The female circumcision trial involving three women accused of conducting a female circumcision that allegedly resulted in the death of a young girl saw a setback for the prosecution today.
The presiding judge rejected the cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused, citing failure to comply with legal procedures in obtaining a statement in the presence of an independent witness.
The accused persons, Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh, and Oumie Sawaneh, face charges from the alleged incident on 09th August, 2025.
The prosecution alleges that three accused persons performed female circumcisions on a minor, which led to her death at Bundung Maternity Hospital.
When the case was called up, State Counsel W.S. Madu appeared for the State. Counsel L.S. Camara represented the first accused, while counsel Darboe appeared for the second and third accused persons.
State counsel informed the court that they applied to interpose the second witness as he’s disposed and intended to call another witness, with no objection from defence counsel.
The presiding Judge granted the application and PW3 was called to the witness box. He took an oath to speak the truth.
Police officer Joof, a resident of Bundung and a police officer for 9 years attached to the Bundung Borehole police station, acknowledged recognising the 2nd and 3rd accused persons. He recounted the events of 09th August 2025, stating he received information from a friend (Ousman Saidy) that a child brought to the Bundung Maternity Hospital had been pronounced dead, and they suspected she had undergone female circumcision.
He testified that after getting the information, he visited the hospital and found two of his colleagues. He had a discussion with one colleague, Amie Joof, who told him she had already interviewed the mother and the aunt. After gathering documents from the hospital, the body was taken to the mortuary in Banjul.
Officer Joof further testified that the arrest was effected at the hospital, the suspects were escorted to Willingara police, and he gave his statement.
There was no cross-examination from Counsel L.S. Camara for the first accused.
Cross-Examination by Counsel Darboe for the 2nd and 3rd accused
Counsel Darboe: You informed the court that you received the information from your friend, who is a businessman. Is that correct?
Officer Joof: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: Do you know what kind of business your friend does?
Officer Joof: Yes, he sells body lotion.
Counsel Darboe: Do you know the location of his business?
Officer Joof: Bundung.
Counsel Darboe: You testified that your friend informed you that a girl child underwent FGM. Is that correct?
Officer Joof: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: Did your friend tell you how he got that information as a businessman?
Officer Joof: Yes, he told me that he heard the information at the hospital.
Counsel Darboe: You also testified that when you visited the hospital you found PW 1 and 2?
Officer Joof: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: You told the court that they had informed you that they had interviewed the mother and aunt for the alleged child?
Officer Joof: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: Is it correct that you weren’t present during the interview?
Officer Joof: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: So, all the information you gathered was fed to you?
Officer Joof: It was accurate information.
Counsel Darboe: Mr Joof but you testified that you were absent. So, it was information that was fed to you. How can you speak on the accuracy of that information?
Officer Joof: Remember, I gave you two statements, as I was given an early statement, and when I got the second information, it was factual.
There was no re-examination from the state counsel and office Joof was discharged.
Sub-inspector Mam Fatou Saidy PW4 was called to the witness box. The fourth witness, Mam Fatou Saidy, a resident of Brikama and a police officer for 20 years attached to the Willingara police station, opted to affirm rather than swear on the Qur’an as she stated she was not clear.
She recognised all the accused persons: Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh and Oumie Sawaneh. She recounted that on 09th August 2025, around 9:00, she received a call regarding a case of female circumcision at Bundung Maternity Hospital, and the matter was at the station.
She travelled to the station from her home and met the 2nd and 3rd accused at Bundung police station, ushered them to her office, and obtained, cautioned, and charged them. Later, Fatou Camara was arrested, cautioned, and charged.
She testified that during interrogation, Oumie Sawaneh informed her that her daughter was taken to the bush meaning female circumcision. Oumie stated that Hawa Conteh told her she wanted to take the child for the procedure, and on 09th August, the first and second accused came to the compound to collect the child and female circumcision was performed on her.
Counsel L.S. Camara objected, citing hearsay, but was overruled.
The witness continued, stating that an independent witness wasn’t present at the time of obtaining the statements because it was that night and was late. The following day, she called an independent witness, read the statements over to the accused to confirm that it was their statement and also whether they were beaten or threatened during obtaining the statement, and they answered positively, and the independent witness signed.
State counsel Madu applied to tender the statements. Counsel L.S. Camara objected, stating the cautionary and voluntary statements for the 1st and 3rd accused were confessional and failed to comply with Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act.
Counsel Camara argued that the statements were not taken in the presence of an independent witness to determine if the accused was threatened or bribed. Furthermore, he noted the accused spoke in Mandinka and the witness transcribed it into English, but the statement did not indicate it was translated back to them.
He cited the Judge’s Rules, stating that a statement made in a language other than English must be in the duress, and urged the court to dismiss them.
Counsel Darboe associated himself with Counsel L.S. Camara’s submissions entirely.
State counsel argued that the signatures of the accused affirmed the statements.
In her ruling, the presiding Justice I. Janneh rejected the statements and marked them as rejected.
Cross-Examination of Sub-Inspector Saidy by Counsel L.S Camara
Counsel L.S. Camara: What is your rank?
Sub-inspector Saidy: Sub-inspector.
Counsel L.S. Camara: You narrated that the 1st accused, Fatou Camara, told what happened. Apart from your co-workers was anyone in the office?
Sub-inspector Saidy: Apart from my colleagues it was only the 2nd and 3rd accused.
Counsel L.S. Camara: It’s correct that apart from what you heard from the 1st and 3rd accused you didn’t know anything about this case?
Sub-inspector Saidy: Yes.
Counsel L.S. Camara: Sub-inspector Saidy why did you not conduct an independent investigation in the case to know?
Sub-inspector Saidy: I did an investigation by visiting the 3rd accused’s compound.
Counsel L.S. Camara: And that was to effect an arrest?
Sub-inspector Saidy: No, it was at the arrest.
Cross-examination by Counsel Darboe for the 2nd and 3rd accused:
Counsel Darboe: Before taking the cautionary and voluntary statement did you explain to them any rights they have?
Sub-inspector Saidy: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: What’s that right?
Sub-inspector Saidy: That they have rights and no one can force them and anything they say will be put into writing.
Counsel Darboe: Is it correct that you didn’t allow them to consult their lawyers?
Sub-inspector Saidy: Yes.
Counsel Darboe: And you didn’t tell them that they have rights to write or choose someone to write their own statements?
Sub-inspector Saidy: I told them but they asked me to write it for them.
Counsel Darboe: That’s true you didn’t?
Sub-inspector Saidy: I did tell them whether they could write their own statements.
Counsel Darboe: I’m putting it to you that you didn’t state any of their rights, but rather chose to ask them questions and write.
Sub-inspector Saidy: No, I did.
Counsel Darboe concluded his cross-examination. The presiding Judge adjourned the case to 15th January 2026.
