecution insisted that the evidence presented met the threshold for a prima facie case, stressing that the requirement at that stage was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but rather sufficient evidence warranting a defence.
Justice Jobarteh relied on the guiding principles established in R v. Galbraith (1981), which require the court to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence—taken at its highest—could support a conviction by a properly directed jury.
For a charge of manslaughter, the prosecution was required to establish:
A) That the accused engaged in an unlawful act;
B) That the unlawful act caused the death of the deceased;
C) That the act involved culpable negligence or omission affecting the preservation of life or health.
While the court accepted that the death of Abdoulie Badjie—caused by a C5 spinal fracture and related spinal cord injury—was conclusively proven through the post-mortem report (Exhibit B), Justice Jobarteh underscored that the prosecution still needed to prove that the accused performed an unlawful act causing the death.
The court examined the accounts of the only two eyewitnesses, PW4 and PW5. PW4 testified that he observed the accused and the deceased “grappling with each other,” falling together to the ground. The accused stood up while the deceased remained on the ground.
PW5 described a “push-and-pull situation” after the deceased refused to leave the accused’s compound. He stated that during attempts by bystanders to separate the men, both slipped and fell, with the deceased’s head striking a concrete surface. PW5 emphasized that neither man beat or intentionally harmed the other.
Justice Jobarteh found the eyewitness testimonies to be “clear, consistent, and unshaken under cross-examination.”
The judge concluded that although the two men engaged in a struggle, “neither of them struck, hit, or intentionally applied unlawful force,” adding that the fatal fall resulted from a “mutual and simultaneous slip” during the intervention to separate them.
“The evidence did not suggest that the accused performed an unlawful act that led directly or indirectly to the death,” Justice Jobarteh stated, further noting the absence of malice, intent, or any unlawful action on the part of the accused.
Given the weakness of the prosecution’s case, the judge held that “no reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict.”
Consequently, the court upheld the defence’s no-case submission and acquitted and discharged Salifu Keita.