By: Sainabou Sambou
In a strongly worded judgment delivered today, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court dismissed consolidated appeals by three young men convicted of reckless and dangerous driving, unlicensed driving, and related traffic offences stemming from a high-profile stunt driving incident in Jabang last year.
The appellants—Serign Mass Gaye (1st Appellant), Samba Ceesay (2nd Appellant), and Muhammed Bah (3rd Appellant)—had challenged both their convictions and the custodial sentences handed down by Senior Magistrate Isatou Jallow of the Brusubi Magistrates’ Court on August 20, 2025. However, the High Court ruled that the convictions, entered on guilty pleas, could not be appealed under Section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025. The court’s jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the extent and legality of the sentences.
The original case arose from events on August 10, 2025, when a convoy of over 30 vehicles engaged in reckless stunt driving along the Sukuta-Jabang Highway. The drivers’ actions caused traffic chaos, endangered public safety, damaged vehicles, and instilled fear among residents of Jabang village. The incident was part of a broader crackdown on “drifting” and irresponsible motoring, which has become a growing public safety concern in The Gambia, with road accidents frequently resulting in injuries and fatalities.
In the Magistrates’ Court, the appellants pleaded guilty to amended charges under the Motor Traffic Act and its amendments. Sentences included Serign Mass Gaye, who received a D1,000 fine plus 3 months’ imprisonment (unlicensed driving, Section 36); and a D25,000 fine plus 3 years’ imprisonment with hard labour (reckless and dangerous driving, Section 49(1)).
Samba Ceesay got D25,000 fine plus 3 years imprisonment with hard labour (reckless and dangerous driving) while Muhammed Bah was received a D20,000 fine with 2 years imprisonment in default (unauthorised tinted glass, Section 25C of the 2013 Amendment); D25,000 fine plus 3 years imprisonment with hard labour (reckless and dangerous driving).
The appellants, represented by Counsel Lamin A. Ceesay, appealed in September 2025 from Mile 2 Central Prisons, filing amended notices in January 2026. They argued that the sentences were excessive and disproportionate and failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, such as being first-time offenders, early guilty pleas (saving judicial time), and personal circumstances, including that Serign Mass Gaye is a student. They invoked Section 34 of the Criminal Code (mitigation) and Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Act (options like fines or suspended sentences), seeking substitution with fines, suspended terms, or community service.
Counsel urged the High Court to show leniency, emphasizing rehabilitation over harsh punishment.
State Counsel M. Sarr and Principal State Counsel M. Mballow countered that the offences involved serious public endangerment. They stressed deterrence amid rising incidents of reckless driving, arguing that accountability must prevail over sympathy. While acknowledging the appellants’ youth and lack of prior convictions, the State maintained that the sentences were justified and within statutory limits.
Justice Jaiteh consolidated the appeals for efficiency. He affirmed that reckless and dangerous driving (Section 49(1)) carries a penalty of a fine of D5,000–D25,000, up to 5 years’ imprisonment, or both—allowing combined penalties. The imposed sentences fell within legal bounds.
The judge emphasized appellate restraint in sentencing matters, citing authorities like Ward v James and R v Sargeant: interference occurs only for wrong principles, irrelevant considerations, or manifest excessiveness. Here, the Magistrate had balanced mitigation (youth, first offenders, guilty pleas) against aggravating factors—the convoy’s disruption, public fear, property damage, and the broader road-safety threat.
Justice Jaiteh highlighted the social context: reckless driving turns vehicles into potential “tools of devastation” on shared roads used by families, children, and pedestrians. Courts must protect the public and deter such “irresponsible bravado.” No fatalities occurred, but the risk was grave.
Finding no error in law or discretion, the judge dismissed the appeals in their entirety, affirming the convictions and sentences. He reiterated that public roads are not arenas for stunts and that protecting lives demands firm enforcement.
The ruling sends a clear signal against reckless driving in The Gambia, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to road safety amid ongoing concerns about traffic fatalities.
The appellants remain incarcerated, with the original sentences upheld.
