By Sainabou Sambou

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court in Banjul has refused a prosecution request for another adjournment in the four-year-old criminal case involving Lamin Sanyang and Borry Ceesay, accused of conspiracy, rioting, and assault causing grievous harm following an alleged 2019 altercation in Busumbala Village.

Both accused persons were present in court on Monday, November 10, 2025. State Counsel F. Drammeh appeared for the prosecution, while Defence Counsel K. Sanyang represented the accused persons.

According to the Bill of Indictment filed by the Attorney General’s Chambers, Sanyang and Ceesay face four counts under The Gambia’s Criminal Code, Cap. 10:01, Vol. III, Revised Laws of 2009.

The first count charges them with conspiracy to commit a felony, alleging that on or about December 12, 2019, the two conspired to demolish a vehicle belonging to Yaya Jagana unlawfully.

The second count accuses them of rioters demolishing property, claiming that they, while being riotously assembled, damaged the said vehicle.

The third count, assault causing grievous harm, alleges that they inflicted serious injuries on Yaya and Nuha Jagana, while the fourth count charges them with conspiracy to cause grievous harm.

The case initially began at the Brikama Magistrates’ Court following the accused persons’ arrest in December 2019, but was later transferred to the High Court. The State Law Office filed its formal Bill of Indictment on February 14, 2020, listing 23 witnesses in support of the prosecution’s case.

However, the proceedings have since been plagued by repeated delays. Records show that when the case first appeared before the High Court on February 4, 2020, the prosecution had not yet filed its indictment, prompting the court to adjourn. Subsequent sittings were repeatedly stalled, with the State either seeking more time or amending charges.

Over the years, the prosecution withdrew charges against several original co-accused, eventually leaving only Sanyang and Ceesay to stand trial. Out of the 23 witnesses listed, only one — Assistant Immigration Commissioner Musa Keita — testified, completing his evidence between October and December 2023.

Despite numerous adjournments, the State failed to produce the remaining 22 witnesses, including the main complainant. Each time the matter was mentioned, the prosecution sought more time, often citing difficulties in contacting witnesses or indicating an intention to withdraw the case.

At Monday’s hearing, State Counsel Drammeh again requested an adjournment, saying the prosecution had been unable to reach the complainant but might withdraw the case if that situation persisted.

Defence Counsel Sanyang objected, arguing that the prosecution had made no meaningful progress for over 4 years and that continued delays would violate the accused persons’ constitutional right to a fair and timely trial.

In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s handling of the matter, calling it “a persistent lack of diligence.”

“The granting of an adjournment is entirely a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised judiciously and only in very compelling circumstances. The reasons advanced by the State for yet another adjournment are neither cogent nor persuasive,” he ruled.

The judge described the four-year delay — with only one witness called — as “inordinate and unjustifiable,” citing Section 24(3) of the 1997 Constitution, which guarantees every accused person the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

“This constitutional protection is not a mere procedural formality; it is a substantive safeguard designed to prevent justice from being defeated by undue delay, anxiety, and uncertainty. Justice delayed, in this context, is justice denied,” Justice Jaiteh emphasized.

He added that the court could not allow the prosecution to “hold the liberty of the accused in perpetual suspense through endless adjournments unsupported by reasonable grounds.”

Consequently, Justice Jaiteh refused the adjournment request, closed the prosecution’s case, and directed the accused persons to open their defence.