By Landing Ceesay
Mr. Sanna Cham, the First Prosecution Witness (PW1) in the murder case against Arona Tine, testified that he heard the cries for help from Fatoumatta Kargbo, the victim, from her Forex Bureau at Westfield just before Jummah Prayers.
Arona Tine is currently on trial for a single charge of murder, contrary to Section 187 of The Criminal Code.
The prosecution claims that on January 19, 2024, in Westfield, located in The Gambia’s Kanifing Municipality, Arona Tine intentionally stabbed Fatoumatta Kargbo with a knife, resulting in her death, thus committing a crime.
Arona Tine has pleaded not guilty to the murder charge, and the prosecution has called its first witness.Mr. Cham shared his account of the events that unfolded at Westfield just before Jummah Prayers. He confirmed recognizing Arona Tine, the accused, and seeing him at Westfield on the day Fatoumatta Kargbo was killed. He also mentioned that his shop and Fatoumatta Kargbo’s shop are adjacent at Westfield.
“I saw him (the accused person) on a Friday; we performed ablution on our way to the mosque. I heard Fatou shouting for help. I was supposed to go to the mosque when I heard Fatou (the deceased) shouting. I rushed to go to her shop. I met Fatou at the door of her shop holding a knife, and her body was covered with blood.
“She ran out and was shouting for help and saying, Help me, help me. So after that, the accused person (Arona Tine) came out of Fatou’s Shop. Fatou was pointing at the accused person, and she was saying something while holding the knife. She then fell on the ground, and the knife fell down,” Sanna Cham told the court.
He continued, stating that when Fatoumatta Kargbo collapsed and the knife fell, Arona Tine picked it up and injured himself.
“The accused person (Arona Tine) picked up the knife and injured himself on his neck. He then went back to Fatou’s shop by then he (Arona Tine) was bleeding. When the accused entered Fatou’s shop that was when people came and closed the door while he was inside the shop,” the witness testified. Mr. Cham further testified that when Arona Tine was locked inside the victim’s shop, she was lying outside. He mentioned that people surrounded the victim and tried to cover her as her underwear was visible. He also mentioned that nurses arrived at the scene and took Fatoumatta Kargbo away.
“You indicated that you heard Fatou (deceased) shouting, What word exactly did you hear?” State Counsel A. Gibba asked the witness.
“She (deceased) was saying, Come and help me; come and help me in Wolof,” the witness told the court.
“Is it correct that that was the same thing she was saying when you met her outside?” Counsel A. Gibba asked the witness.
Before the witness had a chance to respond, Counsel O. Susso, representing the accused, interjected, objecting to the question posed by the Prosecution Counsel. Susso argued that the question was leading the witness.
In response, Counsel Gibba contested Susso’s objection, stating that the question did not lead the witness. He also pointed out that the witness had already provided relevant information about what the deceased had said.
Gibba then directed the court’s attention to section 198 of the Evidence Act, urging the court to assess whether the question constituted leading the witness and to issue a ruling accordingly.
In his ruling, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, the presiding judge, said the question was in order because it is a repetition of what the witness already said.
“The objection is misconceived and it is overruled,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh ruled.
Honorable Justice Jaiteh requested the witness to respond to the query.
The witness proceeded to inform the court that Fatoumatta Kargbo’s utterances inside mirrored those outside before she collapsed.
Furthermore, the witness testified that the deceased was also visibly bleeding.
Regarding the knife’s color, the witness stated to the court that it appeared “sea green.”
Mr. Cham added that, in addition to the knife’s color, the blade that the deceased held was soaked in blood.
He recounted that once the nurses had transported the deceased, the shopkeepers shuttered their businesses, and the accused individual was escorted away by PIU Officers.
In court, Mr. Cham recounted being summoned to the Serekunda Police Station, where he was tasked with detailing his observations from the crime scene. He affirmed that he conveyed to the court the details of what he had witnessed.
Regarding his connection to the deceased, the witness informed the court that they were friends.
“She (Fatoumatta Kargbo) was my friend; when she comes to work, I sometimes open her shop for her, and sometimes I close the shop for her and go home,” the witness told the court.
“Mr. Cham, on this particular day, were you the one who opened the shop for her?” Counsel Gibba asked the witness.
“I did not see her that day until when the incident happened,” the witness told the court.
Under cross-examination, the witness told the court that the incident happened between 1:40 pm and 1:50 p.m., when the majority of the people went for Jummah Prayers.
He confirmed to the court that based on what he saw outside, the accused person (Arona Tine) did not attack Fatoumatta Kargbo (deceased).
“Mr. Cham, would agree with me that it was Fatou (deceased) who attacked the accused person (Arona Tine) with a knife based on what you saw outside?” Counsel Susso asked the witness.
“Fatou (deceased) did not attack him (Arona Tine). She was holding a knife, pointing at the accused person. That was the time she fell down, and the accused person (Arona Tine) picked up the knife, and Fatou started crawling away from the accused person,” the witness told the court.
The witness told the court he gave a statement to the police and also gave them his telephone number 50*********.
Counsel Susso requested the original copy of the witness’s statement from the Prosecution.
The Prosecution then provided him with the original copy of the witness’s statement.
Counsel Susso then applied to tender the witness’s statement into evidence. The prosecution did not object to the admissibility of the document into evidence.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh then admitted the statement into evidence and marked it as Defense Exhibit D1.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh adjourned the case to 6th of May 2024 for continuation of cross-examination.