Court Freed Woman After 11 Years in Jail

By Kexx News The Court of Appeal has overturned the murder conviction and death sentence of Mariama Conteh, who was found guilty of killing her partner, Tijan Bah, in 2014 by Justice E.O. Dada J. In a landmark ruling on 25 February 2025, the Court of Appeal declared the trial a "nullity" due to significant procedural errors. Mariama Conteh had been accused of fatally stabbing Tijan Bah following a violent dispute over money for their daughter’s medical treatment. Evidence on record indicated that she was in a relationship with Tijan, and they shared a child. The altercation occurred at Tijan's home in Bakau. To support their case, the Prosecution had called eight (8) witnesses, including Tijan's mother, who was an eyewitness. Mariama Conteh testified as the sole witness in her defence. According to the evidence, on October 1st 2014, Mariama Conteh went to Tijan's compound to ask him for money to buy medication for their daughter, who was ill. An argument ensued, with Tijan refusing to provide the funds, which escalated into a fight. During the fight, Tigan was stabbed, leading to his death, for which she was charged, tried and convicted.

Mariama appealed her conviction and sentence on the following grounds: 1. The trial judge misdirected himself by assuming jurisdiction to try her before the Superior Court (Trial High Court). It was argued that the testimony of the expert medical doctor (a dentist) was inconsistent with the age determination report and that the inconsistencies in the doctor's testimony were not resolved in her favour, and the Appellant (Mariama) was a minor at the time of the incident. 2. The trial judge misdirected himself by concluding that Mariama murdered Tijan. The grounds of misdirection claim that the judge relied heavily on Exhibit A (the second cautionary statement from Mariama), which was deemed inadmissible as evidence. 3. The trial judge misdirected himself by not properly evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, leading to an incorrect conclusion. It was contended that there were doubts within the prosecution's evidence that were never resolved in favour of Mariama. 4. The judge misdirected himself in law by holding that the prosecution had proven the charge of murder against the Appellant (Mariama) beyond a reasonable doubt. It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish all the necessary elements of murder, rendering the trial court's decision perverse, erroneous, and unreasonable, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal included the following: A declaration that Mariama was a minor at the time of the incident. A ruling that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to try her. An order to overturn and set aside Mariama's conviction and sentence. An order to acquit and discharge her on the charge of murder. Alternatively, an order to release her from prison custody immediately, rather than remitting the case for retrial in the children's court, considering that she has already spent 10 years in custody. However, the case was delayed for several years due to the prosecution's failure to file the required legal documents on time, stemming from delays in preparing the Records of Proceedings from the trial court. On October 21, 2014, the Court ordered both parties to file their briefs of argument. The appellant submitted their brief on November 5, 2014, but the State did not file theirs. Principal State Counsel A. A. Wakawa informed the Court on December 16, 2014, when the case was scheduled for argument, that the Ministry of Justice was bereaved due to the loss of one of their lawyers, which prevented them from filing their brief. The panel noted that since the State failed to submit a brief of argument, the Court was not required to hear them in oral arguments. "The law states that where the Respondent fails to file their arguments, this is tantamount to an admission of everything in the Appellant's brief. They will be bound by the outcome of the appeal." The Court clarified that the State's failure to file its brief did not provide an unfair advantage to the Appellant, and the appeal would succeed or fail based on the strength of the Appellant's arguments alone. A crucial issue in the case was Conteh's age at the time of the incident. The Court ruled that she was approximately 17 years old when the crime occurred, meaning the trial had been conducted in a court that lacked jurisdiction. As a result, the proceedings were deemed void, and the conviction and death sentence were overturned. The Appeal Court held that the trial of the Appellant, Mariama, was a nullity for various reasons. First, the indictment of the Appellant before the High Court was itself a nullity. Second, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the Appellant, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. Third, the trial judge's error in not investigating the true age of the Appellant rendered the proceedings invalid.