Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court has denied the state’s request to keep three boys in remand custody after they were acquitted and discharged of murder and conspiracy charges.
The ruling was followed by a judgment which acquitted and discharged the three young boys, Muhammed Ceesay, Sait Jallow, and Alagie Jadama, who were charged with murder and conspiracy.
The state alleged that four of them beat an alleged thief in Farafenni who eventually died but during the trial the fourth accused person who allegedly video recorded the alleged beating was discharged through a Nolle Prosequi (dropped the charge) filed by the state and the state continued with three and they were acquitted and discharged at the end of the trial.
Despite the court’s decision to clear the three boys, the State moved immediately to keep them behind bars, citing an intention to appeal the verdict.
The state’s application was met with resistance from the defence. Counsel S.K. Jobe, representing the first and second accused, argued that continued detention would be a clear affront to the presumption of innocence and pointed to what he described as fundamental flaws in the state’s case regarding the criminal charges, which had been decisively determined by the court in the judgment.
Adding weight to the defence, Counsel K. Jallow highlighted a trying timeline, noting that the accused persons had already spent five years in custody before their acquittal. She accused the State of attempting to make post-acquittal detention a matter of policy, regardless of the merits of their prosecution.
In a rebuttal, the State counsel argued that the length of time spent in custody, even if it were fifty years, was irrelevant to their right to appeal under Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh sided with the principles of liberty, offering a critique of the State’s position. Justice Jaiteh clarified that while Section 325 allows for an oral notice of appeal, it does not grant an automatic right to continued detention.
“The presumption of innocence fully and strongly favours the Accused Persons once an acquittal is entered,” Justice Jaiteh stated, adding that the State’s approach could turn acquittals into empty declarations.
Justice Jaiteh further characterised the request to keep the three boys in remand as punitive, oppressive, and wholly inconsistent with the principles of justice.
While refusing the request for continued remand, Justice Jaiteh granted the three boys bail on minimal and humane conditions to ensure procedural fairness during the appeal process.
Justice Jaiteh granted that the three boys each must provide one Gambian surety, sureties must deposit a valid national ID card with the Principal Registrar and the bail terms will automatically lapse in 30 days if the State fails to file a formal petition of appeal.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court has denied the state’s request to keep three boys in remand custody after they were acquitted and discharged of murder and conspiracy charges.
The ruling was followed by a judgment which acquitted and discharged the three young boys, Muhammed Ceesay, Sait Jallow, and Alagie Jadama, who were charged with murder and conspiracy.
The state alleged that four of them beat an alleged thief in Farafenni who eventually died but during the trial the fourth accused person who allegedly video recorded the alleged beating was discharged through a Nolle Prosequi (dropped the charge) filed by the state and the state continued with three and they were acquitted and discharged at the end of the trial.
Despite the court’s decision to clear the three boys, the State moved immediately to keep them behind bars, citing an intention to appeal the verdict.
The state’s application was met with resistance from the defence. Counsel S.K. Jobe, representing the first and second accused, argued that continued detention would be a clear affront to the presumption of innocence and pointed to what he described as fundamental flaws in the state’s case regarding the criminal charges, which had been decisively determined by the court in the judgment.
Adding weight to the defence, Counsel K. Jallow highlighted a trying timeline, noting that the accused persons had already spent five years in custody before their acquittal. She accused the State of attempting to make post-acquittal detention a matter of policy, regardless of the merits of their prosecution.
In a rebuttal, the State counsel argued that the length of time spent in custody, even if it were fifty years, was irrelevant to their right to appeal under Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh sided with the principles of liberty, offering a critique of the State’s position. Justice Jaiteh clarified that while Section 325 allows for an oral notice of appeal, it does not grant an automatic right to continued detention.
“The presumption of innocence fully and strongly favours the Accused Persons once an acquittal is entered,” Justice Jaiteh stated, adding that the State’s approach could turn acquittals into empty declarations.
Justice Jaiteh further characterised the request to keep the three boys in remand as punitive, oppressive, and wholly inconsistent with the principles of justice.
While refusing the request for continued remand, Justice Jaiteh granted the three boys bail on minimal and humane conditions to ensure procedural fairness during the appeal process.
Justice Jaiteh granted that the three boys each must provide one Gambian surety, sureties must deposit a valid national ID card with the Principal Registrar and the bail terms will automatically lapse in 30 days if the State fails to file a formal petition of appeal.
By Kexx Sanneh
