Kumba Sinyan won her case when Justice Jaiteh of the High Court of Banjul decided that her confinement in the convict wing of Mile 2 Central Prisons was illegal and a breach of her fundamental rights.
On December 5, 2024, Kumba Sinyan, accompanied by her attorney Sagarr C.T. Twum, filed a motion to declare her confinement in the convict part of the Female Wing of Mile 2 Central Prisons unlawful. She also asked for any additional orders the court thought necessary.
Her transfer, according to the motion, was unlawful under Section 36(2)(a) of the Prisons Act, which requires remand inmates to be kept apart from convicted criminals. An affidavit with five paragraphs and a number of exhibits labelled “ACJ 1 to 7” backed up the motion. On December 6, 2024, the State filed a 21-paragraph opposing affidavit, and on January 19, 2025, it filed a second document designated “R1” in opposition to the motion.
The State filed an additional opposing affidavit with eight paragraphs and three documents designated K1, K2, and K3, while Kumba Sinyan’s attorney filed a reply affidavit with 19 paragraphs.
Counsel Sagarr contested her client’s incarceration in the convict section during oral arguments, arguing that remand inmates had to be kept apart from convicted people. She maintained that without a court order, prison officials were legally unable to alter the status of a remand inmate.
The transfer, according to State Counsel M. Sanyang, was required to relieve overcrowding in the remand section and adhered to the proper procedural processes. Citing the Prisons Act and the Constitution, she added that Kumba Sinyan had broken prison regulations and gotten into fights.
Counsel Sagarr further contended that Kumba was not given a fair hearing prior to the transfer and that the internal disciplinary procedure of the jail system was defective. Additionally, she questioned the veracity of prison records, particularly Exhibit R1, which listed the charges and the decision to transfer. She identified changes, missing signatures, and discrepancies that seemed to indicate an effort to defend the illegal transfer.
In his decision, Justice Jaiteh looked at the laws pertaining to the Prisons Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, which both require that convicted and remand inmates be kept apart. He underlined the necessity of ascertaining if the transfer infringed upon Kumba’s fundamental rights and whether the jail administration behaved within the bounds of the law.
According to the court, Kumba Sinyan was first detained in the remand section after being accused with murder, a crime for which there is no bail. She was later moved to the prisoner area, nevertheless, perhaps as a result of overpopulation or as a punitive punishment. According to Justice Jaiteh, this conduct went against both her constitutional rights under Sections 19 and 24(3) of the 1997 Constitution, which protect the right to liberty and a fair trial, as well as Section 36(2)(a) of the Prisons Act. These rights are also upheld by international legal instruments.
Justice Jaiteh found disparities in Exhibit R1 that sparked grave worries regarding the prison system’s documentation practices and possible misuse of power. He denounced the prison administration’s flagrant disrespect for basic human rights and due process. He further emphasised that Kumba’s right to procedural fairness had been violated since she was not given a fair hearing prior to facing disciplinary action.
Kumba Sinyan was unlawfully imprisoned as a remand prisoner in the convict section, according to Justice Jaiteh’s ruling. He underlined that the conduct went against the presumption of innocence concept and the requirement that convicted and remand inmates be kept apart under the constitution. He emphasised the need for reform and denounced the institutional shortcomings of the jail administration.
In his decision, Justice Jaiteh suggested that the Gambia Prison Service conform its disciplinary processes to global best practices, particularly the Nelson Mandela Rules, also known as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. In addition, he demanded that prison staff receive human rights training and that independent monitoring organisations be established to keep an eye on prison operations and look into abuse claims.
To guarantee compliance and stop future infractions, Justice Jaiteh directed that the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Interior, the Inspector General of Police, and the Director General of Prisons be served with the verdict.
