Prosecution Seeks to Withdraw Charges Against Jobarteh Amid Ongoing Investigations; Defence Alleges Forum Shopping

The prosecution on Tuesday applied to withdraw all charges against Abdul Wahab Jobarteh before the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, arguing that ongoing investigations have uncovered new facts that could lead to the filing of additional and potentially more serious charges.

The application was met with strong opposition from the defence, which accused the prosecution of acting in bad faith and engaging in forum shopping, urging the court to reject what it described as a frivolous and vexatious request.

The matter came before Principal Magistrate Krubally, with Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manga appearing for the Inspector General of Police and Counsel Adama Sillah representing the accused, who was present in court.

When the case was called, ACP Manga informed the court that the prosecution was seeking to discontinue proceedings pursuant to Sections 78(1), 78(2)(a), and 78(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Responding to questions from the court, ACP Manga stated that investigations remained active and that emerging evidence could necessitate the institution of further charges against the accused. He argued that withdrawing the current case would prevent procedural complications and avoid delays while investigators completed their work.

The prosecutor further submitted that the law permits the withdrawal of criminal proceedings and noted that such a withdrawal would not prevent the institution of fresh proceedings in the future. He therefore urged the court to grant the application and discharge the accused.

During submissions, Magistrate Krubally questioned the prosecution’s reliance on one of the statutory provisions cited in support of the application after ACP Manga conceded that the provision was not directly applicable to the circumstances of the case.

Opposing the application, Counsel Sillah argued that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any legitimate basis for withdrawing the charges and maintained that the application was motivated by improper considerations.

He rejected the prosecution’s assertion that more serious charges could emerge from ongoing investigations, noting that attempted murder—one of the counts already before the court—is among the most serious offences recognized under criminal law.

“There is no charge more serious than attempted murder in the circumstances presently before the court,” counsel argued.

Sillah further contended that the prosecution’s real objective was to transfer the matter to another court, describing the move as a clear case of forum shopping.

He informed the court that shortly after the accused was first arraigned before the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, he was taken before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court and charged separately with traffic-related offences, where bail was also granted.

The defence urged the court to take judicial notice of the Kanifing proceedings, arguing that the law does not permit litigation to be conducted piecemeal. According to counsel, all charges arising from the same set of facts should have been consolidated before a single court rather than divided between multiple jurisdictions.

Counsel Sillah also challenged the prosecution’s claim that investigations were still ongoing. He argued that once the accused had been formally charged and brought before the court, it was reasonable to conclude that investigations had been sufficiently completed to support prosecution.

“The prosecution cannot simultaneously maintain that investigations are incomplete while proceeding to arraign an accused person before a competent court,” he submitted.

The defence additionally expressed concern about the practical implications of granting the withdrawal application. Counsel argued that discontinuing the case could expose the accused to the risk of renewed detention, thereby undermining his constitutional right to liberty.

He reminded the court of its constitutional role as a guardian of fundamental rights and freedoms, urging Magistrate Krubally not to permit a process that could leave the accused vulnerable to indefinite uncertainty regarding his legal status.

According to the defence, Section 78 requires judicial consent before any withdrawal can take effect, and the court should withhold that consent where the application appears abusive or lacking in merit.

Counsel Sillah ultimately urged the court to reject the application and allow the case to proceed to hearing.

In reply, ACP Manga expressed surprise at the defence’s opposition, describing it as unusual for an accused person to resist the withdrawal of charges.

He maintained that Section 78 grants the court discretion to permit a withdrawal and argued that the defence’s reliance on constitutional liberty provisions was misplaced in the context of the application before the court.

The prosecutor urged the court to consider the authorities cited by the state and grant the application.

After hearing submissions from both parties, Magistrate Krubally reserved his ruling.

The matter was adjourned until 2 July 2026 at 1:00 p.m., when the court is expected to deliver its decision on whether the prosecution will be permitted to withdraw the charges against Mr. Jobarteh.