In anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling, the Bakau High Court has halted the trial of Kumba Sinyan for murder. The State’s request to halt the trial until the Supreme Court rules on the legality of the High Court’s Practice Directions 1 of 2013 and 2019 was granted by the court in a decision issued by Justice Adenike J. Coker.
State prosecutors R. Duanda and M. Sanyang filed the motion on May 7, 2025, requesting that the trial be postponed while a writ utilizing the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is taken into consideration. The High Court’s 2019 Practice Directions and Direction 5(3) of the 2013 Practice Directions are being challenged in this petition.
Following the case’s transfer from Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh to Justice Coker, defense attorney S. Twum requested that the case be restarted, which led to the suspension. The High Court had already decided that, in accordance with its procedural guidelines, the trial should start over.
The Attorney General’s Chambers promptly challenged the ruling to the Supreme Court and requested a stay of High Court proceedings. The request for a stay was resisted by defense attorney Mrs. S. Twum.
The State provided two exhibits and a seven-paragraph affidavit, all of which were sworn by Attorney General’s Chambers clerk Yassin Senghore, to support its motion. Along with three supporting exhibits, the State also submitted a rebuttal affidavit from another legal clerk, Fatou Waggeh. Adama Cooper Jah, an administrative secretary in S. C. T. Twum’s chambers, swore a five-paragraph affidavit in opposition on behalf of the defense, which included three exhibits.
Although the State’s petition before the Supreme Court not only challenges this decision but also aims to question the legality of the Practice Directions themselves, Justice Coker observed that the High Court had earlier ordered a new trial to begin on April 2, 2025.
Justice Coker said, “The main question here is whether the High Court should move forward with the trial de novo.” “The trial would have to resume where the earlier procedures ended, negating the need for a new trial, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the State. The court could, however, hold a new trial if the State’s appeal is denied.
Justice Coker took into account a number of important considerations when deciding whether to grant the stay, such as the appeal’s competence, the existence of extraordinary or unique circumstances, and the convenience balance. She came to the conclusion that the State had the advantage of the balance of prejudice, pointing out that it would be unjust to force the prosecution to reopen the case and bring witnesses only to have the procedure reversed if the Supreme Court were to decide in their favor later.
Given that the accused is still in detention on a capital charge and that more than ten witnesses have already testified and several exhibits have been submitted, Justice Coker acknowledged the delays the stay would entail. To avoid more procedural hurdles, she said, the defense will have to make this “unfortunate sacrifice.”
She stated that it was “meet and just” to halt proceedings until the Supreme Court clarified how the case should proceed, saying that it is wise to avoid going one stride forward and two steps backward.
In the end, Justice Coker determined that the State’s application had substance and granted a stay of proceedings until the Supreme Court made a decision.
