The fourth prosecution witness, a child, will appear on camera because of his age in a criminal case involving Yugo Sowe, who is suspected of chopping off his wife’s hands and legs.
Yugo Sowe has been charged with a number of crimes by the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. These charges include domestic violence under Section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, attempted murder under Section 200 of the Criminal Code, grievous harm under Section 214 of the Criminal Code, acts intended to cause grievous harm under Section 212 of the Criminal Code, and wounding under Section 217 of the Criminal Code.
According to the prosecution, Sowe used a cutlass to attack his wife, Amie Sowe, in Brikama Jalambang, West Coast Region, on November 16, 2023, seriously wounding her arms, legs, and other body parts.
Senior State Counsel Mariama Singhateh told the court that their next witness will be a 13-year-old child when the case resumed for the fourth prosecution witness’ testimony. Citing Section 3 of the Children’s Act, she submitted an application to the court for the kid to testify on camera.
Counsel Singhateh went on to say that the testimony should be presented in private because of the intimate relationship between the witness and the accused, who is the witness’s father.
Although he did not object to the application, defense attorney Samuel Ade demanded that the prosecution give proof of the witness’s age, recommending that the boy’s birth certificate be shown to prove that he is, in fact, a juvenile.
Lord, We will accept the witness testifying in chambers or on camera if it is in a rape case. However, I am informed that this is not an instance of rape. Therefore, my lord, we would prefer that the witness speak in public,” Counsel Ade said the court.
Counsel Singhateh responded by citing the witness’s 13-year-old age as stated in his police statement. Ade retorted that witnesses are typically called to testify in public in non-rape trials. He underlined that the witness should give a public statement because there are no sexual offenses involved in the case.
Counsel Singhateh, however, contended that the statute covers circumstances in which a juvenile may be subjected to damage or improper influence and does not restrict private testimony by minors to rape cases alone.
We will not allow a minor to testify in public, my lord. In addition to rape cases, cases where the kid would be in danger also fall within the prohibition of minors testifying in chambers. Therefore, we would not allow the witness to testify in public, my lord,” Counsel Singhateh argued.
In the end, presiding judge Hon. Justice Jaiteh stepped in and clarified that the court alone has the authority to decide whether to permit a witness to testify in chambers or on camera.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh stated, “The court has discretion over whether a witness testifies in an open court or chambers, so let me render a decision on the subject.”
After considering the matter, Justice Jaiteh decided in the prosecution’s favor, stating that the witness would testify on camera because she was a kid. After upon, the lawsuit was postponed to October 15, 2024, in order to continue.
