The first prosecution witness in the trial of Basirou Sarr broke down in tears before the High Court as she recounted how the accused allegedly held her at knifepoint, tied her hands and attempted to rob the AMM Forex Bureau in Manjai Kunda before she was rescued.
Halimatou Bah, 34, of Bundung, who works at the Western Union bureau operated by AMM Forex Bureau, testified before Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh that she recognised the accused from 10 February 2026, when he visited the bureau to inquire about the exchange rate of the US dollar. Halimatou Bah told the Court she informed him that the rate was D73.
Basirou Sarr stands charged with attempted robbery with violence contrary to Section 249(2)(a)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025. The prosecution alleges that on 10 February 2026, at Manjai Kunda, he violently attempted to rob Bah while she was on duty at the bureau.
According to Halimatou Bah’s testimony, the accused initially left the premises but later returned and asked her to answer to his “granny,” although she said she was unsure whether he meant his grandmother or grandfather.
She testified that after she picked up her veil, she playfully asked him whether he does not disturb his grandparents, to which he said no. When she moved to open the door, the accused allegedly pushed her back inside, locked the door and placed the keys in his pocket.
In tears, Halimatou Bah told the Court that Sarr then pinned her against a wall, produced a knife and threatened to kill her if she screamed. She said when she asked him what he wanted, he demanded money.
According to her testimony, the accused removed a rope from his pocket, tied her hands and used her veil to cover her face while repeatedly threatening to kill her if she raised an alarm. She said she pleaded with him not to harm her and urged him to take the money and leave.
Halimatou Bah further testified that the accused picked up a bag containing money before throwing her to the floor, leading to a struggle over the knife during which she sustained an injury on her finger. She said she screamed for help, attracting Lamin Bojang, who intervened by pulling the accused off her, causing the knife to fall to the floor.
She told the Court that the matter was later reported at Manjai Police Station before she was taken to hospital for treatment. She added that the incident had left her fearful and traumatised.
During cross-examination, Defence Counsel C. Mendy questioned the witness about her account of the incident, focusing on how Lamin Bojang gained entry after she testified that the accused had locked the door and kept the key in his pocket.
Halimatou Bah explained that the bureau had two doors. She said the first door had only been pushed shut, while the accused locked only the second door, allowing Lamin Bojang to enter after hearing her screams.
Counsel C. Mendy also challenged Halimatou Bah’s evidence regarding the struggle over the knife, suggesting that her account was inconsistent because she had testified that her hands were tied and her face covered. Halimatou Bah maintained that the rope had not been tied tightly, enabling her to resist as the accused attempted to leave.
When Defence Counsel Mendy put it to her that she was not telling the truth, Bah rejected the suggestion, telling the Court she would not stand under oath and falsely accuse the accused of an offence he did not commit.
During the hearing, the accused became emotional and started crying in the dock. When Justice Jobarteh asked why he was crying, Sarr replied that he was feeling dizzy.
Halimatou Bah confirmed that she had made a written statement to the police. Defence Counsel Mendy sought to tender the statement into evidence, but State Counsel A. Drammeh objected, arguing that the proper foundation had not been established for its admissibility.
In a ruling, Justice Jobarteh upheld the Prosecution’s objection, finding that the witness had not confirmed that the document presented was her statement. The Court therefore rejected the application to tender the statement and marked the document as “Rejected 1.”
The case adjourned to 27 July 2026 at 11:00 a.m. for the testimony of the second prosecution witness (PW2)
