The convict Lamin Lang Sanyang applied for both an administrative “licence to be at large” and release under the statutory parole framework, but the High Court, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, dismissed the case.
In relation to Solo Sandeng’s death, Lamin Lang Sanyang was one of nine NIA employees who were charged; however, only six of them received sentences. A doctor (nurse) named Lamin Lang Sanyang was found guilty of falsifying Solo Sandeng’s death certificate and was sentenced to ten years in prison.
In an attempt to obtain early release from his prison sentence, Lamin Lang Sanyang submitted two separate applications: one for an administrative “licence to be at large” and the other for release under the statutory parole framework.
On July 13, 2022, Lamin Lang Sanyang, a convicted nurse presently imprisoned at State Central Prison Mile 2, received his sentence. In his application, he requested the following instructions based on Sections 17, 33, and 37 of the 1997 Constitution:
An order granting him the same administrative “licence to be at large” as any other prisoner.
An order to apply the Prisons Act’s Section 72(1) in his favour.
Lamin Lang Sanyang claimed in an affidavit sworn on November 11, 2024, that he was told he was eligible for the license, which is normally given for terms longer than two years. He stated that although he had signed the license on August 14, 2024, it had not been approved by the Minister of Interior (the second respondent in a previous summons), even though other inmates’ applications had been approved. He felt that the approving authority was discriminating against him.
Justice Jaiteh further considered Lang Sanyang’s eligibility for release under the statutory parole system set by Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, during the proceedings, which included an earlier hearing on November 11, 2025.
The State contested the application, arguing that Lamin Lang Sanyang still had 16 months left on his sentence and rejecting his claim that he had completed three-fourths of it.
The State argued that the Court cannot enforce the “licence to be at large” since it is an administrative power rather than a constitutional right.
As of August 2024, Lamin Lang Sanyang had completed one-third of his term, according to a document provided to the court by the Director General of Prisons. Lang Sanyang’s “commendable conduct,” lack of disciplinary violations, and constructive involvement in rehabilitation—including receiving training through the Justice Defenders Project and earning an information technology certificate—were highlighted in the document.
But according to the DG of prison’s document, Lamin Lang Sanyang is scheduled to be released in 2027.
The legislative parole structure under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, was deemed “presently incomplete and legally incapable of implementation” by Justice Jaiteh, who praised Lang Sanyang’s excellent behavior.
Section 258(4), which requires a released prisoner to participate in a rehabilitation program in an institution “prescribed by Regulations,” was brought to light by Justice Jaiteh’s decision. There are currently no designated governmental or approved rehabilitation institutions for the mandated reintegration program, and the Attorney General properly noted—and the Court agreed—that no regulations have been enacted to prescribe rehabilitation facilities under Section 258(4).
According to Justice Jaiteh, the legislative goal of organized rehabilitation would be defeated and it would be illegal to operate the parole mechanism without the obligatory statutory criteria.
In response to Lamin Lang Sanyang’s constitutional arguments and the administrative “licence to be at large,” Justice Jaiteh ruled that the jail administration has the ability to issue the licence. The Court cannot order the Prison Service to grant it because it is not a constitutional right.
According to Justice Jaiteh, Lang Sanyang had not demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right that would call for judicial action.
Justice Jaiteh came to the conclusion that there was no legal basis to force the Prison Service to award the administrative license because the required elements of the legislative parole framework had not been satisfied. As a result, the application was refused and dismissed.
