He was first arraigned before the High Court on 11th November 2021, where the charge was read and explained to him, and he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution called five witnesses and tendered six exhibits (P1–P6), including the accused’s cautionary and voluntary statements, photographs of the crime scene, and the victim’s underwear allegedly stained with blood.
Prosecutors argued that the accused, a neighbour of the victim, had under coercive circumstances sexually assaulted the child, who was only five years old at the time.
In her address, Defence Counsel Ms C. U. Uduma argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
She noted that PW1, the victim’s mother, gave hearsay evidence, as she did not witness the alleged incident. She further stated that PW2, the child, alleged that the accused raped her on several occasions, but there was no corroborative evidence to support the claim.
Counsel also challenged the reliability of the medical report (Exhibit P6), noting that it had been tampered with, and that the injuries observed could have resulted from non-sexual trauma. She added that no DNA test was conducted to link the accused to the alleged act.
On those grounds, she urged the Court to acquit and discharge the accused.
Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh said he had carefully reviewed the testimonies and exhibits presented during the trial.
He reaffirmed that the burden of proof in criminal cases rests entirely on the prosecution, citing the celebrated case of Woolmington v. DPP [1935] A.C. 462 and Kaddy Bojang v. the State (Crim. Appeal No. 05/2012).
The Court however reasoned that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Jaiteh noted that the victim’s age five years at the time constituted a coercive circumstance, as a child of such tender age cannot legally give consent.
Consequently, Saikou Bah was found guilty as charged.
During mitigation, Defence Counsel T. B. Jallow informed the Court that he had no plea to make, while Senior Counsel S. M. Tambadou, appearing as amicus curiae, pleaded for leniency.
In sentencing, Justice Jaiteh described the crime as “heinous, malicious, and morally reprehensible.”
“I express my distaste, repulsion, and contempt for anyone who sexually assaults a defenceless child for gratification,” the judge declared.
“Rape is a profound violation of bodily integrity and dignity, leaving enduring physical, psychological, and emotional harm. The Court cannot view such acts with sympathy.”
While noting that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment would ordinarily be appropriate, Justice Jaiteh said the Court had considered the plea for mercy and therefore sentenced Saikou Bah to 20 years in prison, to commence from the date of his initial custody.
Justice Jaiteh used the occasion to warn parents and guardians to remain vigilant in protecting their children.
“Let this sentence serve as a deterrent to would-be offenders and a reminder of the duty to protect and safeguard the young,” he said.
The convict was informed of his right to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence.
