Principal Magistrate Sallah M’bai has sentenced Momodou Bah to six years’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to housebreaking and theft at a house in Pipeline, Kanifing Municipality.
Delivering sentence today, 29 September 2026, Principal Magistrate Isatou Sallah-M’bai held that Momodou Bah’s two previous convictions for similar offences were aggravating circumstances.
Momodou Bah faced two counts under the Criminal Offences Act, 2025: housebreaking, contrary to section 256(b), and general punishment for theft, contrary to section 226. He pleaded guilty to both. The facts were read and explained to him; he admitted them in full, and the Court convicted him on his own plea.
According to the facts, on 8 September 2026, the complainant, Emmanuel Tobi, left home for work but turned back after realising he had forgotten one of his mobile phones. He found his house open, and upon entering, he found Momodou Bah holding two of his tablets. He shouted, “Thief! Thief!”, and Momodou Bah tried to flee. Neighbours responded to the alarm and apprehended him.
All the stolen property was recovered. It comprised two tablets valued at D42,320, a Tecno mobile phone valued at D15,000 and a calculus phone valued at D6,000, a total of D63,320.
Police also recovered a black bag from Bah containing a chisel, two pliers, two screwdrivers, a broken padlock, a black facial hood and a torchlight with teaser. a The bag and its contents were marked Exhibit D series. Bah’s voluntary and cautionary statements were admitted as Exhibits A and B. He did not object to any exhibit.
On the plea in mitigation, Momodou Bah pleaded for mercy. He told the Court he has two wives and children, and that his children are not attending school because of his actions.
Principal Magistrate Sallah M’bai took into account his guilty plea, which saved the time and resources of a full trial, and the recovery of the stolen property. She treated both as mitigating.
However, Magistrate Sallah M’bai asked the prosecution whether Bah was a first-time offender, and the Prosecution produced his records. In 2011 he was convicted of shop breaking and stealing and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. In 2022 he was convicted of breaking into a building to commit a felony and stealing, and sentenced to six years.
Both convictions arose under the former legislation, and the stealing offence was then defined under the former section 252. Magistrate Sallah M’bai held that they were nonetheless clearly relevant to sentencing. It found that the present offending bears “a striking similarity” to the earlier offending and called the previous convictions “a significant aggravating circumstance”.
Magistrate Sallah M’bai identified the following aggravating factors: Momodou Bah unlawfully entered a dwelling-house and was found inside with the complainant’s property; the offence was committed in broad daylight. Magistrate Sallah M’bai said that means it was not a night burglary, but it does not diminish the seriousness of the intrusion.
Also, the bag of tools, the hood and the torchlight with a teaser demonstrated preparation, concealment and facilitation of the offence. Furthermore, Momodou Bah was found in the house with the property in his hands and tried to flee; the property was of substantial value, and he committed the offence despite previous custodial sentences.
Magistrate Sallah M’bai examined section 237 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, which imposes a seven-year punishment where an offender was previously convicted of theft punishable under section 226 before committing the present theft.
Because Momodou Bah’s previous convictions arose under the former legislation, Magistrate Sallah M’bai held that it did not rely solely on section 237 to increase the sentence. It said the convictions remained highly relevant and showed repeated offending of a similar nature.
Magistrate Sallah M’bai said it was particularly concerned that Momodou Bah had received custodial sentences of three and six years and had still committed a similar offence. She concluded that those sentences “do not appear to have deterred him from further offending”, and that meaningful weight must go to deterrence while recognising the possibility of rehabilitation.
She also considered a non-custodial sentence and found that it would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or serve the objectives of deterrence and protection of the community.
In her sentencing, Magistrate Sallah M’bai sentenced Momodou Bah as follows:
Count One (housebreaking, section 256(b)): six years’ imprisonment
Count Two (theft, section 226): five years’ imprisonment
The sentences run concurrently, so the effective sentence is six years. The housebreaking implements in Exhibit D series are forfeited to the State. The recovered property was ordered released to the complainant forthwith.
Cadet Inspector L. Mendy appeared for the Inspector General of Police. Momodou Bah appeared in person.
