According to the particulars of offence, the convict, Ansumana Ceesay, sometime in 2017 or thereabout in West Coast Region, The Gambia, within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, under coercive circumstances, engaged in a sexual act with a 12-year-old minor.
At the same place and date, the particulars of offence indicated, he again engaged in a sexual act with a 13-year-old minor.
The State Counsel, A. Gibba, presented his witnesses who testified. The prosecution’s evidence was that the convict was the class teacher for the victims when they were in grade 3. He takes the victims private classes. On a Friday in 2017, he asked the victims to take mangoes to his house and instructed them to wait for him if they did not find him.
When they arrived at his home, they did not meet him. They waited as he had instructed. When he arrived, they gave him the mangoes, and he asked them to enter his house. They entered and sat inside for a while. When they wanted to leave, he asked them to wait. He then left them in the house and went for Friday prayers at the mosque.
Upon his return, he invited one of them into his bedroom, where he instructed her to undress and lie on the bed. He then had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. During the act, a woman entered the room to deliver food to him. He directed the victim to hide behind the door and he pretended to be heading to the toilet. After the woman had left, he resumed the sexual act with the victim.
After finishing with the victim, he summoned the other victim, who had been waiting in the parlour, into the bedroom and similarly engaged in sexual intercourse with her. It was alleged that he threatened both of the victims that he would cause them to fail their examinations should they refuse to comply with his demands. After having sex with them, he asked them to leave for studies and that he would join them later after taking a shower.
When he was confronted with the allegation, he initially denied it. However, upon being told that the matter would be reported to the police and to the parents of the victims, he later admitted to the conduct. He apologised and asked for forgiveness, claiming that it was Satan’s work.
The convict entered his defence and denied the allegation made against him while he was being led by the defence counsel, Samuel Ade. He gave an account of how he spends his Fridays and denied sending the victims or any student to his house on that particular day. It was the convict’s evidence that if the victims had come to his house, his father and other family members would have seen them. According to him, he agreed and wrote an apology letter after he was told that if he accepted, he would not be sacked and that the complaint would not reach the parents of the girls and everything would be settled.
Having cited some authorities to support her judgment, and having carefully evaluated the totality of the evidence before the court, the presiding judge said she found as a fact that sexual intercourse occurred and that it was perpetrated by the convict against the victims. “I am further satisfied that the acts were committed in coercive circumstances, the victims being below the age of sixteen years at the material time,” she told the court.
She further stated that the testimony of the victims was clear, consistent and credible, and she found that it was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. “Therefore, the accused is found guilty,” she declared.
Justice Mboob posited that the court had considered the submissions and plea in mitigation advanced by the convict. “Notwithstanding those submissions, the court finds that the offences were committed against young and vulnerable victims who were students under the authority and trust of the accused at the material time. This constituted a clear abuse of trust and significantly aggravated the gravity of the offences,” she adduced.
Further dwelling on the judgment, she asserted that the court found that the nature of the offences and the relationship between the convict and the victims justified a custodial sentence, as immediate reintegration into the community would undermine the interests of justice and the need to protect the victims from further psychological harm.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the presiding judge said the court had balanced the aggravating factors against the mitigating circumstances. “The court has taken into account that the convict is a first-time offender, a family man, and has young dependent children,” she further posited.
