By: Fatou Krubally
The High Court in Banjul has reserved its ruling on the admissibility of cautionary statements tendered by the prosecution in the ongoing corruption trial involving former Lands Minister Sheriff Abba Sanyang and six others.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh announced on Monday that the court would deliver its ruling on 8 October 2026 after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defense on whether the statements should be admitted into evidence.
The issue arose after the court had previously deferred its decision to allow the defense to receive complete copies of the cautionary statements before challenging their admissibility.
During the hearing, defence counsel F.K. Darboe argued that one of the cautionary statements attributed to accused Kalilu Sanyang comprised three pages, but only two pages had initially been served on the defence, rendering the document incomplete.
State Counsel A.M. Yusuf rejected the claim, maintaining that the allegedly missing page had been printed together with another cautionary statement attributed to co-accused Lamin Sabally and that the complete documents had been duly served on the defence.
The defence objected to the admission of both statements, arguing that the prosecution had failed to lay the proper legal foundation for their admission into evidence.
Counsel further submitted that Kalilu Sanyang’s statement was recorded on 7 May 2024, while Lamin Sabally’s statement was recorded the following day, but contended that the prosecution witness seeking to tender the documents had failed to clearly identify which statement was being referred to during testimony.
The defence also argued that the statements were obtained without the presence of an independent witness and therefore did not comply with the applicable legal requirements.
Justice Jaiteh, however, questioned whether the statements contained any confession. After the defence confirmed that they did not, the judge observed that the legal requirement for the presence of an independent witness applied specifically to confessional statements.
“If there is no confession, there is no legal requirement for an independent witness,” Justice Jaiteh said during the proceedings.
For the prosecution, Yusuf argued that there was no evidence the statements had been obtained through force, threats or inducement. He submitted that the issues raised by the defence concerned the weight the court should attach to the statements rather than their admissibility.
The State further argued that the Criminal Procedure Act 2025 could not be applied retrospectively to statements recorded in May 2024 before the legislation came into force.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Justice Jaiteh reserves his ruling until 8 October 2026, when the court is expected to determine whether the contested statements will be admitted as evidence in the corruption trial.
About the Author
