By: Cecilia E.L Mendy
Neneh Secka, the mother of the alleged victim on Wednesday testified before the High Court presided by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh in Banjul on the on-going child rape trial involving Sarjo Bah, the accused.
State Counsel S. Camara represented the state while Counsel Khadijah A. Muhammad Ishola appeared for the accused.
The accused was charged with rape contrary to section 3 (1)(a) and 3 (2)(d) of the Sexual Offences Act 2013.
Sarjo Bah, on or about the 25th day of November 2025, in Mamuda Village West Coast Region, intentionally and under coercive circumstances engaged in a sexual act with the 9-year-old victim (name herein withheld) by inserting his penis into her vagina and thereby committed an offence.
Neneh Secka, the mother of the victim, testifies before the court that the child is still attending school and also receives “madrasa” (Islamic school) education. She explains that the child attends school from 8:30am until 5:00pm because she remains behind for study sessions. She added that the madrasa is located close to their home.
The witness tells the court that she works as a caterer and sometimes spends a day or more away from home because of work. She adds that she has four children.
Secka testifies that during school days, the child stays at home with her 19-year-old niece. She further states that the child’s father works as a waiter, mostly on night shifts and is usually at home only on his off days.
The witness further testifies that the accused is their neighbour and the families share a close relationship. She explained that the accused frequently visited their home and was a friend of her sons. She added that the accused was always at their home and only returned to his home when he wanted to sleep.
The witness admitted making a statement to the police and said she would recognise it through her name, address and contact details. She stated that the statement was read to her before she signed it by thumbprint.
The statement was subsequently admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit P1.
Secka further testified that the accused was very close to her family and that she had advised him on several occasions.
She told the court that after the child disclosed what had allegedly happened to her, the matter was reported to the police.
She explained that when the accused was arrested and taken to the police station, officers asked whether he knew the victim, and he replied that he did. She further stated that when the police asked him why he had raped the child, he allegedly responded that he was sorry and did not know how it happened. She added that he also said he had visited a marabout for help so that such an incident would not happen again.
The witness admitted that when she came to testify on 27 April 2026 she told the court that she observed unusual changes in the child’s behaviour. She said the child was no longer as talkative as before, appeared angry most of the time and had become forgetful. She explained that she would send the child on errands but before reaching the destination the child would forget what she had been sent to do.
She further testified that she observed wounds on the child and that the child complained of abdominal pain. Upon noticing these signs, she immediately informed the child’s father.
She added that when she explained her concerns to the father, he told her not to worry. She added that she believed this was because men do not always understand issues affecting girls.
The witness said the child was initially reluctant to speak about what was troubling her and would instead point to either healed wounds or current injuries as the source of her pain.
She told the court that it was in November 2025 that the child finally opened up to her, although she had been observing changes in the child’s behaviour long before then.
The witness highlighted that when the child eventually disclosed the matter, she became emotional and repeatedly mentioned the accused’s name. The witness asked her whether anyone had instructed her to mention Sarjo Bah the accused.
She further explained that when she asked the child what the accused had done to her, the child stated that the accused would take her to her aunt’s house and insert his penis into her vagina. The child also said that the accused threatened her and warned her not to tell anyone.
Secka told the court that she had asked the child whether the accused ever gave her money after the alleged incidents and the child replied that he did not. She further said that the accused raped the child on several occasions and even took her to his own residence.
The witness testified in court on 27 April 2026 that she called her husband and informed him of the situation. When he arrived, they called a neighbour and explained what had transpired. The neighbour then advised them to contact the accused’s relatives.
She said, the accused’s stepmother and brother later came and were informed of the allegations.
She further stated that the victim was not taken to a hospital on that day instead, she was first taken to a clinic for examination.
Meanwhile, the witness said, the doctor immediately contacted officers at Sanyang Police Station regarding the alleged rape.
During cross examination, defence counsel suggested that the witness was not telling the truth. Secka rejected the suggestion and maintained that she was giving truthful evidence.
She told the court that the following day they were escorted to Brikama Hospital. She also stated that the accused took them to the location where the alleged rape had occurred.
The witness testified that the accused worked as a carpenter and that she had occasionally hired him to carry out repair work for which she paid him.
She reiterated that she often left the child in the care of her 19-year old-niece and sometimes take the child for weekends along with her other children.
When asked whether the child had disclosed the specific time the accused usually took her from the house, Secka responded that the child said it happened in the afternoon, although she could not state the exact time.
The witness further testified that the child was eight years old when she disclosed the alleged abuse however, she said she does not know the exact year it was when the child was raped and she added that it was this past November that the child opened up to her but before that she said the act had been on going.
She said the child was not really mature but she could explain when something was wrong with her.
The witness was discharged and while going from the dock tears were rolling from her eyes.
The matter was adjourned to 9th of June for the hearing of prosecution witness number two.