By Sainabou Sambou
Defense counsel Samuel Ade has urged the Banjul High Court to acquit and discharge Katim Drammeh, claiming that the fatal collision on the Banjul-Serekunda Highway on 2 January 2021 was caused by the reckless driving of an ambulance rather than any negligence by his client.
In impassioned submissions before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh on Tuesday, Ade argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Drammeh’s actions led to the death of passenger Bakary Keita. The accused, who faces one count of rash or negligent act causing death contrary to Section 221A of the Criminal Code, has pleaded not guilty.
The case, prosecuted by State Counsel M. Sarr, centers on allegations that Drammeh drove a commercial transport van recklessly, resulting in a crash that killed Keita. Over the course of the trial, the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered key exhibits, including witness statements, an accident scene sketch map, and the deceased’s death certificate.
Ade placed heavy emphasis on the testimonies of PW1, the police officer who produced the accident sketch map, and PW6, the medical doctor who examined the body. He told the court that evidence clearly showed the ambulance, driven by another prosecution witness (PW2), struck Drammeh’s van from behind while attempting to overtake at a dangerously high speed.
“The impact caused the van to somersault three times,” Ade submitted. “It is therefore the action of the ambulance that caused the accused person’s vehicle to flip over.” He added that PW1’s testimony confirmed the rear-end collision occurred while the van was already traveling at high speed.
The defense counsel further contended that common sense dictates an overtaking vehicle must be moving faster than the one ahead. According to Ade, Drammeh’s van was traveling at approximately 80 kilometers per hour – a speed he described as reasonable for the highway. While acknowledging that ambulances enjoy the right of way, he insisted that this privilege does not permit reckless overtaking without ensuring that other vehicles can safely yield.
“Ambulance drivers must exercise patience to allow motorists to move to a safe position,” Ade argued, citing PW1’s evidence. “It is due to the rashness and negligence of the ambulance, my Lord, and not the rashness of the accused person.”
On the critical issue of causation of death, the defense launched a strong attack on the medical evidence. Ade maintained that PW6’s testimony – which mentioned broken bones – was insufficient without X-ray images or a post-mortem report. He stressed that only a pathologist who conducted an autopsy could reliably establish the cause of death.
“My Lord, witness PW6 is not a pathologist,” Ade said. “In the absence of that post-mortem report, can this court with certainty say that the accused caused the death of the deceased?”
In response, State Counsel M. Sarr urged the court to reject the defense’s submissions, particularly its reliance on the authority of Batch Samba Faye v The State. Sarr argued that judicial precedents must be applied in light of their specific facts and cannot be imported mechanically.
Sarr reminded the court that Drammeh, as the driver of a commercial vehicle, was legally bound by Section 54 of the Motor Traffic Act and its regulations. The Fifth Schedule imposes strict speed limits: certain commercial vehicles are capped at 48 km/h, while heavier ones are restricted to 32 km/h.
“The defense’s focus on the speed of the ambulance does not absolve the accused of liability,” Sarr submitted. He noted that the regulations do not prescribe specific speed limits for ambulances and that any alleged speeding by the emergency vehicle would not automatically excuse Drammeh’s own breaches.
“The issue before this Honorable Court is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove his commercial vehicle in breach of the legal standards applicable to him and that such conduct resulted in the death of Bakary Keita,” the state counsel emphasized.
Even if the ambulance was speeding, Sarr contended, that fact alone would not exonerate Drammeh if he failed to observe the duties imposed on commercial drivers.
After hearing both sides, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh adjourned the matter to 20 July 2026 for judgment.
