By: Cecilia E.L Mendy
The High Court in Banjul has sentenced 64-year-old Momodou Yerro Baldeh to life imprisonment after finding him guilty of raping a six-year-old girl.
Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh of the Banjul High Court ruled that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, bringing to a close a case that had drawn significant public attention since the incident in October 2023.
The convict, Momodou Yerro Baldeh, was charged with one count of rape under Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013. The prosecution alleged that on October 10, 2023, at London Corner, Baldeh lured the victim into his room with the promise of five Dalasi before engaging in a sexual act.
During the trial, which began after he pleaded not guilty in December 2023, the prosecution called six witnesses. Key testimony came from the victim, who described being pulled into the accused’s room after being sent on an errand. Her grandmother (PW2) testified to finding bloodstains on the child’s undergarments the following morning.
Medical testimony provided by Dr. Ismaila Touray (PW6) further solidified the case. Dr. Touray confirmed finding signs of severe blunt mechanical trauma, including localised redness and a partial disruption of the hymenal ring, consistent with the allegations.
The victim’s ten-year-old sister (PW5) also testified, recounting how she saw the accused pull her sister into his room and lock the door on the day of the incident.
The defence, led by Counsel A. Jarju, argued that the allegations were a fabrication.
In his defence, Momodou Yerro Baldeh claimed the victim’s grandmother had coached the children to testify against him following a dispute over rent and his rejection of her alleged sexual advances.
He maintained his innocence throughout, describing himself as a pious man of good character, a sentiment anchored by Basiru Baldeh (DW2) and Makeue Baldeh (DW3), who vouched for the accused as a hardworking, pious Muslim of good character.
Counsel A. Jarju highlighted inconsistencies in PW2’s testimony regarding the time of the discovery (8:00 am vs. 8:00 pm) and argued the medical evidence was scientifically insufficient.
However, Justice Jaiteh dismissed the claims, noting the consistency and sincerity of the victim’s testimony despite her young age. Justice Jaiteh, in his evaluation of the evidence, leaned on legal principles and precedents. He cited the landmark case of Woolmington v DPP (1935) and Kaddy Bojang v. The State, affirming that the prosecution carries the “unshifting burden” to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Jaiteh found PW4 (victim) to be a competent witness who understood the difference between truth and falsehood. Referencing R v. W (1998), Justice Jaiteh stated that minor discrepancies (such as timing) did not render the core narrative of a child witness unreliable.
Justice Jaiteh noted that Section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2013 explicitly removes the requirement to treat sexual offence testimony with “special caution,” aligning Gambian law with international best practices.
Justice Jaiteh found the defence evidence “manifestly insufficient” and stated that character evidence cannot substitute for factual rebuttal, noting that the defence witnesses could not account for the accused’s whereabouts at the time of the crime.
Justice Jaiteh found that the prosecution had proved all ingredients – the intentional sexual act, the presence of the complainant, and the coercive circumstances mandated by the victim’s age, and Justice Jaiteh found the accused, Momodou Yerro Baldeh, guilty of rape contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013.
Despite an impassioned plea for mitigation by counsel A. Jarjue on Momodou Yerro Baldeh’s age, status as a first-time offender, and a family of nine children who all depend on him, Justice Jaiteh held that such factors carry “little or no mitigating weight” in the violation of a child.
Justice Jaiteh emphasised that under Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, rape of a child under 13 carries a mandatory life sentence.
In passing the life sentence, Justice Jaiteh emphasised that the court must remain uncompromising in protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
He said, “This sentence is imposed not only to punish the offender, now in the twilight of life, but also to deter others, uphold the rule of law, and protect the most vulnerable members of society. Justice for children must be firm, uncompromising, and swift.”
Justice Jaiteh concluded by reminding both parties of their right to appeal the judgment, conviction, or sentence within 30 days.
He also issued a call for heightened public vigilance and education on personal safety to safeguard children from similar abuse while concluding that the sentence serves to protect the most vulnerable and send an unequivocal message that child exploitation will attract the “sternest punishment available under the country’s law.”