By: Cecilia E.L. Mendy
The Banjul High Court Monday adjourned the case involving former minister Abba Sanyang and six others while issuing out final warning to the state over repeated adjournments.
It could be recalled that the state brought charges against the former minister and six others over alleged unlawful dealings in forfeited land belonging to former President Yahya Jammeh.
The matter has suffered several adjournments since proceedings began, with the prosecution repeatedly failing to proceed with its case before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh.
Counsel S. Camara represented the State, while Counsel K. Sanyang appeared for the first accused person and Counsel Lamin J. Darboe represented the second to seventh accused persons.
Court records show that the first prosecution witness, Buba Sanyang, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Fisheries, began his testimony on 20 April 2026 but did not conclude his evidence on the same day.
When the matter resumed on 27 April 2026, State Counsel Jobarteh informed the court that the witness was present and ready to continue, but applied for an adjournment to seek further instructions from his superiors. The defence did not object and the case was adjourned.
The matter came up again on 12 May 2026, when the Director of Public Prosecutions sought another adjournment, this time on the grounds that the case file was to be reassigned to another State counsel.
On Monday, 18 May 2026, State Counsel Sunkary Camara again applied for an adjournment, telling the court that she had not yet received proper instructions and was therefore unable to proceed.
Although the defence did not oppose the application, Counsel K. Sanyang and Lamin J. Darboe urged the court to discharge the accused persons if the State remained unable to prosecute the matter.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh expressed concern over the repeated delays and warned that criminal proceedings cannot be handled “in a casual or disjointed manner.”
The judge said the persistent changing of State counsel, coupled with repeated claims of lack of instructions and delays in transferring case files, was undermining the expeditious disposal of the case and inconveniencing the court, witnesses, defence lawyers and the accused persons.
“The accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Justice Jaiteh stated, reminding the prosecution of its constitutional duty to ensure a fair and timely trial.
He stressed that repeated adjournments based on internal prosecutorial arrangements “cannot become the norm.”
Despite what he described as “serious reservations” about the conduct of the prosecution, Justice Jaiteh granted what he called a final adjournment in the interest of justice, noting that the first prosecution witness was already available to continue his testimony.
The judge, however, warned that no further adjournment on similar grounds would be entertained and cautioned that failure by the State to proceed on the next date could compel the court to take measures permitted under the law to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the constitutional rights of the accused persons.
The case was adjourned to 23 June 2026 for continuation of the testimony of the first prosecution witness.Bottom of Form