By: Isatou Sarr
The High Court in Bundung has acquitted and discharged three accused persons in a case involving the alleged female circumcision of a one-month-old baby girl, Sarjo Conteh, which resulted in her death.
Delivering judgment, Hon. Justice I. Janneh ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case linking the accused persons to the offences charged, and therefore upheld a no-case-to-answer submission filed by the defence.
The accused persons – Fatou Camara, Hawa Conteh, and Oumie Sawaneh – were arraigned on November 26, 2025, on four counts including conspiracy to commit felony, prohibition of female circumcision, and accomplice-related offences under the Women’s (Amendment) Act, 2015.
The prosecution alleged that on or about September 8, 2025, at Wellingara in the West Coast Region, the accused persons conspired to perform female circumcision on baby Sarjo Conteh, which allegedly led to her death.
Fatou Camara was specifically accused of performing the circumcision, Hawa Conteh of facilitating and promoting the act, and Oumie Sawaneh of failing to report knowledge of the procedure to authorities.
The prosecution called 10 witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including medical reports and photographic evidence, to support its case.
Police witnesses testified that the child was brought to Bundung Maternal and Child Hospital already deceased, with visible blood around the genital area. Investigators alleged that statements from the child’s mother and aunt indicated involvement in the circumcision, although those statements were later rejected by the court for non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Medical witnesses told the court that clinical findings suggested the child had undergone circumcision the previous day and died from excessive bleeding leading to hypovolemic shock.
A consultant pathologist, Prof. Gabriel Ogun, who performed the post-mortem examination, confirmed extensive genital injuries consistent with circumcision-related trauma. He concluded that the cause of death was external haemorrhage resulting from a genital laceration.
However, under cross-examination, he acknowledged limitations including the inability to determine the exact object used or identify the person responsible for the injury.
Other medical witnesses relied on hospital records indicating that the child was brought in dead and that circumcision was suspected based on clinical impressions. The court noted that these findings were not definitive proof of criminal responsibility.
Police officers also testified regarding the arrest of the accused persons and statements allegedly obtained during interrogation. However, the court rejected several of these statements, ruling that they were obtained in violation of Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act, which requires the presence of an independent witness during recording.
In his ruling, Justice Janneh held that although the evidence clearly established that female circumcision occurred and resulted in the death of the infant, the prosecution failed to present admissible evidence linking the accused persons to the act.
On the charge of conspiracy, the court found no admissible evidence of agreement or coordination among the accused persons. The judge noted that the prosecution’s case on conspiracy was based largely on hearsay and rejected confessional statements, which could not be relied upon.
Regarding the charge against Fatou Camara for performing female circumcision, the court held that while medical evidence confirmed the occurrence of circumcision, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence identifying her as the perpetrator.
The judge stated that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Similarly, on the charge of accomplice to female circumcision against Hawa Conteh, the court found that the evidence relied upon was hearsay and inadmissible statements, which had already been rejected.
On the charge against Oumie Sawaneh for failure to report, the court held that there was no legally admissible evidence proving that she had knowledge of the incident in a manner that imposed criminal liability under the law.
Justice Janneh further emphasized that while the prosecution called multiple witnesses, the quality and admissibility of evidence are more important than quantity.
“The probative value of evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses but by its quality, cogency, and admissibility,” the judge stated.
The court also expressed concern over investigative shortcomings, noting that several police officers admitted they did not visit the scene of the alleged offence or conduct thorough independent investigations.
The judge further criticised procedural lapses in the taking of confessional statements, describing non-compliance with legal safeguards as a serious flaw that deprived the court of potentially crucial evidence.
Justice Janneh stressed that proper adherence to evidentiary rules is essential, particularly in serious criminal cases involving vulnerable victims.
He concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof and that calling the accused persons to enter a defence would be unsafe and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Accordingly, the court upheld the no-case-to-answer submissions filed by the defence and acquitted and discharged all three accused persons on all counts.
The judge reminded that dissatisfied parties have the right to appeal the ruling.
The case, which attracted public attention due to the circumstances surrounding the death of the infant, has reignited discussions on the enforcement of laws prohibiting female circumcision in The Gambia.
