By: Isatou Sarr
The High Court has rejected key police statements in the ongoing female circumcision (FGM) trial involving three women accused of carrying out a procedure that allegedly led to the death of a young girl.
The ruling was delivered by the presiding judge, Justice I. Janneh, who held that the cautionary and voluntary statements obtained from the accused failed to comply with legal requirements, particularly the need for an independent witness to be present at the time the statements were taken.
The accused persons: Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh, and Oumie Sawaneh, are standing trial in connection with an incident said to have occurred on 9 August 2025.
The prosecution alleged that the three women performed female circumcision on a minor, who later died at Bundung Maternity Hospital.
When the case was called, State Counsel W.S. Madu appeared for the State.
Counsel L.S. Camara represented the first accused, while Counsel F.K. Darboe appeared for the second and third accused persons.
The State applied to interpose a witness, explaining that the second witness was indisposed and that it intended to call another witness instead. The application was granted without objection, and Police Officer Joof testified as PW3.
Officer Joof, who has served for nine years and is attached to the Bundung Borehole Police Station, told the court that he received information from a friend that a child brought to Bundung Maternity Hospital had been pronounced dead and was suspected to have undergone female circumcision.
He said he visited the hospital, met fellow officers, and later assisted in escorting suspects to the Willingara Police Station.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel for the second and third accused, Officer Joof admitted that he was not present when the initial interviews with the deceased’s mother and aunt were conducted, and that the information he relied on was passed on to him by colleagues.
Sub-Inspector Mam-Fatou Saidy testified as the fourth prosecution witness. She told the court that she obtained cautionary and voluntary statements from the accused persons on the night of the incident. She admitted that no independent witness was present at the time, explaining that it was late, but said an independent witness was invited the following day to confirm the statements.
Defence counsel objected to the tendering of the statements, arguing that they were confessional, taken without an independent witness, and recorded in English despite the accused speaking Mandinka, with no indication that the statements were translated back to them.
Justice Janneh upheld the objection and rejected the statements. The case was adjourned to 15 January 2026 for continuation.
