Prosecution Witness to Testify In-Camera Due To Age Following Heated Legal Debate

By Landing Ceesay 

In a criminal case involving Yugo Sowe, who stands accused of severing his wife’s legs and hands, the court ruled that the fourth prosecution witness, a minor, will testify on camera due to his age.

The Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, has charged Yugo Sowe with multiple offenses, including Attempted Murder under Section 200 of the Criminal Code, Domestic Violence under Section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, Grievous Harm under Section 214 of the Criminal Code, Acts Intended to Cause Grievous Harm under Section 212 of the Criminal Code, and Wounding under Section 217 of the Criminal Code.

The prosecution alleges that on November 16, 2023, in Brikama Jalambang, West Coast Region, Sowe attacked his wife, Amie Sowe, with a cutlass, inflicting severe injuries on her legs, arms, and other body parts.

When the case resumed for the testimony of the fourth prosecution witness, Senior State Counsel Mariama Singhateh informed the court that their next witness was a 13-year-old boy. She filed an application for the minor to testify on camera, citing Section 3 of the Children’s Act for the court’s consideration.

Counsel Singhateh further argued that the close relationship between the witness and the accused—who is the witness’s father—warrants the testimony to be given in private.

While Defense Counsel Samuel Ade did not oppose the application, he insisted that the prosecution must provide documentation to confirm the witness’s age, suggesting that the boy’s birth certificate be produced to verify that he is indeed a minor.

“My lord, If it is in the case of rape, we will accept that the witness testify in chambers or on camera. But I am made to understand that this is not a rape case. So my lord, we would want the witness to testify in an open court,” Counsel Ade told the court. 

In response, Counsel Singhateh referred to the witness’s police statement, which stated that he is 13 years old. Ade countered that in cases not involving rape, the default is for witnesses to testify in open court. He emphasized that since the case does not involve sexual offenses, the witness should testify publicly.

However, Counsel Singhateh maintained that the law does not limit private testimony by minors to rape cases alone, but extends to situations where the child may be exposed to harm or undue influence.

“My lord, we will not accept a minor to testify in an open court. For a minor to testify in chambers does not only apply to a rape case but also to a case that will expose the child to danger. So my lord, we will not accept for the witness to testify in an open court,” Counsel Singhateh submitted. 

Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Jaiteh, ultimately intervened, clarifying that the decision to allow a witness to testify in chambers or on camera rests solely at the court’s discretion.

“Now, the issue of a witness testifying in an open court or chambers is the court’s discretion, so let me make a ruling on the matter,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh said. 

After reviewing the case, Justice Jaiteh ruled in favor of the prosecution, determining that the witness, being a minor, would testify on camera. The case was then adjourned to October 15, 2024, for continuation.