The High Court in Bakau has suspended proceedings in the murder trial of Kumba Sinyan, pending a decision from the Supreme Court. In a ruling delivered by Justice Adenike J. Coker, the court granted the State’s application to halt the trial until the Supreme Court determines the validity of the High Court’s Practice Directions 1 of 2013 and 2019.
On May 7, 2025, State prosecutors R. Duanda and M. Sanyang filed the application seeking to stay the trial while a writ invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is considered. The writ challenges the application of Directions 5(3) of the 2013 Practice Directions and the 2019 Practice Directions of the High Court.
The suspension arose after the defence counsel, S. Twum, applied for the case to start afresh following its transfer from Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh to Justice Coker. The High Court had earlier ruled that the trial should begin de novo (anew) under the High Court’s procedural rules.
Following that decision, the Attorney General’s Chambers swiftly appealed to the Supreme Court and sought a stay of proceedings at the High Court level. Defence counsel Mrs. S. Twum opposed the application for a stay.
In support of its application, the State submitted a seven-paragraph affidavit sworn by Yassin Senghore, a clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers, accompanied by two exhibits. The State also filed a reply affidavit from Fatou Waggeh, another legal clerk, with three supporting exhibits. The defence countered with a five-paragraph affidavit in opposition, sworn by Adama Cooper Jah, an Administrative Secretary at S. C. T. Twum’s chambers, with three attached exhibits.
Justice Coker acknowledged that the High Court had previously ordered a fresh trial to commence on April 2, 2025, but noted that the State’s challenge before the Supreme Court not only contests this ruling but also seeks to test the validity of the Practice Directions themselves.
“The central issue here is whether the High Court should proceed with the trial de novo,” Justice Coker stated. “If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the State, the trial would have to continue from where the previous proceedings left off, rendering a new trial unnecessary. However, if the State’s appeal fails, the court would be free to proceed with a fresh trial.”
In granting the stay, Justice Coker considered key factors, including the competence of the appeal, the presence of special or exceptional circumstances, and the balance of convenience. She concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured the State, noting that it would be unfair to require the prosecution to restart the case and call witnesses, only to potentially reverse the process if the Supreme Court later rules in their favour.
Justice Coker recognised the delays the stay would cause, particularly given that over 10 witnesses had already testified and numerous exhibits had been admitted, while the accused remains in custody on a capital offence. However, she described this as an “unfortunate sacrifice the defence will have to make” to prevent further procedural setbacks.
“It is prudent to avoid taking one step forward and two steps backward,” she said, adding that it was “meet and just” to pause proceedings until the Supreme Court provides clarity on how the case should proceed.
Justice Coker ultimately found merit in the State’s application and granted the stay of proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s determination.