By: Isatou Sarr
Defence counsel K. Jallow has filed a no-case submission at the High Court, arguing that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence for Fatou Camara to be called upon to enter a defence in an ongoing case involving the alleged death of an infant linked to female genital mutilation (FGM).
The application, filed before Justice I. Janneh, seeks the acquittal of Camara, the first of three accused persons. She is charged with conspiracy to commit a felony and prohibition of female circumcision under Section 32A(2)(b) of the Women’s (Amendment) Act, 2015.
The prosecution alleges that Camara performed FGM on an infant, Sarjo Conteh, on 8 September 2025 in Wellingara, resulting in the child’s death. The second and third accused persons are Hawa Conteh and Oumie Sawaneh, though the current application relates only to Camara.
The prosecution called 11 witnesses, including police officers and medical personnel, and tendered exhibits such as photographs, hospital records and an autopsy report.
However, counsel Jallow argued that key evidence, including cautionary and voluntary statements allegedly obtained from the accused, was rejected by the court for non-compliance with Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act and the Judges’ Rules. She said this substantially weakened the prosecution’s case.
She submitted that, even at its highest, the evidence does not disclose any basis upon which a reasonable tribunal could convict the first accused.
The defence further argued that most prosecution witnesses gave procedural or hearsay testimony, and that none of the police witnesses claimed to have witnessed the alleged offence.
It also challenged the testimony of a police officer who attended the autopsy, stating that the officer was not medically qualified to determine the cause of death.
On medical evidence, the defence pointed to inconsistencies between witness statements and official reports. It noted that one doctor admitted not examining the deceased, while another relied on information provided by a non-pathologist.
The defence also highlighted discrepancies between the autopsy findings and earlier hospital records, including a Brought-In-Death form which recorded the cause of death as unknown.
Although the autopsy report attributed the death to haemorrhage following alleged genital cutting, counsel Jallow argued that the pathologist admitted under cross-examination that the instrument used could not be identified and that timely medical intervention might have prevented the death.
She further described the report as inconsistent, stating that it shifted “from uncertainty to certainty” without sufficient evidential basis, and suggested it may have been influenced by prior information rather than independent medical findings.
Relying on Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025 and established legal principles, the defence maintained that the prosecution had failed to prove essential elements of the charges, including any agreement for conspiracy, direct evidence linking Camara to the alleged act, and a consistent cause of death.
“To call upon the first accused to enter a defence would amount to reversing the burden of proof,” counsel Jallow argued.
The High Court is expected to rule on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case or whether Camara will be acquitted without being called to open her defence.