Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the Gambia High Court
A High Court judge on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Lamin Lang Sanyang, a former National Intelligence Agency nurse convicted in the death of political activist Solo Sandeng, who had sought two separate forms of early release: an administrative “licence to be at large” and parole under a new statutory framework.
Mr. Sanyang was among nine NIA personnel charged in connection with Mr. Sandeng’s 2016 death in state custody. Six were ultimately convicted. In 2022, the court found Mr. Sanyang guilty of forging Mr. Sandeng’s death certificate and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. He is serving his term at Mile 2, the State Central Prison.
In filings before the High Court, Mr. Sanyang argued that he qualified for an administrative licence typically available to inmates serving sentences longer than two years. He also sought release under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a parole system adopted in 2025. His application cited several constitutional provisions and accused prison authorities of discriminatory treatment, claiming that the Interior Ministry had withheld approval of a licence he signed in August despite approving licences for other inmates.
During proceedings held in November, the State disputed Mr. Sanyang’s assertion that he had served three-quarters of his sentence, saying he had at least 16 months remaining. The State also maintained that a “licence to be at large” is an administrative tool, not a constitutional entitlement enforceable by the courts.
A report submitted by the Director General of Prisons confirmed that Mr. Sanyang had completed one-third of his sentence as of August 2024. The report noted his “commendable conduct,” clean disciplinary record, and participation in rehabilitation programs, including training through the Justice Defenders Project and a certificate in information technology. Even so, prison authorities projected his release date for 2027.
In his ruling, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh said that although Mr. Sanyang appeared to be an exemplary inmate, the parole system established by the 2025 Criminal Procedure Act remained legally “incomplete.” The law requires parolees to undergo a rehabilitation program at a facility prescribed by regulation, but no such regulations or designated facilities currently exist.
Without those mandatory components, Justice Jaiteh said, the parole mechanism could not be lawfully implemented. “To do so,” he wrote, “would defeat the legislative purpose of structured rehabilitation.”
On the question of the administrative licence, Justice Jaiteh held that the decision to issue such a licence rests squarely within the discretion of prison authorities. Because the Constitution does not guarantee inmates a right to the licence, he said, the court could not compel officials to grant one.
Finding no violation of Mr. Sanyang’s constitutional rights and no legal basis to override prison discretion, the court rejected the application in its entirety.
“The mandatory requirements of the statutory parole framework have not been satisfied,” Justice Jaiteh concluded. “Accordingly, the application is refused and dismissed.”