The defence for Becky Love Sunday, also known as Linda, has applied to the High Court for her acquittal in a human trafficking trial in The Gambia. Defence counsel Assan Sanneh made the application before Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, seeking a ruling on a no-case-to-answer submission. Ms. Sunday is accused of trafficking a Nigerian national into The Gambia for prostitution.
The accused faces a three-count indictment, with charges including Prohibition of Trafficking, Importation of Persons into The Gambia, and Living on the Earnings of Prostitution or Aiding, Abetting or Compelling Prostitution for Gain. These charges form the core of the prosecution's case against Ms. Sunday. Counsel A. Badjie represented the State during the proceedings, presenting the prosecution's arguments against the defence's application. Justice Jobarteh adjourned the matter, scheduling a ruling on the defence's submission for 22 October 2026. This adjournment will allow the court to carefully consider the arguments presented by both sides regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
Arguments Against Trafficking Charge
The prosecution alleged Becky Love Sunday, also known as Linda, recruited the complainant, identified as PW1, in Nigeria, facilitated her movement through Senegal into The Gambia, and exploited her through prostitution for financial benefit. This forms the basis of the first count, Prohibition of Trafficking. Defence counsel Assan Sanneh argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences charged, particularly focusing on the lack of direct involvement from the accused in the complainant's initial journey.
During cross-examination, PW1 admitted her journey from Nigeria to Senegal was arranged and financed by her mother’s sister’s friend, and her mother paid for transportation from Nigeria to Senegal. PW1 further confirmed that Ms. Sunday neither arranged nor financed her travel and was not present when she left Nigeria. This testimony from the prosecution's own witness was central to the defence's argument. The defence contended that the offence of trafficking requires proof of recruitment or transportation, the use of improper means, and the purpose of exploitation, asserting these elements are cumulative and must all be established by the prosecution.
The defence argued there was no evidence linking Ms. Sunday to the complainant’s recruitment or transportation. They noted the absence of travel records, immigration documents, financial transactions, communications, or other documentary evidence to support the prosecution's claims regarding Ms. Sunday's direct involvement in the complainant's journey. The defence maintained that no evidence was presented to show Ms. Sunday used deception, coercion, inducement, or abuse of vulnerability against the complainant, which are key elements to prove the "improper means" aspect of human trafficking.
Citing the principles established in R v Galbraith, the defence stated that if there is no evidence on an essential element of an offence, the court must stop the case. This legal precedent shows the defence's position that the prosecution's case lacks fundamental proof. The defence also referenced The State v Ejiro Erakpoweri, arguing the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused personally carried out the prohibited acts of recruitment or transportation. The complainant’s own evidence, according to the defence, showed her travel was arranged and financed by a third party rather than Ms. Sunday, directly challenging the prosecution's narrative on recruitment and transportation.
The indictment states Ms. Sunday allegedly trafficked the complainant from Senegal into The Gambia in July 2025 for exploitation through prostitution at Super Bar, Babun Fatty Junction, and other locations. However, the defence's arguments directly contest Ms. Sunday's involvement in the initial stages of this alleged trafficking.
Challenges to Importation and Earnings Charges
The defence further contended the prosecution failed to establish that Becky Love Sunday facilitated the complainant’s movement across the border for the second count, which relates to the importation of persons into The Gambia. According to the defence, the prosecution did not produce passports, airline tickets, immigration records, financial documents, or electronic communications linking Ms. Sunday to the complainant’s entry into The Gambia. This absence of concrete evidence, according to the defence, undermines the prosecution's claim regarding Ms. Sunday's role in the importation. Defence counsel Assan Sanneh asserted that this lack of evidence also meant the prosecution failed to establish the necessary criminal intent for the second count, which requires a knowing and deliberate act of importation for exploitation.
For the third count, living on the earnings of prostitution or aiding, abetting, or compelling prostitution for gain, the defence argued the prosecution relied heavily on an alleged notebook. However, the defence noted the notebook itself was not produced, only a loose extracted sheet. The defence maintained the alleged notebook was not disclosed before trial, which denied them the opportunity to inspect it, challenge its authenticity, or adequately prepare their case. This lack of pre-trial disclosure, according to the defence, prejudiced their ability to mount a proper defence.
The defence contended the authorship of the extracted document had not been established. The document was tendered through a NATIP officer who neither authored nor witnessed its preparation and was not a handwriting expert. The defence pointed out that no forensic handwriting examination or scientific comparison had been carried out, and no witness testified to seeing the accused prepare the document, thereby casting significant doubt on its evidentiary value. The defence argued that without proper authentication, the extracted sheet holds little weight in proving Ms. Sunday's alleged financial gains from prostitution.
The second count specifically alleges Ms. Sunday imported the complainant into The Gambia for forced prostitution and knowingly received financial benefits from her earnings. This charge directly relates to the movement across borders and the subsequent financial exploitation. The third count alleges the accused knowingly lived wholly or partly on the complainant’s earnings from prostitution, collected money earned by her, and exercised control over her movements and documents for financial gain. The defence's arguments against the alleged notebook are key to discrediting the evidence presented for this third count.
Evidential Weaknesses and Legal Precedents
The prosecution in the case against Becky Love Sunday presented four witnesses and submitted various documentary exhibits in an attempt to build their case. In response, the defence relied on Defence Exhibit 1, which was the statement provided by the prosecution’s first witness (PW1), using it to highlight inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The defence noted what it described as material inconsistencies between the testimonies of the prosecution’s second and third witnesses, particularly concerning alleged recoveries made during the investigation. These discrepancies, according to the defence, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and the reliability of their evidence.
The defence raised questions about the evidential value of the accused’s cautionary statement. Defence counsel Assan Sanneh argued that the statement did not fully comply with the Judges’ Rules, which are guidelines for police officers when questioning suspects, and its certification was ambiguous. The defence also asserted that the statement contained no admission that would establish the essential elements of the charges against Ms. Sunday, rendering it insufficient to prove guilt. Ultimately, the defence submitted that the prosecution had not satisfied the statutory threshold as outlined in Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, which requires the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case before the accused can be called upon to enter a defence.
Defence's Plea and Prosecution's Stance
The defence argued the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case on any of the three counts against Becky Love Sunday. Defence counsel Assan Sanneh urged the court to uphold the no-case-to-answer submission, asserting that the accused should be discharged and acquitted due to the numerous evidential weaknesses and legal shortcomings in the prosecution's presentation. Conversely, State Counsel A. Badjie opposed the application, contending that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that warrants the continuation of the trial, implying that there is enough evidence, if believed, to convict the accused. The court's ruling on October 22, 2026, will determine whether the trial proceeds or if Ms. Sunday is acquitted.