Two Convicted of Armed Robbery, Conspiracy; High Court Imposes 10-Year Sentence

By Staff Reporter

The High Court, presided over by Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, has convicted two young men, Lamin Sandeng and Ebrima Jallow, on charges of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit a felony, sentencing each to an effective term of ten years’ imprisonment.

The court found both accused persons guilty on both counts following a full trial in which they denied the charges, alleged police brutality, and claimed they did not know each other. However, their own pre-trial statements placed them together at the scene of the crime and detailed their respective roles in the commission of the offence.

Justice Jobarteh sentenced each convict to ten years’ imprisonment on the robbery charge and four years on the conspiracy charge, ordering that the sentences run concurrently. The sentences were backdated to 7 October 2022, the date on which the convicts were first remanded in custody.

The State was represented by Counsel A. Badjie, while Counsel C. Uduma appeared for the defence.

The accused persons were arraigned on two counts: conspiracy to commit a felony, contrary to Section 368 of the Criminal Code, and robbery, contrary to Section 272 and punishable under Section 273(2).

The prosecution alleged that on 30 September 2022 in Serekunda, the accused conspired to rob one Ebou Njie of his mobile phones and cash. It was further alleged that, while armed with a knife, they robbed him of a Tecno Pop 3 phone, a Nokia/Microsoft Windows phone, D5,040 in cash, an identity card, and a voter’s card.

Both accused persons pleaded not guilty.

To establish its case, the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including the recovered phone, the knife allegedly used in the robbery, and the cautionary and voluntary statements of both accused persons.

The complainant, Ebou Njie, testified that he was attacked at night while returning home. He told the court that one assailant grabbed him by the neck while the other restrained his arm, during which his belongings were forcibly taken. One of the attackers was armed with a knife.

A police patrol team later arrested the accused persons at City Pub following a tip-off. During investigations, both accused persons made statements admitting involvement in the robbery. Stolen property was subsequently traced and recovered from a third party to whom it had been sold.

In their defence, both accused persons denied involvement in the crime and alleged that their statements were obtained through coercion and police brutality.

Lamin Sandeng testified that he was arrested at his home, assaulted by police officers, and forced to sign documents under duress. He maintained that he did not know his co-accused and was not present at the scene of the crime.

Ebrima Jallow similarly denied the allegations, stating that he was mistakenly identified and arrested while returning from an errand. He also claimed he was beaten and forced to thumbprint documents. He insisted that he had never met the first accused prior to their appearance in court.

In her judgment, Justice Jobarteh reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing Woolmington v DPP and Gambian appellate authorities.

On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that the coordinated actions of the accused before, during, and after the robbery demonstrated a clear common purpose and prior agreement. The court found that their conduct—restraining the victim, jointly fleeing the scene, and sharing proceeds—was consistent with a joint criminal enterprise.

The court attached significant weight to the cautionary statements of the accused, noting that both independently placed themselves together at the scene and described the execution of the robbery in strikingly similar terms. These statements were corroborated by the recovery of stolen items and other prosecution evidence.

Addressing allegations of coercion, the court noted that a voir dire had been conducted and found that the statements were made voluntarily and in compliance with the law. Justice Jobarteh held that the defence failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate claims of police brutality.

On the robbery charge, the court found that all elements of the offence were established, including the use of violence and the presence of a weapon. The complainant’s testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, demonstrated that the accused used force to facilitate the theft.

In mitigation, defence counsel urged the court to consider the youthfulness of the convicts—aged 29 and 22—along with their status as first-time offenders and their family responsibilities.

While acknowledging these factors, Justice Jobarteh emphasized the seriousness of the offences, noting that robbery constitutes a grave violation of both property rights and personal security.

However, the court also recognized the potential for rehabilitation, observing that young offenders may benefit from reformative sentencing.

Accordingly, each convict was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for conspiracy and ten years for robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an effective term of ten years.

The court further ordered that the sentences take effect from 7 October 2022 and informed the convicts of their right to appeal.