Kargbo Trial: Defense Disputes Victim Age and Investigative Methods

Kargbo Trial: Defense Disputes Victim Age and Investigative Methods

The trial of Nehemiah Alimamy Samuel Kargbo for child sexual penetration entered a critical phase in the Freetown High Court, as the defense launched a targeted challenge against the alleged victim’s age and the investigative process. Presiding before Justice Mark Ngagba, the proceedings have highlighted significant questions regarding the evidentiary standards underpinning the state’s case.

The defense team has centered its arguments on procedural irregularities, specifically disputing the validity of the victim’s birth certificate and the omission of an official age assessment report. These challenges are pivotal to the case, as the prosecution accuses Kargbo of sexual penetration contrary to Section 4(a)(1) of the Sexual Offenses (Amendment) Act 2019, alleging the defendant engaged in sexual activity with a minor, Sia Ngaujah, between November and December 2024.

During the session, state prosecutor E. Daisy called the first prosecution witness, Detective Police Constable Hassan Sesay of the Family Support Unit, Lumley Police Station. Sesay testified that he launched the investigation on December 25, 2024, following a report from the victim’s father.

His investigative steps included collecting witness statements and securing a medical report, which was later entered into evidence as Exhibit A.

Under cross-examination, the defense scrutinized the investigative diligence, particularly regarding the victim's age verification. When questioned about the victim’s birth certificate, which lists a birth date of August 1, 2007, Detective Sesay admitted to having limited recall of the document’s specific details. The defense further challenged the absence of a formal, independent age assessment, arguing it undermines the integrity of the prosecution's claim regarding the victim's status as a minor.

The witness also testified that the defendant had openly introduced the victim as his girlfriend to family members, including the victim’s mother and aunt. While the officer noted these family members had cautioned the defendant against impregnating the victim, the defense highlighted that the mother was not interviewed during the investigation, citing her unavailability.

The court has adjourned the matter until June 16, 2026, as the defense continues to probe the inconsistencies surrounding the evidence and investigative methodology.