By Sainabou Sambou
The High Court of The Gambia, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, heard a bail application from Abdoulie Sanyang, a former Gambian soldier charged with arson, seeking release to pursue urgent medical treatment in Switzerland. Sanyang, detained at Mile 2 Central Prison since his arrest on August 17, 2025, faces allegations that could lead to a life sentence.
Sanyang’s legal team, led by Lamin J. Darbo of Dabanani Law Chambers, filed the motion under Sections 19(5) and 24(3)(a) of the 1997 Constitution and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025. The application seeks unconditional release or conditional bail to allow Sanyang to address critical health issues, including hypertension, post-lumbar sacral surgery complications, and a recent diagnosis of acute psychosis. A 14-paragraph affidavit sworn by Sanyang’s wife, Isatou Jaiteh, detailed his deteriorating health, noting that metal plates and screws in his body exacerbate his condition in the prison’s inadequate facilities. Jaiteh also stated that the prison cannot provide a medically recommended special diet.
A medical report, marked Exhibit AS3 and issued by Yusupha Jabang, Chief Superintendent of Prisons, was submitted to support the claim. Darbo argued that Sanyang’s health constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” under Section 125, which allows bail for serious offenses in rare cases. He emphasized that Mile 2 Prison cannot meet Sanyang’s medical needs.
The State, represented by Counsels Saikou Lamin Jobarteh and S. Jawara from the Attorney General’s Chambers, opposed the application. In an affidavit by legal clerk Kaddijatou Bah, the prosecution challenged the validity of the medical report, arguing it was not signed by a qualified medical practitioner from a government hospital, as required by law. Jobarteh further contended that a psychiatric diagnosis does not inherently justify bail or exempt Sanyang from trial, given the gravity of the arson charge, which carries a potential life sentence under Section 305(a) of the Criminal Code. The State also cited Section 99(d)(i) of the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 2025, which prescribes a three-month term for related offenses.
In response to the objection, Darbo requested an adjournment to obtain a compliant medical certificate. Justice Jaiteh granted the request, adjourning the case to October 14, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. for further proceedings.
During the hearing, Justice Jaiteh noted that Darbo relied heavily on paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the affidavit, which outlined Sanyang’s medical conditions and the prison’s shortcomings. The prosecution, however, disputed Jabang’s qualifications as a medical officer, arguing that the affidavit did not substantiate this claim.
As the court awaits additional documentation, Sanyang remains in custody. His fate hinges on the forthcoming medical evidence and the court’s interpretation of “exceptional circumstances.”
