In a landmark ruling delivered on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, Justice I. Janneh of the High Court of The Gambia convicted and sentenced Mbye Manneh to life imprisonment for the rape of his 15-year-old niece, describing the offense as a grave betrayal of trust within a family home.
Manneh, who acted as a father figure to the victim in their shared compound at Kunkujang Keitaya in Kombo North District, West Coast Region, was found guilty of rape contrary to Section 3(2)(b) of the Sexual Offenses Act, 2013. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the victim’s age and the position of authority the convict occupied.
The incident occurred sometime in March 2023. According to court records, Manneh called the young girl, then a student, into his room under the pretext of having her wash his clothes. He allegedly pulled her inside, pushed her onto the bed, covered her mouth with a towel to silence her cries, removed her underwear, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.
The victim testified that she screamed in pain, pleading, “Papa Mbye, it is painful,” but was threatened with death if she revealed the incident.
The matter came to light when the victim’s grandmother, Adama Konateh, noticed her granddaughter’s unusual behavior — withdrawal, physical discomfort, inability to sit properly, and a suspicious wet discharge on her skirt. After persistent questioning, the girl disclosed the assault. Medical examination at Fajikunda Health Center confirmed penetration, with a broken hymen and watery vaginal discharge recorded in the medical certificate tendered as Exhibit.
Justice Janneh carefully evaluated the evidence presented by four prosecution witnesses, including the victim (PW3), who testified in camera, and the medical officer. The judge noted that while the medical evidence alone was not conclusive, it provided material corroboration to the victim’s clear, consistent, and unshaken testimony. The court applied the mandatory corroboration requirement under Section 180(2)(a) of the Evidence Act for sexual offenses.
The defense, led by counsel M.N.M. Jane, argued that the prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted inconsistencies, the absence of the original medical doctor for cross-examination, and the lack of independent eyewitnesses. Manneh, testifying as the sole defense witness, denied the allegation entirely. He claimed the accusation stemmed from his refusal to pay D25,000 demanded by the grandmother for the victim’s treatment and insisted he was at work during the incident.
However, Justice Janneh rejected the defense. The judge pointed out significant contradictions in Manneh’s testimony, particularly regarding his movements between Kunkujang and Bakoteh and his whereabouts on the day of the offense. The court found the victim’s account credible and corroborated by the grandmother’s direct observations and medical findings. The defense of alibi was deemed vague and raised belatedly.
On the legal ingredients of rape, the court emphasized that the victim’s age (under 16 at the time) constituted coercive circumstances under the Sexual Offenses Act, rendering consent irrelevant. The slightest degree of penetration was sufficient, and the familial relationship established both identity and a position of trust.
During allocutus, defense counsel pleaded for mercy, describing Manneh as a first-time offender, family breadwinner, and remorseful. References were made to previous cases where sentences were reduced for similar offenders. The prosecution, represented by W.S. Madu and W.M.K. Drammeh, urged the court to impose the maximum penalty, stressing the heinous nature of the crime against a vulnerable minor and the breach of familial trust.
Justice Janneh, guided by the Sentencing Guidelines for Rape issued by the Chief Justice in October 2023 and Section 4(1)(a)(iii)(cc) of the Sexual Offenses Act, ruled that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment applied. Aggravating factors — the victim’s young age, the abuse of trust, the home environment setting, coercion, and resulting emotional trauma and stigma — far outweighed mitigating factors such as first-offender status.
“The seriousness of the offense, particularly the abuse of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, cannot be outweighed by the mitigating considerations presented,” the judge stated. No substantial and compelling circumstances existed to depart from the mandatory minimum.
The convict was reminded of his right to appeal against both conviction and sentence.
