In the murder trial of Arona Tine, Mr. Sanna Cham, the First Prosecution Witness (PW1), stated in court that he heard the victim, Fatoumatta Kargbo, cry out for assistance from her Forex Bureau at Westfield shortly before Jummah prayers.

Arona Tine is presently facing a trial for a solitary accusation of homicide, which goes against Section 187 of the Criminal Code.

According to the prosecution, Arona Tine committed a crime on January 19, 2024, when she allegedly purposefully stabbed Fatoumatta Kargbo with a knife at Westfield, Kanifing Municipality, The Gambia.

The prosecution has called its first witness, and Arona Tine has entered a not guilty plea to the murder allegation.Mr. Cham recounted what transpired at Westfield shortly before Jummah prayers. On the day Fatoumatta Kargbo was killed, he attested to having seen the accused, Arona Tine, at Westfield. Additionally, he claimed that his store at Westfield is next to Fatoumatta Kargbo’s store.
On a Friday, while travelling to the mosque for ablution, I encountered the accused individual. I heard Fatou yelling for assistance. I heard Fatou (the dead) shouting when I was meant to be heading to the mosque. I hurried over to her store. With a knife in her hand and blood all over her body, Fatou greeted me at her shop entrance.

“She sprinted outside while yelling, “Help me, help me,” for assistance. Thus, the accused (Arona Tine) exited Fatou’s Shop following that. With the knife in her hand, Fatou was gesturing to the defendant and speaking. The knife then dropped to the ground as she collapsed, Sanna Cham testified in court.

He went on to say that Arona Tine picked up the fallen knife after Fatoumatta Kargbo fell and hurt himself.
After picking up the knife, the defendant (Arona Tine) cut his throat. When he returned to Fatou’s business, Rona Tine was already bleeding. The witness stated that when the accused went into Fatou’s store, that’s when someone arrived and shut the door on him. Mr. Cham also stated in his testimony that Arona Tine was lying outside the victim’s shop when she was locked inside. He said that because the victim’s underwear was showing, people surrounded her and attempted to conceal her. Additionally, he stated that Fatoumatta Kargbo was taken away by nurses who had arrived on the scene.

“You said you heard Fatou (the deceased) yelling. Could you please specify the word that you heard?” A. Gibba, State Counsel, questioned the witness.

The witness testified in court that “she (the deceased) was saying, Come and help me; come and help me in Wolof.”

“Is it accurate to say that she said the same thing when you met her outside?” Attorney Gibba questioned the witness.

Counsel O. Susso, the accused’s representative, interrupted before the witness could finish speaking and objected to the prosecution counsel’s question. Susso contended that the witness was being led by the question.

Counsel Gibba refuted Susso’s argument, saying the witness was not led by the question. He further emphasised that pertinent details regarding the deceased’s remarks had previously been supplied by the witness.
Section 198 of the Evidence Act was then brought up by Gibba, who urged the court to consider whether the question constituted leading the witness and to rule accordingly.

The presiding court, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, declared in her finding that the question was appropriate as it reiterated what the witness had already stated.

Judge Jaiteh declared, “The objection is misconceived and it is overruled.”
Honourable Judge Jaiteh asked the witness to address the question.

The witness went on to tell the court that Fatoumatta Kargbo’s words outside were exactly the same as her words inside before she passed out.

The witness further stated in her testimony that the dead had obvious bleeding.

The witness told the judge that the knife seemed to be “sea green” in colour.

Mr. Cham continued, saying that the deceased person’s knife was drenched in blood in addition to its colour.

He described how the merchants closed their doors after the nurses had taken the corpse away, and PIU officers led the accused person away.
In court, Mr. Cham described how he was called to the Serekunda Police Station and instructed to describe what he had seen at the crime site. He declared that he had given the court the specifics of what he had seen.

As for his relationship with the dead, the witness told the judge they were friends.

The witness testified in court, “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.”

“Mr. Cham, were you the one who opened the shop for her on this specific day?” Attorney Gibba questioned the subject.

The witness stated in court, “I did not see her that day until the incident happened.”

The witness testified in court under cross-examination that the incident occurred between 1:40 and 1:50 p.m., when most people went to pray Jummah.

He told the court that the accused, Rona Tine, did not attack the deceased Fatoumatta Kargbo, based on what he observed outside.

“Mr. Cham, based on what you saw outside, would you agree with me that Fatou (deceased) attacked the accused person (Arona Tine) with a knife?” Lawyer Susso questioned the witness.
He was not attacked by the now-deceased Fatou (Arona Tine). She was pointing at the accused while brandishing a knife. The witness testified before the court that Fatou began to crawl away from the accused after she collapsed and Rona Tine, the accused, picked up the knife.

The witness informed the court that he provided the police with his phone number, 50*********, as well as a statement.

Attorney Susso asked the prosecution for an original copy of the witness’s statement.

The original copy of the witness’s statement was then given to him by the prosecution.

The witness’s statement was then submitted for admission into evidence by Attorney Susso. The prosecution raised no objections to the paper being admitted into evidence.

The statement was then entered into evidence by Hon. Justice Jaiteh, who designated it as Defence Exhibit D1.

The case was postponed to May 6, 2024 by Hon. Justice Jaiteh so that the cross-examination may continue.