By Isatou Sarr
Defence Counsel Lamin .J. Darboe has apologised to The Gambia’s Court of Appeal for failing to file a notice of representation after taking over the case of Amie Bojang, the second respondent in the appeal involving Ousainou Bojang.
The case returned before the court on Tuesday, 20 October 2026, following several adjournments and the withdrawal of Counsel L.K. Mboge, who had previously represented Amie Bojang.
When the matter was called, State Counsel A. Gibba announced his appearance for the State, while Mr Darboe appeared for both Ousainou Bojang, the first respondent, and Amie Bojang, the second respondent.
The case was heard by a panel comprising Justices N. Salla-Wadda, B.V.P. Mahoney and A. Saho-Ceesay.
Shortly after Mr Darboe announced his appearance, Justice Salla-Wadda asked whether he had filed a notice formally confirming his representation of Amie Bojang following Mr Mboge’s withdrawal.
Mr Darboe acknowledged that he had not filed the notice and apologised for the omission.
Justice Salla-Wadda allowed the proceedings to continue but directed him to file the required notice without delay to regularise his representation on the court record.
The court subsequently considered a preliminary objection previously filed by Mr Mboge on behalf of Amie Bojang. In the brief, the former counsel had urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the State’s appeal against Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang, arguing that it was incompetent and had been filed without the requisite legal leave.
State Counsel Gibba informed the court that the State had already filed a response to the preliminary objection.
Mr Darboe also told the court that he was aware of the brief filed by his predecessor, despite having been outside the jurisdiction.
Justice Salla-Wadda asked him to clarify whether he intended to adopt and rely on the existing brief or file a fresh one on behalf of Amie Bojang.
The court stressed the need for Mr Darboe to formally state his position on the arguments submitted by his predecessor before the matter could proceed on that basis.
Mr Darboe requested a short adjournment to consider whether to adopt the existing brief or prepare a new one. The State did not object.
The Court of Appeal adjourned the matter to 3 November 2026 for continuation of proceedings and for Mr Darboe to clarify his position on the brief filed on behalf of the second respondent.