State Appeals Court Order Summoning Officials, Seeks Stay of Execution Pending Review

The Gambia government has filed an appeal and a motion for a stay of execution challenging a High Court ruling that ordered three senior government officials to testify in an ongoing trial.

In an application submitted on June 16, 2025, before Justice Jaiteh, the State requested that the enforcement of the June 10 ruling be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. The contested ruling had compelled the appearances of Government Spokesperson Ebrima G. Sankareh, Security Adviser Babucarr Jeng, and Deputy Inspector General of Police Modou Sowe.

The State’s motion, filed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, also seeks an order directing the court registry to expedite the transmission of case records to the Court of Appeal.

According to an affidavit supporting the application, filed by Fatou Waggeh, a clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers, the State is dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision in favor of Ousainou Bojang, the respondent in the matter. The State lodged its appeal on June 12, two days after the ruling.

The government contends that its appeal raises “substantial issues of law” and that its grounds are “substantial, arguable, and not frivolous.” It further argues that if the stay is denied, any success on appeal would be rendered meaningless.

The affidavit also maintains that the appeal has significant merit and that allowing the execution of the ruling would not serve the interest of justice. The State asserts that the balance of convenience favors granting the stay and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice should the request be granted.

The notice of appeal challenges the entire ruling, setting out four principal grounds:

Improper Summoning of Officials: The State argues that the trial judge erred in ordering public officials—who were neither involved in the investigation nor had provided statements—to testify. It claims the court failed to assess the necessity and evidential relevance of their testimonies.

Inadequate Consideration of Objections: The State contends that the judge did not properly analyze the submissions made by the counsel for the first accused and overlooked objections raised by the prosecution. It further argues that the judge incorrectly concluded that the officials possessed “vital information” without sufficient evidentiary basis.

Failure to Establish Evidentiary Value: The appeal asserts that the judge granted the application without requiring the respondents to explain what specific evidence the summoned officials would provide, thereby misapplying judicial discretion.

Erroneous and Perverse Ruling: The State maintains that the ruling is fundamentally flawed, ambiguous, and should be set aside.

In response, defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe filed an affidavit opposing the State’s motion for a stay. Sworn by Ebrima Charty, a clerk at Dabanani Law Chambers, the affidavit rejects the State’s arguments and characterizes the appeal as meritless and a tactic to delay proceedings.

The opposition contends that granting the stay would unjustly prejudice the first accused and that the State’s claims of potential harm are unfounded.

Justice Jaiteh is expected to rule on the State’s application on Tuesday, May 17th, 2025.