Justice Jaiteh of the High Court has marked and admitted the postmortem report +forensic evidence) In the murder trial of Arona Tine.
The ruling came when defence counsel Ade objected to the admissibility of the post-mortem, Justice Jaiteh dismissed the objection raised by the defence regarding the admissibility of a post-mortem report for the deceased, Fatoumatta Kargbo.
The issue came when Senior Counsel F. Drammeh, representing the State, sought to tender the autopsy report (dated January 22, 2024) through the prosecution’s ninth witness, Dr Ousman Leigh, a Consultant Pathologist.
Counsel Samuel Ade, appearing for the accused objected to the autopsy report admission. He argued that while the report was prepared over two years ago, it was only served to the defence on March 2, 2026, just one day before the hearing.
Counsel Ade contended the delay constituted a “procedural ambush,” violating Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, and infringing upon the accused’s constitutional right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.
In response, counsel Drammeh maintained that they had filed a Notice of Additional List of Exhibits on February 26, 2026. Counsel Drammeh argued that once a document is filed with the court, service becomes a “judicial administrative function” beyond the prosecution’s direct control.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasised that the court must balance procedural fairness with the “overarching objective of substantive justice”. He identified three primary reasons for overruling the defence’s objection:
On compliance with statutory notice, Justice Jaiteh found that the State had formally filed notice of its intent to use the report on February 26, 2026. Justice Jaiteh noted there was no evidence of “bad faith, concealment, or tactical withholding” by the prosecution.
While on relevance and materiality. Justice Jaiteh highlighted that in a case involving a death, a post-mortem report addressing the medical cause of death is “highly relevant” and central to the truth-seeking function of the court.
Finally, the absence of real prejudice, Justice Jaiteh ruled that the defence failed to demonstrate “actual prejudice”. He noted that because the maker of the report, Dr Leigh, was present in court, the defence maintained the full liberty to cross-examine him and challenge the report’s findings.
“The right to fair hearing is not a technical shield to exclude relevant evidence where no miscarriage of justice is shown,” Justice Jaiteh stated, adding that the proper remedy for late disclosure is typically an adjournment rather than the total exclusion of evidence.
Following the ruling, the post-mortem report was admitted and marked as Prosecution Exhibit P11.
Counsel Ade then cross-examines Counsel Ade. He asked Dr Leigh when the autopsy was conducted; Dr Leigh replied that the autopsy was conducted on January 22, 2024, though he could not recall the exact date the report was signed, noting only that it was within that same month.
Dr Leigh also testified that he concluded his tenure at the RVTH on August 25, 2025, and could not confirm if the crime recording officer took photographs before or after the procedure.
With the conclusion of Dr Leigh’s testimony and cross-examination, the Prosecution informed the court that they have closed its case.
The matter has been adjourned to April 21, 2026, at 10:00 AM for the commencement of the Defence’s case
