Justice I. Janneh, sentenced Amadou Wurry Barry to life imprisonment for the rape of an eight-year-old girl.
The convict was found guilty of a single count of rape, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013. The court heard that on May 3, 2022, at Tippa Garage Wurry Barry forcefully assaulted the young victim.
During the trial, the Prosecution, led by W.S. Madu, called six witnesses to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Eyewitness Muhammed Trawally (PW1) testified that while looking for a place to urinate, he heard a cry for help. Upon investigating, he discovered Wurry Barry engaging in a sexual act with the victim, who had been forced to stand on a 20-litre plastic gallon. He stated that Wurry Barry attempted to strike him with an iron rod before fleeing on a bicycle. He pursued and eventually apprehended the suspect with the help of bystanders
The Victim (PW3), an eight-year-old testified in camera, recounting how the accused approached her from behind as she returned from the market, took her to a carpentry workshop, and assaulted her. She stated that the accused inserted his private part into hers, causing her to cry out in pain. She identified Wurry Barry in court as her attacker.
The Mother (PW2) told the court the incident occurred on the second day of the Koriteh (Eid al-Fitr) feast. She described her daughter’s return in a state of distress and the subsequent discovery of her injuries, which caused the child pain for days.
Dr Yaya Bah (PW4) testified that a clinical examination revealed a 3cm tear in the victim’s perinal region, along with vaginal bruises and blood clots. While laboratory swabs were negative for sperm, Dr Bah explained this could be a “false negative” due to the time elapsed before the exam or the victim cleaning herself. He maintained that the physical findings were highly consistent with forceful sexual penetration.
Police officers Tida Ceesay and Amadou B. Sanneh PW5 &PW6) detailed the arrest and the recording of statements. The Prosecution tendered Barry’s cautionary statement, in which he had initially admitted to being alone with the girl in the workshop bathroom a direct contradiction to his later defence in court.
Defence counsel F.C. Anyanwu challenged the consistency of the witnesses’ statements, pointing to discrepancies between their police reports and court testimonies.
In his defence, Amadou Wurry Barry, testifying as the sole witness for his defence, pleaded not guilty. He claimed he was a baker travelling to purchase flour when he was intercepted by a mob, beaten unconscious, and robbed of D35,000, his bicycle, and two phones. He dismissed the testimonies of the eyewitness and the victim as fabrications.
Justice Janneh found Barry’s defence to be “implausible” and “internally unreliable”. Crucially, Barry’s own cautionary statement to the police admitted he was at the scene and that the victim had followed him into the workshop bathroom, contradicting his later court testimony where he denied such interaction.
Justice Janneh noted that the victim’s age of eight years automatically established “coercive circumstances” under Section 3(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. Justice Janneh established that the eyewitness account, medical evidence, and the Accused’s own contradictory statements provided corroboration that “more than amply satisfied” legal requirements.
Before the sentencing, the Defense pleaded for mercy, citing Barry’s status as a first-time offender and a father. Justice Janneh, however, remained unmoved, citing the Sentencing Guideline for Rape and the mandatory requirements of the law.
“A rapist is worse than an animal… He is a cancer in the society,” Justice Janneh stated, echoing the Supreme Court’s stance on such atrocities. She categorised the crime as “Category 1” (highest harm and culpability) due to the victim’s extreme youth and the severity of her physical injuries.
Finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to warrant leniency, Justice Janneh sentenced Wurry Barry to life imprisonment under Section 4(1)(a)(iii)(bb) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013.
The convict was reminded of his right to appeal the decision.
