By Sainabou Sambou
The High Court of The Gambia, under the gavel of Justice Y.H. Roberts, has today dismissed a bail application brought by Austrian nationals Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer and Angelika Mitterer against the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police. The ruling, delivered in a courtroom, marks a significant development in a case that has drawn attention due to allegations of police overreach and cryptocurrency-related charges.
The Mitterers, represented by counsel A.S. Tambadou, filed their bail application on July 28, 2025, following their arrest and detention by police. The couple sought release on bail, with or without sureties, pending their appearance in court on existing or future charges. Their motion, supported by an affidavit from Mr. Mitterer, also requested any additional orders the court deemed fit. The respondents, represented by H. Drammeh and M. Jammeh, opposed the application through an affidavit by Abdoulie Sanyang, Commissioner of Prosecutions and Legal Affairs.
The respondents challenged the application’s procedural validity, arguing that it was improperly filed via a summons on notice rather than an originating summons, rendering it incompetent under Order 25 Rule 1(12) of the High Court Rules. They cited the precedent in State v. Darboe to assert that the summons lacked a substantive suit. Justice Roberts swiftly dismissed this objection, clarifying that bail applications are miscellaneous in nature—neither strictly civil nor criminal. Referencing State v Darboe (No. 1) and IEC v NADD, she ruled that the use of a general summons in Form 32 was permissible absent any prejudice to the respondents. “The form of the summons does not prejudice the Respondents, and any irregularity will not be held against an Applicant for bail,” she declared.
The court’s attention then turned to the substance of the application. Justice Roberts noted that key paragraphs in the applicants’ affidavit, including those detailing their detention since July 25, 2025, and the revocation of their initial bail, went unchallenged by the respondents.
Under legal principles established in Antoine Banna v Ocean View Resort and First International Bank v Gambia Shipping Agencies, undenied affidavit averments are deemed admitted. Notably, the applicants alleged that their bail was revoked as punishment for refusing to disclose passwords to their cryptocurrency accounts—a claim the respondents did not refute.
The judge expressed concern over the police’s conduct, particularly the revocation of the initial bail. “If the Court cannot revoke bail as punishment, then the police also cannot do so,” she stated, citing Section 124(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025, which prohibits using bail revocation as a punitive measure. She emphasized that bail exists to ensure a defendant’s court appearance, not to penalize them.
However, the court found the application moot. On July 28, the same day the High Court application was filed, the Banjul Magistrates Court had granted the Mitterers bail on a new charge of disobedience of lawful orders under Section 109 of the Criminal Offences Act 2025. The applicants also faced charges of stealing and conspiracy to commit a felony. Still, no evidence suggested they remained in detention or that the Magistrates Court’s bail conditions were overly burdensome.
Justice Roberts concluded that granting further bail would be redundant. “If they are already liberated, there is no added value in ordering their liberation,” she said. “Events have overtaken the application. To make another order would be an academic exercise.” Consequently, the bail application was refused, leaving the Mitterers to proceed under the Magistrates’ Court’s ruling.
