In a closely watched drug trafficking case, the High Court in Banjul has acquitted four individuals while ordering five others to stand trial. Justice Jaiteh delivered the ruling following a no-case submission by the defense counsel, Sheriff Kumba Jobe.
The case garnered significant public attention after the interception of 30 blocks of cocaine at Banjul International Airport on June 29, 2024. The drugs were allegedly found in the luggage of four Portuguese women: Vilma Cabral Roel, Ana Patricia Dos Santos Furtado, Simara Nadiya Martins, and Miriam Maria Mendes. Five Gambian airport staff members – Seedy Ceesay, Lamin Ceesay, Yaya K. Jatta, Modou Bojang, and Muhammed Jallow – were also implicated.
The prosecution brought multiple charges against all nine defendants under the Drug Control Act, including:
- Count One: Possession of prohibited drugs for trafficking, contrary to Section 43(4)(b), specifically against the four Portuguese women for allegedly possessing cocaine at the airport with the intent to smuggle it to Barcelona, Spain.
- Count Two: Dealing with prohibited drugs, contrary to Section 33(1)(c), against all nine defendants for their alleged involvement in dealing cocaine at the airport.
- Count Three: Conspiracy to deal with prohibited drugs, contrary to Section 53(1)(a), against all nine defendants for allegedly conspiring to smuggle cocaine from The Gambia to Barcelona via a Vueling flight.
All nine defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges on October 30, 2024. During the prosecution’s case, 17 witnesses were called, and evidence was presented, including cautionary and voluntary statements from the accused, the 30 blocks of cocaine, weighing certificates, and a cash amount of €26,950.00.
Following the prosecution’s presentation, defense counsel Jobe argued in a “no-case-to-answer” submission that the prosecution had failed to establish sufficient evidence to warrant a defense from his clients. State Counsel M. Sarr opposed this, maintaining that a prima facie case had been established.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasized that the court’s duty at this stage was to determine if there was enough evidence to compel the accused to present a defense. Citing Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Justice Jaiteh aligned Gambian court practice with that of the English High Court of Justice where applicable. He referenced the Practice Note by Lord Chief Justice Parker, which outlines grounds for upholding a no-case submission, including a lack of evidence on an essential element of the offense or evidence so discredited that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict.
Applying these principles, Justice Jaiteh acquitted the four Portuguese women, stating a lack of sufficient evidence linking them directly to the alleged drug trafficking operation beyond the discovery of the cocaine in their luggage. However, he ruled that there was enough evidence presented against the five Gambian airport staff to warrant their standing trial on all three counts.
“A no-case submission may be upheld when there is no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged charge. When the evidence presented by the prosecution has been so discredited through cross-examination or is so inherently unreliable that no reasonable court could convict based on it.”
Justice Jaiteh referenced the case of IGABELE v. THE STATE [2005] 1 NCC, where a no-case submission is defined as a situation “where there is no evidence upon which a court could convict, even if the prosecution’s evidence were believed.”
He emphasized the critical importance of safeguarding the accused’s right to remain silent, noting that “A submission of no case is justifiable only when the prosecution’s case has demonstrably collapsed, rendering it a futile exercise for the court to continue.”
After carefully examining the evidence and testimonies presented in court, Justice Jaiteh determined that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against the first to fourth accused—Vilma Cabral Roel, Ana Patricia Dos Santos Furtado, Simara Nadiya Martins, and Miriam Maria Mendes.
Justice Jaiteh observed, “Notably, none of the seventeen prosecution witnesses have directly identified or linked the 1st to the 4th accused persons to possessing illegal substances on the specified date and location.”
Justice Jaiteh concluded that the prosecution’s case rested more on suspicion than solid evidence. “The accused were found without any prohibited drugs in their possession, and the actions leading to their arrest stemmed purely from their deemed suspicious behaviour rather than a substantive link to drug trafficking,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
He further emphasized that Kemo Jaiteh’s testimony supported this, noting that the accused were not caught with cocaine or any controlled substances. During cross-examination, Kemo admitted that the arrest was based on suspicion rather than actual possession.
“Kemo Jaiteh’s testimony confirmed that the accused were not found with cocaine or any controlled substances. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged that the arrest was based on suspicion rather than evidence of actual possession.”
Regarding the prosecution’s claim about a shared Passenger Name Record (PNR), Justice Jaiteh dismissed it as inadequate to prove a criminal conspiracy. “the assertion that the accused presented a singular Passenger Name Record (PNR) does not substantiate a criminal conspiracy.”
In his final ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated: “Therefore, after due consideration of the arguments presented, I find that the prosecution has not laid a prima facie case against Vilma Cabral Roel, Ana Patricia Dos Santos Furtado, Simara Nadiya Martins, and Miriam Maria Mendes. I hereby accept the defence’s submission of no case to answer and acquit and discharge the 1st to the 4th Accused persons on all counts.”
However, Justice Jaiteh reached a different conclusion with respect to the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th accused—namely, Seedy Ceesay, Lamin Ceesay, Yaya K. Jatta, Modou Bojang, and Muhammed Jallow. He held that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against them, warranting that they open their defence.
In delivering his ruling, Justice Jaiteh carefully assessed the evidence against each of the five accused individuals.
Seedy Ceesay:
Justice Jaiteh noted that Seedy Ceesay claimed he was acting on a telephone instruction when he handed over three pieces of luggage and €21,000 in cash to Lamin Ceesay. However, the judge emphasized that Ceesay’s inability to provide further clarification casts serious doubt on his account and suggests potential involvement in a broader conspiracy.
Lamin Ceesay:
The judge pointed out that Lamin Ceesay, as an airport employee, played a central role in the operation. His communications with Seedy Ceesay and the subsequent transfer of hand luggage and €40,000 to Yaya Jatta, demonstrate not only his knowledge of but also his active participation in the illicit scheme.
Yaya K. Jatta:
Serving as an aviation security officer, Yaya K. Jatta’s actions were especially troubling in the context of airport safety. By recruiting Modou Bojang and coordinating the transfer of items with known illicit contents, Jatta implicated himself and orchestrated the involvement of others, indicating a leading role in the conspiracy.
Modou Bojang:
According to the judgment, Modou Bojang was recruited by Jatta to transport luggage he knew contained illegal substances. His clear acknowledgment of the task and his acceptance of a financial reward following a conversation with Jatta further reinforce the coordinated nature of the operation.
Muhammed Jallow:
As an airport security officer, Muhammed Jallow was entrusted with upholding security protocols. Yet his failure to act upon discovering the illegal contents of the luggage—along with his improper negotiations over a bribe—reflects a serious breach of duty and aligns with the broader pattern of complicity uncovered in this case.
Justice Jaiteh concluded that the testimonies of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th accused revealed a coordinated effort to violate drug prohibition laws. He stated that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case, requiring the accused to open their defence.
“The detailed accounts provided by the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th accused persons demonstrate a coordinated effort toward the contravention of prohibited drug laws…the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case that necessitates the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th accused persons to present a defence against the charges laid against them.”
As a result, Justice Jaiteh ordered Seedy Ceesay, Lamin Ceesay, Yaya K. Jatta, Modou Bojang, and Muhammed Jallow to stand trial to answer to charges of dealing in prohibited drugs and conspiracy.