Justice Jaiteh convicted two young men, Modou Badjie and Ebrima Camara, of conspiracy to commit a felony and armed robbery arising from an incident in August 2021 in which a businessman was robbed at knifepoint.
Both youths were sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, with Justice Jaiteh delivering a pointed message to the youth of the country about the consequences of violent crime.
The matter arose from an incident on 19 August 2021 at Tallinding Farokono. Bakary Sabally, a businessman, was seated in his motor vehicle in the early hours of the morning between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., making arrangements to travel to Gambisara to attend the funeral of his younger brother, who had died that same day.
According to the evidence presented at trial, two men suddenly attacked him: one pressed a knife against his throat while the other held a broken bottle over his head. They demanded money and threatened to kill him if he refused.
Before Bakary Sabally could escape, the two men forcibly took his two mobile phones, a Samsung and a Tecno handset, along with D15,000 in cash he had set aside for his funeral journey.
Bakary Sabally reported the attack to the police. Later, the police arrested the first accused, Modou Badjie, later that evening after Bakary Sabally encountered him in the neighbourhood and confronted him, an encounter that itself turned threatening when Badjie reportedly produced a knife and attempted to stab Sabally a second time before being restrained. The second accused, Ebrima Camara, was subsequently arrested following further police investigation.
The two men were arraigned before the High Court on 28 March 2022, when an Amended Information was read to them. Both pleaded not guilty to the two counts: conspiracy to commit a felony, contrary to section 368 of the Criminal Code and robbery, contrary to section 272 of the same Code.
The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered several exhibits to establish its case.
PW1 Bakary Sabally, the complainant, gave direct evidence of the robbery. He testified that he recognised both accused persons: Badjie by name, and Camara by his street nickname “Guchi.” He identified them in court as his attackers.
Under cross-examination, he acknowledged the darkness and rainy conditions at the time of the attack but maintained that he had seen both men on previous occasions and recognised them clearly.
PW2 Amara Conteh, a neighbour and businessman, corroborated part of PW1’s account. He testified that on the evening of the same day, he witnessed Bakary Sabally holding Badjie by the shirt and accusing him of the morning’s attack. He further testified that Badjie responded by drawing a knife and attempting to stab Sabally, only being prevented when Sabally’s brother intervened.
PW3 Alagie Cham, a mobile phone trader operating in Latrikunda, testified that during the rainy season of 2021, the second accused, Ebrima Camara, sold him two mobile phones on separate occasions for a combined sum of D2,500. Police investigations traced the phones to PW3 and recovered them.
PW4 Sergeant Mamadi Touray, the lead investigating officer, testified about the arrest of both accused, the recording of their cautionary and voluntary statements, and the recovery of the weapons, a knife with an orange handle and a white bottle from the accused persons’ respective homes.
He further testified that the accused persons led investigators to PW3, the buyer of the stolen phones. The voluntary statement of the first accused (Exhibit P2) and his cautionary statement (Exhibit P3) were admitted in evidence, as were the voluntary statement (Exhibit P4) and cautionary statement (Exhibit P5) of the second accused, following a trial-within-a-trial on their admissibility.
Both accused persons took the stand and denied all the allegations. DW1 Modou Badjie testified that he returned home from work on the evening of his arrest and had no knowledge of any robbery.
He denied ever making a statement to the police, claiming that the investigating officer presented him with pre-written documents and instructed him to apply his thumbprint under the pretext that doing so was necessary for his release on bail. He stated that he had never met the second accused before the trial.
DW2 Ebrima Camara likewise denied any involvement in the alleged offence. He testified that he did not know the first accused before the proceedings, denied selling any mobile phones to PW3, and maintained that all the witnesses who gave evidence against him were mistaken.
He confirmed he had been on remand at Mile II Central Prison for nearly four years at the time of giving evidence.
Defence Counsel, in final submissions, argued that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Among the grounds raised were: that the identification conditions at 4:00 a.m. in the rain were unreliable; that PW2 was not an eyewitness to the robbery itself; that PW3 could not consistently identify the precise model of the phones; that the recovered weapons were ordinary household items; and that no money was recovered from either accused. Counsel urged the court to acquit and discharge both men.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, in his evaluation and reasoning, began by reaffirming the foundational principles of criminal law. Citing the landmark House of Lords decision in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, the court described the presumption of innocence as the “golden thread” of criminal justice, emphasising that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely and unshiftingly on the prosecution.
Justice Jaiteh also drew on Mamadou Jallow v Commissioner of Police [1960–1993] GLR 39 and Jua v State [2010] 2 MJSC 152, affirming that reasonable doubt must be a doubt grounded in reason arising from the evidence, not a fanciful or imaginary one.
On Count One — Conspiracy (section 368, Criminal Code), Justice Jaiteh noted that conspiracy is established not by direct evidence of an agreement but by inference drawn from the conduct of the parties before, during, and after the alleged offence, citing R v Blakeley (1884) 14 Cox CC 468. However, it found that this case presented more than mere inference.
The confessional statements in Exhibits P3 and P5 were central to the finding. In his statement, Badjie admitted that he met Camara at Tallinding, travelled with him to Senegambia, returned together in the early hours of the morning, jointly confronted the complainant, searched him, removed two mobile phones and cash, and later shared the proceeds, including quarrelling over money from the sale of the stolen phones.
Camara’s statement corroborated that account, admitting to travelling back with Badjie, finding Sabally in his vehicle at the Tallinding Farokono Car Wash, removing the phones, and selling them.
Justice Jaiteh described the consistency between the two independent confessions as “striking” and held that the admissions were materially corroborated by PW1, PW3, and PW4. He rejected the defence assertion that the two accused did not know each other, finding it wholly inconsistent with their own confessional statements.
On Count Two, Robbery (section 272, Criminal Code)
Section 272 of the Criminal Code requires proof that property was stolen and that actual or threatened violence accompanied the taking of that property. Justice Jaiteh found all ingredients established.
On PW1’s identification evidence, Justice Jaiteh distinguished the identification of a stranger and the recognition of a previously known person. He held that it was a case of recognition, a more reliable form of identification and, having applied the appropriate caution, found PW1’s recognition of both accused to be credible and unshaken.
PW2’s evidence was found to corroborate PW1 in respect of the first accused, particularly the incident later that evening where Badjie produced a knife and attempted to stab Sabally conduct the court considered consistent with a consciousness of guilt.
In respect of the second accused, PW3’s evidence linking Camara to the sale of the stolen phones was accepted as credible and unshaken on cross-examination. Justice Jaiteh dismissed the defence’s criticism of minor inconsistencies in PW3’s recollection of the phones’ exact models, noting that memory naturally diminishes with time on peripheral details.
Justice Jaiteh further held that the voluntary confessional statements of both accused, which admitted joint participation in the robbery, the threats used, the sharing of proceeds, and the disposal of the stolen phones, were “direct, positive and unequivocal” and sufficient in law to sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence, as per the case.
The denials of DW1 and DW2 were described by Justice Jaiteh as “evasive, unconvincing and wholly incapable of raising any reasonable doubt.”
In his verdict, Justice Jaiteh found both Modou Badjie and Ebrima Camara guilty as charged on both counts: Conspiracy to commit a felony, Robbery.
Before the sentencing, Justice Jaiteh heard a plea in mitigation from defence counsel, Mr E. Z. Bendu, who informed the court that both convicts were first-time offenders with no previous convictions, were in their early twenties, and had been approximately 18 years old at the time of the offence.
Counsel described Badjie as his mother’s only son, working as a carpenter, and Camara as a driver, and submitted that both had expressed genuine remorse and sought forgiveness.
Justice Jaiteh acknowledged the mitigating factors but found that they were outweighed by significant aggravating circumstances: the victim was elderly and vulnerable; the attack occurred in the early hours of the morning when assistance was least available; the accused were armed with a knife and a bottle; a knife was pressed against the victim’s throat; and the accused acted together in a calculated, coordinated manner.
Justice Jaiteh then moved to deliver a direct message to the youth.
“There is dignity in honest labour, however modest the reward may be. There is honour in acquiring skills, pursuing education, engaging in lawful employment, and building one’s future through hard work and perseverance. There is no honour in terrorising innocent people, threatening them with deadly weapons, or enriching oneself through violence and fear.”
Justice Jaiteh then imposed the following sentences: Count one
Conspiracy: 5 years’ imprisonment each, and Count two Robbery: 20 years’ imprisonment each.
The sentences are to run concurrently, meaning each convict will serve an effective term of 20 years’ imprisonment. Time already spent in lawful custody pending trial is to be deducted in accordance with the applicable law.
Both convicts were reminded of their right to appeal against conviction and sentence.
