By Fatima Kpaka
Freetown, June 8, 2026 – The High Court in Freetown, presided over by Justice Mark Ngagba, heard fresh arguments in the trial of Nehemiah Alimamy Samuel Kargbo, who is charged with sexual penetration of a child.
During cross‑examination of the prosecution’s first witness, defence counsel questioned the age of the complainant, raising doubts about the reliability of the police investigation and the absence of an age assessment report.
Kargbo is accused of committing sexual penetration contrary to Section 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 2021 (Act No. 12 of 2012), as repealed and replaced by Section 4(a)(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act No. 8 of 2019).
According to the particulars of offence, between November 26 and December 28, 2024, in Freetown, Kargbo allegedly engaged in sexual penetration with Sia Ngaujah, described as a child.
Lead prosecutor E. Daisy called Detective Police Constable 13480 Hassan Sesay, attached to the Family Support Unit at Lumley Police Station, as the first witness.
Sesay testified that on December 25, 2024, the victim’s father reported the matter, and he was assigned to investigate. Statements were obtained, and a medical report was issued and later returned to police custody.
He further recalled that on January 25, 2025, his colleague, D/Sergeant 8805 Titus Sesay, cautioned and questioned the defendant. The following day, investigators visited the crime scene, took photographs, and recorded that the defendant admitted to the allegations.
The medical report (Exhibit A), witness statements (Exhibit B1‑6), and crime scene photographs (Exhibit C1‑4) were all tendered in court.
Under cross‑examination, defence counsel pressed the witness on whether the defendant had described the complainant as his girlfriend, and whether her mother was aware of the relationship. The prosecution objected, and the bench upheld the objection.
The defence highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant’s age. Sesay admitted that the victim did not initially produce a birth certificate but later presented one, stating she was 17 at the time. The certificate reportedly showed a birth date of August 1, 2007, though Sesay said he could not recall verifying this against her statement.
The defence also pointed out that no age assessment was conducted, arguing that this undermined the credibility of the investigation.
The witness confirmed that, according to the defendant’s statement, both the victim’s mother and the defendant’s aunt were aware of the relationship and had advised him not to impregnate the complainant. However, Sesay admitted he did not interview the victim’s mother because she was unavailable.
Justice Ngagba adjourned the matter to June 16, 2026 for further proceedings.