By Ousman Saidykhan
Kumba Sinyan, the suspect accused of murdering Lamarana Jallow, has formally contested her transfer from the remand wing of Mile II Central Prison to what is referred to as the “convict wing.”
Sinyan is asking the court to declare the transfer unconstitutional, citing Section 36(2) of the Prisons Act, which mandates that prisoners awaiting trial be kept separate from those convicted.
In response, the State has refuted Sinyan’s claims, asserting that she was not moved to the convict wing but rather to a designated area they describe as a “created space.” According to the State, this space was established to alleviate congestion in the remand wing.
Sinyan was transferred on September 2, 2024, following an altercation with another inmate. The confrontation arose after Sinyan allegedly criticized the treatment of a fellow inmate who prison officers had beaten.
She confronted the other inmate, who she claimed was known to inform correctional officers of discussions among inmates. This incident reportedly led to her subsequent transfer.
The court will now consider Sinyan’s challenge regarding the legality of her transfer.
“Transferring the applicant from the remand wing to the convict wing is unconstitutional…The procedures they used are a complete violation. They should have put her in a confinement or solitary confinement,” said S. Twum, the lawyer for the applicant, arguing that putting the remand prisoner in a convict cell sends a message that she is guilty, a decision she said only court can make.
“It is only the court that can order the change of the status from remand prisoners to convicted prisoners. The prison officers have no such powers,” she said.
The State Counsel, M. Sanneh, said the section the applicant was moved to was created to free the remand wing from congestion, arguing that the applicant is aware of it.
“Because when the applicant was admitted to prison in September 2022, this was the space she was first admitted to because the remand section was congested, and she was aware of it. In fact, she spent a month or two there.
“And when space was created in the remand section, and she was about to move, she begged for them to leave her in that section. Therefore, the applicant is aware that Section One does not house convicted persons. And two: is created to decongest the remand wing,” said Counsel M Sanyang.
In early September 2024, the applicant, Kumb Sinyan, was charged by prison officers for allegedly committing prison offenses such as making groundless complaints, doing any act calculated to create any necessary alarm in the minds of the prisoners, cursing, swearing, making unnecessary noise, and moral, disorderly, or indecent behavior. These charges are recorded in a document marked as Exhibit R1.
M. Sanyang cited Section 62, paragraph 3 of the Prisons Act, as one of the sections the prison officers used to charge the applicant. This section prohibits prisoners from quarreling.
“Looking at both averments in our affidavit and the applicant’s, it is clear and factual that the actual applicant engaged in a quarrel with another inmate,” said Counsel Sanyang.
The applicant’s counsel, S. Twum, said the charges against her client never happened and are a “complete fabrication.”
“My Lord, if you look at Exhibit R1 properly, you will see that it does not indicate the signature of the applicant. The officer in charge who was supposed to have signed did not. And the register appears to have been doctored,” said Counsel S. Twum.
She argued that the register contains several alterations and cancellations, saying, “They were tampering with the register for one reason or another.”
She mentioned Section 63 of the Prisons Act as a section dealing with how prison officers hear prison offenses, such as proffering charges against individuals and hearing and pronouncement of punishment or punishment. “My Lord, no such process ever occurred at Mile II prisons.”
The applicant asked the court to declare the transfer unconstitutional while the respondent maintained it was lawful.
The case has been adjourned to February 17 at noon for a ruling.
