The Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on Monday ordered the remand of Salieu Gaye following his arraignment in connection with a shooting incident in Fajara, with the presiding magistrate ruling that the seriousness of the charges and the state of the investigation weighed against the grant of bail.
Gaye appeared before Magistrate A. Manneh, where Inspector Baba Jallow represented the Inspector General of Police and Counsel B. Badjie appeared for the defence. The prosecution preferred two criminal counts against the accused.
The first count is attempted murder, contrary to Section 168 of the Criminal Offences Act. Prosecutors allege that on January 19, 2026, in Fajara, Gaye willfully and unlawfully attempted to kill Muhammad Buharry Mendy by firing three shots into his stomach with a Taurus Armas pistol, causing him grievous bodily harm.
The second count is possession of firearms without authority, contrary to Section 8 of the Arms and Ammunition Act. The prosecution alleges that Gaye was found in possession of an unlicensed Taurus Armas pistol without lawful authority.
When the charges were read to him in English, Gaye pleaded not guilty to both counts, a plea which was formally entered by the court.
Following the plea, Inspector Jallow applied for an adjournment to enable the prosecution to call its first witness and urged the court to deny the accused bail. He submitted that the offence was “next to murder” and argued that there was a substantial risk of the accused absconding, noting that Gaye does not reside in the country. He further informed the court that the victim remains hospitalised and has been unable to give a statement, rendering the investigation ongoing and delicate.
Citing Sections 123, 124, and 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor contended that the interests of justice required the accused to remain in custody to prevent any potential interference with witnesses or evidence.
Defence counsel B. Badjie opposed the application, arguing that bail is a fundamental right grounded in constitutional guarantees of liberty. He submitted that the rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and the presumption of innocence apply to all persons, whether citizens or non-citizens, and cautioned that denying bail on the basis of residence or nationality would offend Section 33 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination.
In her ruling, Magistrate Manneh acknowledged the constitutional arguments advanced by the defence but stressed that such rights are not absolute and may be limited in the interests of justice. She described the allegations of attempted murder as grave, involving serious violence, and noted that the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm further heightened concerns for public safety.
While observing that ongoing investigations do not, in themselves, preclude the grant of bail, the magistrate found that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. She noted that the victim, a central witness, has yet to provide a statement due to his medical condition, and held that granting bail at this stage could prejudice the orderly conduct of the investigation.
Magistrate Manneh further took judicial notice of the volatile nature of firearm-related offences and ruled that a temporary remand was justified to preserve public order and ensure the safety of both the public and the accused. She emphasised that the remand was not punitive and did not amount to a finding of guilt, but was a necessary measure to safeguard the administration of justice.
The court indicated that it may reconsider the issue of bail at the next sitting once investigations have progressed. The matter was adjourned to February 11, 2026, at 12:30 p.m.
Comments are closed.