Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The High Court has admitted into evidence the postmortem report of Fatoumatta Kargbo in the ongoing murder trial of Arona Tine, who is accused of fatally stabbing the bureau de change worker on January 19, 2024, at Westfield in the Kanifing Municipality.
The issue arose during the testimony of the ninth prosecution witness, Dr. Ousman Leigh, a consultant pathologist. The Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by State Counsel Fatoumatta Drammeh, applied to tender the post-mortem report dated January 22, 2024, bearing Autopsy No. PM 06/2024, through Dr. Leigh.
Defense Counsel Samuel Ade objected to the admissibility of the report on two grounds. He argued that although the document was prepared on January 22, 2024, it was only served on the defence on March 2, 2026.
He further submitted that the delay breached Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, and violated Section 24(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, which guarantees an accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense.
In response, State Counsel Drammeh told the court that the prosecution had filed a notice of additional list of exhibits on February 26, 2026, providing more than 48 hours’ notice before seeking to tender the document. She argued that once processes are filed, service becomes an administrative function of the court and is not within the control of the State Law Office.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh said he had carefully considered the objection, the prosecution’s response, and the applicable law. He noted that Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, governs the calling of additional prosecution witnesses and requires notice to be given to both the Registrar and the accused person, together with a summary of the evidence.
He added that Section 242 reinforces the safeguard that prosecution witnesses are subject to cross-examination by the accused or his counsel. He also referenced Section 24(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
Justice Jaiteh said these provisions reflect two core principles: the prosecution’s right to present relevant and material evidence and the accused’s right to fair notice and an opportunity to challenge that evidence. The court, he said, must balance procedural fairness with substantive justice.
The judge identified three key questions: whether the prosecution complied with statutory notice requirements, whether the document was relevant and material, and whether the timing of service caused real prejudice to the defense.
On compliance, he noted that the State Law Office filed the Notice of Additional List of Exhibits on February 26, 2026, specifically listing the postmortem report. He held that once filed, service becomes an administrative act carried out by the court.
He said there was no evidence of deliberate ambush, bad faith, concealment, or tactical withholding of the document by the prosecution.
On relevance, Justice Jaiteh described a post-mortem report prepared by a qualified pathologist as central and material evidence in a homicide trial.
He said the report addresses the medical cause of death and is highly relevant to the issues before the court. Excluding it solely due to administrative delay, without proof of prejudice, would undermine the court’s duty to determine the truth.
The judge further stated that the defence had the report and that Dr Leigh was present in court and ready for cross-examination. He said the defence would be given full liberty to question the pathologist on the methodology, findings and conclusions of the report, or to seek an adjournment if necessary.
He held that the right to a fair hearing is not a technical shield to exclude relevant evidence where no miscarriage of justice has been shown.
The proper remedy for late disclosure, he said, is usually an adjournment rather than exclusion, unless bad faith or irremediable prejudice is established. In this case, he found that no such prejudice had been demonstrated.
The defence objection was overruled, and the post-mortem report dated January 22, 2024, Autopsy No. PM 06/2024, was admitted into evidence and marked as Prosecution Exhibit P11.
