By: Hon. Sarjo Barrow Esq
The recent sentencing of a man to twelve years’ imprisonment for trafficking three kilograms of cannabis has brought attention to the importance of reviewing relevant legal provisions. Many Gambians observe a notable difference compared to an earlier case where an individual received a fine of D500,000 for approximately 47,000 ecstasy pills without a custodial sentence. To some, this disparity raises questions about consistency and fairness; these concerns are understandable. However, it is essential to recognize that the core issue primarily resides within the framework of the Drug Control Act itself.
Understanding What the Law Punishes
The longer sentence in the cannabis case reflects the statutory requirements associated with the offense of drug trafficking, not its classification, which, under the current law, mandates a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment. The judiciary is bound to apply the law as written and cannot simply opt for lesser penalties based on circumstances or public opinion. In this context, the sentence mirrors the legislation’s definition of the offense, rather than any judicial discretion.
The Presumption Framework and Its Implications
The law introduces specific presumptions that influence case outcomes. For example, possession of more than three kilograms of cannabis automatically presumes trafficking—placing the onus on the accused to disprove this presumption. If the presumption is not rebutted, a mandatory sentence follows. Conversely, no such presumption exists for ecstasy (MDMA). Even in cases involving large quantities, prosecutors have discretion to charge either trafficking or simple possession. Courts may then impose fines or imprisonment accordingly. While this reflects legislative design, it also highlights an area where clarity and consistency could be improved.
Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Challenges
This legislative structure places significant responsibility on prosecutors. When dealing with large quantities of ecstasy, choosing whether to charge possession or trafficking can raise questions about diligence and consistency. Charging possession in cases involving tens of thousands of pills can appear to undermine the law’s intent, potentially affecting public trust. Prosecutorial discretion must be exercised in a manner that upholds justice and maintains confidence in the legal process.
The case for Centralized Drug Prosecutions
This situation underscores the importance of having drug-related prosecutions managed under a unified legal authority, such as the State Law Office. Given the serious consequences associated with drug offenses—mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, and deprivation of liberty—standardized oversight and accountability are essential to ensure fairness and consistency.
Pursuing Reforms within Reach
Reform efforts do not necessarily require new legislation. The Minister possesses the authority under the existing Drug Control Act to amend drug schedules, allowing for the reclassification of substances, alignment of penalties with current understandings of harm, and correction of inconsistencies—all without the need for legislative proceedings. Recognizing and exercising this power is a step toward more equitable and effective drug regulation.
Aligning the Law with Contemporary Perspectives
The current Act’s rigid classification system, distinguishing strictly between “prohibited” and “controlled” drugs, often leads to outcomes that may seem incongruent with modern scientific knowledge and societal values. For instance, cannabis is treated more harshly than substances with no medicinal value and notable health risks, despite moves toward decriminalization or legalization in other jurisdictions. This calls for a review aimed at ensuring proportionality, coherence, and credibility within the legal framework.
Learning from International Experiences
Historical examples, such as the disparities faced by communities affected by crack versus powder cocaine laws in the United States, highlight the importance of thoughtful, evidence-based drug policy. The Gambia can benefit from such lessons to craft legislation that promotes fairness and social justice.
Clarifying the Role of Lawmakers
When public dissatisfaction arises from judicial decisions, it is important to recognize that courts are bound by the law as enacted. If sentences appear unjust, the appropriate course is legislative and policy reform rather than assigning blame to the judiciary for acting within the law. The current situation underscores the need for amendments to the Drug Control Act, whether through the Executive’s exercise of existing powers or legislative action, to ensure that justice aligns with contemporary standards.
In summary, the path forward involves thoughtful reform that balances law, fairness, and public confidence while respecting the legal processes currently in place.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Justice or the United States.
