By Francis H. Murray
Magistrate Mark Ngegba has committed to trial in the High Court the case of Mariama Sajor Barrie and Ibrahim Bah, both accused of murdering five-year old Kadijah Saccoh. The magistrate rejected a no-case submission put forward by defence lawyers at the end of preliminary investigation into the matter.
On Friday 16th October, 2020, Magistrate Ngegba noted that: ‘‘in the absence of any other open cause of death, it is those who had custody of the deceased that should provide answers for her demise and they have not done so at all. In view of the forgoing, I hold that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the trial of each accused at the High Court for the offences charged.”
The magistrate added that the only medical certificate of the cause of death of the deceased was the one tendered by the government pathologist which did not state that the deceased had any pre-existing condition other than neurogenic shock that resulted from manual strangulation.
“I’m of the view that the first and second accused person’s liability in this case depends on the principle of the last known address of the deceased. There is no evidence before this court that the death of the 5-year old girl could be attributed to any other cause different from the one that has been cited. The evidence strongly suggests that the deceased was not sick prior to the declaration of the 1st accused that ‘pipul pikin don fordom na me han (somebody’s child has fallen from my hands),’’ said magistrate Ngegba.
Magistrate Ngegba said the evidence adduced by the prosecution included the cause of death of the 5-year old, which according to the government pathologist, Dr. Owiz Koroma, was neither accidental nor suicidal.
In his evidence in chief, Dr. Koroma told the court that the deceased died of neurogenic shock due to a “fracture of the bones in the vertebrae or spinal cord, resulting from manual strangulation.”
Magistrate Ngegba said the prosecution believed that the deceased was in the company of the accused persons up to the point when the 1st accused declared ‘‘pipul pikin don fordom na me hand’’ and was subsequently rushed to the hospital where she was declared dead.
He added that as far as the prosecution was concerned, the deceased had no pre-existing illness and there was no intervening act between the incident and the taking of the child to the hospital order than the fact that the child was declared dead following the incident.
The defence on the other hand had based their argument on the accused persons’ statement to the police and the inferences drawn from the questions that came up during cross-examination.
They argued that the evidence against the accused persons was insufficient to warrant committal of the case to the High Court for trial, adding that none of the prosecution’s witnesses connected their clients to the alleged incident.
The defence described the testimony of Dr. Owiz Koroma as inconclusive, saying his findings regarding the cause of death were ‘‘erroneous and contradictory’’ when he confirmed during cross-examination that manual strangulation could lead to instant or a later death.
They argued that in the absence of any direct intention by the accused persons to kill the deceased, the court should discharge their clients.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
