Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The High Court in Bundung has sentenced Ousainou Jallow to death after finding him guilty of the murder of 62-year-old Binta Gassama, whose killing during a violent robbery in September 2022 shocked many Gambians.
In a detailed judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice I. Janneh ruled that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jallow and alleged child offender Lamin Jammeh jointly carried out the fatal attack at Gassama’s home in Fajara South before stealing valuables from the residence.
The court also convicted Jallow of robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently.
Justice Janneh described the attack as “prolonged, deliberate, and brutal,” saying the deceased was assaulted inside the safety of her own home by two men acting together in pursuit of robbery.
“The deceased, a 62-year-old woman, was attacked in the early hours of the morning, in the sanctity of her own home, where she was entitled to safety and security,” the judge said during sentencing.
According to evidence presented during the trial, Gassama was found lying naked on the bathroom floor with water pouring directly onto her face. A cloth had been placed over her face while the house had been extensively ransacked.
Her daughter, who testified as the first prosecution witness, told the court she discovered the disturbing scene after entering the compound. Another prosecution witness confirmed that the deceased was motionless when found and was later pronounced dead.
A post-mortem examination conducted by Professor Gabriel Olebiyi Ogun revealed extensive injuries, including bruises, defensive wounds, ligature marks on the neck, airway congestion, and skull fractures.
The medical report concluded that the cause of death was “asphyxiation” resulting from “smothering and neck compression by ligatures.”
Confessional Statements and Recovered Items
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on confessional statements allegedly made by both accused persons following their arrest.
Defense lawyers challenged the statements, arguing that they had been obtained through torture and coercion, but the court rejected the objection after conducting a trial within a trial.
Justice Janneh ruled that the statements were voluntary, truthful, and strongly corroborated by independent evidence.
“The statements contain detailed facts and circumstances that could not reasonably have been invented by investigators without knowledge peculiar to the perpetrators,” the judge held.
According to the confessional statements, the accused persons entered the compound during the early hours of September 4, 2022, after returning from Senegambia. They allegedly hid inside the compound before confronting the deceased after she discovered them.
One of the statements described how Gassama attempted to call for help before she was overpowered, dragged into the house, and subdued.
The confessions further detailed how phones, jewelry, cash, a router, headphones, and car keys were stolen before some of the items were allegedly sold on the “black market” in Serrekunda.
The court said several aspects of the statements were independently confirmed by prosecution witnesses and recovery evidence.
One witness testified that a Samsung phone belonging to the deceased was sold to him shortly after the incident. Another witness later confirmed purchasing the same phone before it was eventually traced by police investigators.
Investigators also recovered other items allegedly linked to the robbery, including an iPhone and the deceased’s car key.
Justice Janneh ruled that the doctrine of recent possession applied in the case, noting that the stolen items were traced to the accused persons shortly after the robbery and that no credible explanation had been provided.
“The proximity in time between the robbery and the tracing of the stolen items to the accused person and the alleged child offender strongly supports the prosecution’s case,” the judge stated.
Court Rejects Defense Arguments
The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of both murder and robbery, insisting there was no eyewitness evidence directly placing the accused persons at the scene.
Defense counsel also challenged the chain of custody surrounding recovered items and criticized investigators for failing to conduct fingerprint analysis.
However, the court ruled that those alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not affect the substance of the prosecution’s case.
“The law is settled that not every inconsistency is fatal to the prosecution’s case,” Justice Janneh said.
Both accused persons also denied knowing each other and raised alibi defenses during the trial, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the incident.
The judge, however, dismissed the alibi claims as “deliberate falsehoods” and “clear afterthoughts designed to evade criminal responsibility.”
“It is a mere denial unsupported by credible facts and is clearly designed to escape criminal liability,” the court ruled.
Justice Janneh further held that the prosecution established malice aforethought under the Criminal Code, particularly because of the extreme and fatal violence used during the robbery.
“It is trite that any reasonable person must know that applying force to the neck of a human being, while simultaneously preventing them from breathing or calling for help, will probably result in death or grievous harm,” the judge stated.
During sentencing, the defense pleaded for leniency, informing the court that Jallow was a first-time offender with a wife and a three-year-old child.
State prosecutors reportedly urged the court to impose life imprisonment in light of the country’s moratorium on executions.
However, Justice Janneh ruled that the court was bound by the mandatory provisions of the Criminal Code applicable at the time the offense was committed.
“The Court has no discretion to substitute any other sentence where the law prescribes a mandatory sentence,” the judge said.
The court ultimately sentenced Jallow to death for murder and to life imprisonment for robbery.
Meanwhile, Lamin Jammeh, who was identified throughout the proceedings as an alleged child offender, was remitted to the Kanifing Children’s Court for appropriate orders under the Children’s Act.
Pending those proceedings, the court ordered that he remain in the juvenile wing of Mile II Prison.
Leave a Reply