The High Court, presided over by Justice Jaiteh, has acquitted and discharged Lamin Sanyang (1st Accused) and Borry Ceesay (2nd Accused) of all charges, citing a blatant violation of their constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Jaiteh criticised the prosecution’s “persistent lack of diligence” and its failure to establish even a prima facie case after more than four years of proceedings.
The case stemmed from a December 16, 2019, incident in Busumbala, where residents attacked a man after discovering small children in his car, suspecting a child kidnapping attempt. Sanyang and Ceesay, along with thirteen others, were charged with five counts, including conspiracy, rioters demolishing buildings, assault causing grievous bodily harm, and attempted murder.
The matter was transferred to the High Court in early 2020. However, Justice Jaiteh noted that over four years later, the prosecution had called only one witness and failed to produce any of the remaining twenty-two listed witnesses, including the principal complainant.
Justice Jaiteh condemned the State’s conduct as an “unbroken pattern of adjournments” and repeated withdrawal of charges against co-accused persons, describing it as “inordinate and unjustifiable.”
He underscored that the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing within a reasonable time is not a mere formality but “a substantive safeguard designed to prevent justice from being defeated by undue delay, anxiety, and uncertainty.”
When the prosecution sought yet another adjournment on November 10, 2025—claiming they could not reach the complainant—the court refused, finding the reasons “neither cogent nor persuasive.” Justice Jaiteh stressed that the court could no longer “indulge the prosecution at the expense of the accused persons’ constitutional rights.”
Following the refusal to grant an adjournment, the court closed the State’s case and directed the defence to open theirs. Defence Counsel K. Sanyang submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish any case against his clients and rested on the prosecution’s evidence.
Justice Jaiteh agreed, noting that the prosecution’s sole witness, Assistant Commissioner of Immigration Musa Keita, gave testimony that was “general, vague, and wholly uncorroborated,” failing to connect either accused to the alleged offences.
He ruled that the evidence fell “far short” of establishing a prima facie case—one that could justify a conviction if left unchallenged. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had “woefully failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Justice Jaiteh delivered a sharp rebuke of the prosecution’s handling of the case, calling it “indolent and protracted,” and reminding the State of its “solemn responsibility to prosecute diligently and fairly.”
He concluded that the prosecution’s conduct was “unacceptable” and warned that such lapses “undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
The bench warrant previously issued against the 2nd Accused, Borry Ceesay, was vacated and discharged. The State was reminded of its right to appeal the ruling.