By Cecilia E. L. Mendy
The High Court, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, on Monday heard arguments in the ongoing alleged rape trial involving Ass Malick Njie, with the defence questioning the absence of CCTV footage said to be central to the investigation.
Inspector Bintou Tamba, a welfare officer attached to the investigative team, testified during the proceedings, presenting correspondence between the defence and Qcell Limited regarding the requested footage.
The court was shown a letter dated 24 February 2026 from Qcell Limited in response to a defence request dated 12 February 2026. The company stated that the accused was not its employee but was engaged through Secured 24, a private security firm contracted to provide services.
Qcell further stated that CCTV footage had been handed over to police investigators at the time of the incident, adding that no copy was retained. The company also noted that the officer who facilitated the transfer was no longer in its employment.
Inspector Tamba told the court she had read the letter but said she did not personally receive any CCTV footage during the investigation. She also confirmed that the material had not been handed directly to her.
Justice Jaiteh sought clarification on whether she had received the footage, to which she responded in the negative.
The court further heard that Qcell advised that any inquiry regarding the footage should be directed to the police, who were said to be in custody of investigative materials.
State Counsel S. L. Jobarteh told the court that standard police procedure requires documentation of all evidence received, adding that there was no record in the police diary confirming receipt of any CCTV footage.
Defence counsel F. C. Anyanwu noted that Inspector Tamba had not featured in earlier proceedings. However, the judge clarified that she was part of the investigative team as a child welfare officer and therefore a relevant witness.
Justice Jaiteh said her testimony indicated she did not have custody of the CCTV material, stressing her role in the proceedings.
State Counsel Jobarteh further argued that Qcell’s response raised questions as it did not identify the officer who allegedly received the footage.
The case was adjourned to 8 June 2026 for continuation of hearing.