Defense lawyers for former Lands Minister Sheriff Abba Sanyang and 6 co-accused persons have strongly urged the High Court to discharge their clients if the State fails to prosecute the long-running criminal case, citing repeated prosecutorial delays that they say undermine justice and the constitutional rights of the accused.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court in Banjul on Monday granted the prosecution what he described as a “final adjournment” after Senior State Counsel Sunkary Camara informed the court she had not been properly briefed and had not received the case file.
This marked the third consecutive occasion the State has been unable to proceed with the trial. The accused persons – Sheriff Abba Sanyang, Cherno Serending Sabally, Kalilu Sanyang, Bakary Gomez, Bakary Sanneh, Lamin Sabally, and Malang Jarju – face charges believed to relate to their time in public office, though specific details of the allegations were not restated in court on Monday.
Representing the first accused, Counsel K. Sanyang, together with J. DaCosta, appeared in court, while Lawyer L.J. Darbo represented the second to seventh accused.
The defense teams did not oppose the latest adjournment request but seized the opportunity to press the court on the broader issue of prosecutorial inefficiency.
In his detailed ruling, Justice Jaiteh expressed serious reservations about the State’s handling of the matter. He noted that the case had come before the court for the third time without progress, despite the trial having already commenced.
The first prosecution witness, Mr. Buba Sanyang, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Fisheries, began his evidence-in-chief on 20 April 2026 but was unable to conclude it. On 27 April, State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh sought an adjournment, citing the need for further instructions from superiors, even though the witness was present and ready.
The defense, in a spirit of cooperation, did not object, and the court granted the request. When the matter returned on 12 May, the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared and requested another adjournment, yet this time stating the case file would be reassigned to another counsel, with no mention of the earlier need for instructions.
On Monday, 18 May, Senior State Counsel Camara repeated the pattern, admitting she was not fully instructed. Justice Jaiteh highlighted the pattern of “persistent changing of State Counsel at will, coupled with repeated claims of lack of instructions or non-transfer of the case file.”
He warned that such practices inconvenience the court, witnesses, defense counsel, and, especially, the accused, who remain under the cloud of criminal proceedings.
“The constitutional imperative of a fair and expeditious trial must be upheld,” Justice Jaiteh stressed. He reminded the court and parties that the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence under Section 24(3) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia until proven guilty by credible evidence.
While acknowledging that the State sometimes requires reasonable time to prepare, the judge said such latitude “could not be exercised indefinitely or in a manner that undermines the proper administration of justice.”
He urged the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure continuity, proper coordination, and seriousness in handling cases. Nevertheless, in the overriding interest of justice and noting that the first witness remains available, Justice Jaiteh reluctantly granted one final adjournment.
He put the prosecution on clear notice: no further adjournments on similar grounds would be entertained.
Failure to proceed on the next date, he warned, may force the court to take necessary steps permissible under the law to protect the integrity of proceedings and the rights of the accused.
Defense counsel had earlier urged the court that if the State remained unable to prosecute, it should “do the needful and discharge the accused persons.”
Their position reflects growing frustration with what they view as avoidable delays that prolong the uncertainty their clients face.
The case has been adjourned to 23 June 2026 at 10:00 a.m. for the continuation of the evidence-in-chief of the first prosecution witness.
All eyes will now be on whether the State finally comes prepared or whether the defense’s call for discharge gains traction.
