In a key development in the murder trial of Mariama Jallow, accused of fatally stabbing 16-year-old Cherno Manneh, a High Court judge has ruled that statements given by the defendant to the police are admissible as evidence.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh issued the ruling on Monday, April 14th, 2025, following a voire dire — a mini-trial within the trial — to determine the voluntariness of the statements in question.
Ms. Jallow, who has pleaded not guilty, is facing a single count of murder under Section 187 of The Gambia’s Criminal Code. The alleged incident occurred on November 29, 2023, in the Brufut Santosu area of the West Coast Region.
Prosecutors allege that Ms. Jallow acted with malice aforethought when she stabbed the teenager in the chest with a knife, resulting in his death.
During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence two statements obtained from the accused on the day of the incident — a cautionary and a voluntary statement. Defense counsel Chioma objected, arguing that the statements were not made voluntarily and should be excluded.
In accordance with legal procedure, Justice Jaiteh ordered a voire dire to assess whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made the statements of her own free will.
During this hearing, the prosecution called four witnesses, including Police Officer Alfusainey Beyai, who recorded the statements, and an independent witness, Modou Lamin Jatta. Ms. Jallow also testified.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasized that the burden lies with the prosecution to establish the voluntariness of a confession. He cited Section 31(2) of the Evidence Act, 1994, which requires that any confession made while in custody must be written in the presence of an independent witness who is not affiliated with the police or security services.
Justice Jaiteh also referenced the Judges’ Rules (The Gambia), a set of procedural guidelines for police interrogations, underscoring the necessity of compliance with rules governing the cautioning of suspects and the proper recording of their statements.
Officer Beyai testified that Ms. Jallow was cautioned in Wolof — her preferred language — and that the statement was translated back to her after being recorded in English. Mr. Jatta, the independent witness, corroborated the account and confirmed that Ms. Jallow appeared willing and cooperative throughout the process.
Two additional officers stationed in Brufut, Lamin Sambou and Ebrima Dibba, also testified in support of the prosecution’s claim that proper procedures were followed.
By contrast, Justice Jaiteh found that Ms. Jallow’s claim of coercion was not supported by credible evidence or corroboration. “The accused’s allegation is implausible when weighed against the consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses,” the judge said.
Justice Jaiteh noted that the two statements — originally marked as Exhibit VD1 and VD2 — were properly signed, dated, and witnessed. He further confirmed that the accused acknowledged the caution with her thumbprint.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that it is in the interest of justice and fairness that the cautionary and voluntary statements be admitted into evidence.
The exhibits were formally admitted as evidence, with Exhibit VD1 re-designated as Exhibit P1 (Voluntary Statement) and Exhibit VD2 as Exhibit P2 (Cautionary Statement), both dated November 29, 2023.
The trial continued with testimony from Lamin K. Ceesay, a 15-year veteran of the police force stationed in Brufut. Officer Ceesay recounted how, on the day of the incident, a man named Ousman Manneh reported that a boy had been stabbed. Upon arriving at Ms. Jallow’s residence, officers found the house locked.
After identifying themselves and asking her to open the door, Ms. Jallow reportedly complied. When questioned about the weapon used, she allegedly opened a green suitcase and handed over a knife with a green handle.
During cross-examination, Defense Counsel Chioma questioned Officer Ceesay about the timing of the alleged incident. The officer stated that it took place at approximately 9 p.m.
Counsel Chioma then inquired whether the police had visited the crime scene. Officer Ceesay admitted that they had not.
“Did you visit the crime scene to ascertain whether the alleged crime took place?” Counsel C. U. Uduma asked.
“We went to the accused person’s house,” Lamin K. Ceesay answered.
“So, you acted on the information that a crime had occurred and went directly to the person identified as the perpetrator?” Counsel C. U. Uduma asked.
“Yes, we went to the house of the accused,” Officer Ceesay confirmed.
“Therefore, you did not go to the crime scene?” Counsel C. U. Uduma asked.
“That is not my responsibility; that falls under the jurisdiction of the crime management team,” Lamin K. Ceesay explained.
“As a police officer, shouldn’t your initial step be to visit the crime scene to verify that a crime had indeed been committed?” Counsel C. U. Uduma inquired.
“We went to her house, where a large number of people were present, and it was confirmed that she had committed the crime,” Lamin K. Ceesay answered.
“But you did not go to the crime scene itself?” Counsel C. U. Uduma asked.
“That is not my role; my task was to conduct the arrest,” Lamin K. Ceesay responded.
“How many years have you served as a police officer?” Counsel C. U. Uduma asked.
“For 15 years,” Lamin K. Ceesay replied.