By Sainabou Sambou
Tension erupted in the High Court in Banjul on Wednesday as Justice Ebrima Jaiteh warned State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh that he risked being committed to Mile 2 Prison for contempt of court after repeated interruptions and failure to observe courtroom protocol during heated submissions.
The clash occurred during the hearing of an application filed on April 29, 2026, in the matter of The State versus Banta Keita. The application sought leave for the respondent to file a further affidavit in opposition to an originating summons instituted on March 1, 2022.
Counsel S.M. Tambadou, representing the applicant, expressed surprise that the State had only recently filed its affidavit in opposition despite earlier service.
Nevertheless, he indicated readiness to proceed without seeking an adjournment. Tambadou stated he would not file a reply affidavit, choosing instead to rely on the existing court record and legal authorities permitting parties to depend on affidavits and evidence already before the court. He said any objections to the State’s affidavit would be addressed within his main submissions to avoid unnecessary delay.
Tambadou highlighted that the application drew the court’s attention to the conclusion of a related criminal trial previously referenced in the originating summons. He cited earlier affidavits by Dr. Banshee Montero-Tavares and Dolce Montero-Tavares, which had indicated that Banta Keita was facing an ongoing criminal trial before Justice Mboo. The originating summons itself relied on criminal case HC/417/21/CR/1/A, including the exhibited charges and prior orders for trial in absentia due to the respondent’s alleged evasive conduct.
He argued that the State’s own affidavit in opposition now confirmed the criminal trial had been concluded with judgment delivered. “My Lord, this is an admission of fact. What is admitted needs no further proof,” Tambadou submitted. He further urged the court to strike out paragraph 7 of the State’s affidavit, describing it as containing legal arguments and conclusions in violation of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. “Based on the admission that the trial has been concluded and judgment delivered, what is the State afraid of?” he asked.
State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh rejected Tambadou’s interpretation, insisting the applicant had “misconceived” the State’s position. While admitting the existence of the criminal trial and its conclusion, Jobarteh emphasized that the affidavit raised a broader issue: that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process. He stressed the need for the court to be fully apprised of all facts, including the judgment and a notice of appeal. “We have not opposed the existence of the criminal trial; in fact, we have admitted it,” he told the court.
The proceedings became chaotic as both counsel began speaking over one another. Justice Jaiteh repeatedly intervened to restore order, directing that only one counsel speak at a time. When Jobarteh persisted despite the judge’s instructions, the bench reacted sharply.
“I am the master of this court, and you don’t speak when I speak,” Justice Jaiteh declared. “Counsel, sit down and keep quiet. I told you to sit down, keep quiet, and wait for the defense counsel to raise his objection. Here is not a marketplace where everyone speaks at once. When he is done, you can also respond to his objection. Two counsels cannot be talking at the same time. I can charge you for contempt of court.”
The judge accused Jobarteh of disrespecting the court. In response, the State Counsel asserted his right to speak as an officer of the court, noting he had not objected during the filing of the applicant’s motion. Tambadou countered that no objection had been raised because his submissions were properly presented.
As exchanges intensified, Justice Jaiteh issued a stern warning: “I think I need to send this Counsel to Mile 2 Prison for disrespecting the court.”
Senior lawyers, including S.M. Tambadou and Counsel Badou Conteh, immediately intervened, pleading for calm. “Please, I beg you in the name of God, please don’t send him to Mile 2,” Badou Conteh appealed. They urged the judge to temper justice with mercy and suggested retiring to chambers, consistent with normal practice when counsel are in dispute.
Justice Jaiteh eventually acceded to the suggestion. “Let us go to chambers. The normal procedure and practice here is that when counsel are in dispute, we proceed to chambers,” Conteh had advised.
The matter could not proceed in open court due to the heightened tension. This incident marks the second reported heated exchange between Justice Ebrima Jaiteh and State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh, following a similar confrontation in proceedings involving former Lands Minister Abba Sanyang.
The case has been stood down for further consideration in chambers. Legal observers note that such courtroom clashes, though rare, underscore the importance of decorum and respect for judicial authority in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
