By: Cecilia E.L. Mendy
The High Court in Banjul on Tuesday admitted a postmortem report into evidence in the alleged murder trial of Arona Tine, who is accused of killing a bureau de change employee in Westfield in January 2024.
Tine appeared before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh. The prosecution was led by State Counsel F. Drammeh, while Counsel Samuel Ade represented the accused.
The accused is charged with murder contrary to Section 187 and punishable under Section 188 of the Criminal Code. The State alleged that on 19 January 2024, at HM Bureau Exchange in Westfield, Kanifing Municipality, Tine, with malice aforethought, caused the death of Fatoumata Kagbo, a staff member of the bureau, by stabbing her in the chest with a knife.
Testifying for the prosecution, Ousman Leigh, a consultant pathologist, told the court that he conducted a postmortem examination on the deceased on 22 January 2024 at the mortuary of the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital (EFSTH).
Leigh said two family members of the deceased and an investigating officer were present during the examination. He identified the postmortem report before the court based on its contents.
When the prosecution applied to tender the report, the defence objected, arguing that although the document was prepared on 22 January 2024, it was only served on the defence on 2 March 2026. Counsel for the accused submitted that the delay contravened Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, and Section 24(3) of the Constitution of The Gambia, which guarantees adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence.
In response, the prosecution informed the court that it had filed a notice of additional exhibits on 26 February 2026, signalling its intention to rely on the postmortem report. It argued that service of filed processes is an administrative function of the court and not within the control of the State Law Office.
Ruling on the objection, Justice Jaiteh said Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the prosecution to give notice when calling additional evidence, while Section 242 safeguards the right to cross-examination. He added that Section 24(3) of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing, including adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.
The judge held that the court must balance the prosecution’s right to present relevant evidence with the accused’s right to fair notice and an opportunity to challenge such evidence.
He said the key issue was whether the defence had suffered actual prejudice due to the timing of service. The court found no evidence of ambush or bad faith and noted that the defence had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and could apply for an adjournment if necessary.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that excluding relevant and material evidence solely on the basis of administrative delay, without proof of prejudice, would undermine the court’s duty to ascertain the truth. He accordingly overruled the objection and admitted the postmortem report dated 22 January 2024 as Prosecution Exhibit P11.
Continuing his testimony, Leigh told the court that the body was well preserved and had sustained a penetrating chest injury. He stated that the cause of death was the stab wound and that no other abnormalities were detected.
He further informed the court that he ceased working at EFSTH on 25 August 2025 and acknowledged that he did not append his signature to the report, although he confirmed it was prepared in January 2024.
The case was adjourned to 21 April 2026 for continuation.