The High Court presided over Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh denied bail to Sanna Manjang, who is facing a holding charge of murder, but ordered the Director General of Prisons to grant his legal counsel immediate access.
When the case was called Counsel, S.K. Jobe, announced his presence for the accused. The State, however, was not yet present.
Noting the State’s absence despite confirmation that an affidavit of service was in the file by Justice Jobarteh, Counsel Jobe launched his application for bail of the accused.
“My Lady, the State is supposed to be here, having been served the notice, and they put the accused under custody,” Counsel Jobe submitted.
“We apply for the accused to be put on bail pending any serious commitment from the State and pending the filing of a bill of indictment.”
Counsel Jobe assured the court that the accused was prepared to meet conditions, including daily reporting to the police and the surrender of all his travel documents.
Counsel Jobe told the court one of the reasons why the accused should be granted bail is that from the moment the matter is transferred from the Magistrate’s court to the High Court the prison authorities have consistently denied lawyers from seeing him
“Personally, I have made efforts to see him prepare our defence, but we were denied on the basis that we need an authority from the National Security Adviser. I don’t know what authority the NSA has to limit the accused, who is under custody by an order of the court, from seeing his lawyer.” Counsel Jobe argued
Counsel Jobe sought a court order compelling the Director of Prisons to ensure the accused’s right to see his lawyer, noting that even the family had been denied visitation.
As Counsel Jobe was on his submission, the DPP, Yusuf, entered the court. DPP Yusuf applied for a stand-down. Justice Jobarteh intervened immediately, confirming with the DPP that the State had indeed been notified of the hearing.
Justice Jobarteh: “So, you are asking for a stand-down even when you are notified?”
Counsel Jobe continued his submission on the accused’s rights “As we speak, the accused is innocent until proven guilty,” he affirmed. “Therefore, all rights are to be protected pending the trial and determination of this matter.”
The presiding Judge Justice Jobarteh sought DPP’s reaction to the two issues raised by Counsel Jobe on the indictment that had not been filed, and the accused was being denied access to his client.
In his reply, DPP Yusuf strongly opposed the bail application. DPP noted that the existing charge of Murder, filed before the Magistrate’s Court, was still valid until a new indictment was filed.
“The charges are valid. The offence of murder is not bailable. Hence, the application is not tenable,” DPP argued.
DPP cited the Criminal Offences stating a person charged with murder cannot be bailed.
DPP countered the denial of access, informing the court that the accused had refused to talk to investigators, suggesting the defence’s claim was flawed if the accused was unwilling to cooperate.
In reply to the point of Law, Counsel Jobe addresses three points raised by the DPP
Counsel Jobe strongly disputed the DPP’s interpretation of the law, citing Section 123 of the Criminal Offences Act 2025 to the effect that all offences are bailable, irrespective of punishment.
Counsel affirmed the accused’s right to remain silent, arguing that it should not be a ground to victimise him.
Counsel Jobe contended that the original charge sheet from the Magistrate’s court could no longer guide the High Court, questioning the purpose of the transfer otherwise.
After hearing from both parties, Justice Jobarteh in her ruling acknowledged the case was a transferred matter from the Magistrates’ Court acting under Section 72(a) & (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act to remand the Accused pending his arraignment before the High Court.
Justice Jobarteh noted that the case was mentioned within 7 days of assignment, in compliance with High Court Practice Direction No: 1 of 2022, Direction 7(vi).
Justice Jobarteh stated the State has not filed a Bill of Indictment, and the Court cannot act on a “holding charge, but by virtue of Direction 7(vi) of the High Court Practice Directions, 2022, the Court must give the State a timeline to file an Indictment.
Justice Jobarteh agreed with Counsel Jobe that the Accused has a constitutionally guaranteed right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
However, Justice Jobarteh stated that the rights of the accused had not been infringed at this stage and the detention by the Magistrate was done in accordance with the law, and the case was duly mentioned before the High Court within a reasonable time.
While the court cannot rely on a holding charge, Justice Jobarteh stated it “cannot also shut its eyes to the charges preferred against the Accused at the Magistrates’ Court, which are capital offences.”
Acknowledging that the Criminal Procedure Act of 2025 permits bail to be granted in capital offences. However, Justice Jobarteh noted that there are specific conditions to be fulfilled in the grant of bail in capital offences, which Counsel Jobe had not raised in the application.
Justice Jobarteh concluded that the case had been mentioned within a reasonable time, she did not see the need to grant bail to the accused in the current circumstances.
The State is given on or before the 12th January 2026 to file a Bill of Indictment in the matter. The Director General of Prisons is specifically directed to allow Counsel to the Accused, S. K. Jobe, access to the accused pending his arraignment before the Court.
The case adjourned to Thursday, 15th January 2026, for plea taking at 10:00 am.
