By Mariama Marong
The High Court in Bundung has ruled that the continued detention of a man for more than two years without trial was unconstitutional, saying the prolonged incarceration violated his rights to personal liberty and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Justice Isatou Janneh, delivering the ruling, however, rejected a request for the unconditional release of Mustapha Ceesay, who has been in custody since April 2024 after being charged with robbery with violence.
Instead, the court granted Ceesay bail subject to a series of strict conditions and ordered the Office of the Attorney General to take immediate steps to regularise the criminal proceedings against him.
The ruling followed an Originating Summons filed by Ceesay on 11 June 2026.
Ceesay told the court that he was arrested following allegations arising from a dispute with a taxi driver over the alleged robbery of the driver’s money. He denied involvement in the offence.
According to his affidavit, Ceesay was charged before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on 22 April 2024. He pleaded not guilty and was subsequently remanded at Mile II Central Prison.
He said that after his remand, he had not been brought before any court again.
Ceesay further told the court that efforts by a prison paralegal to trace his case file at the High Court Registry and the Attorney General’s Chambers had been unsuccessful.
The prosecution, represented by counsel W.M.K. Drammeh, did not file an affidavit challenging Ceesay’s account. Instead, the application was opposed through oral submissions by counsel.
Justice Janneh said the factual claims surrounding Ceesay’s prolonged detention therefore remained unchallenged.
The court accepted that Ceesay had remained in custody since April 2024 without his case progressing before a court.
The court also examined the remand warrant attached to Ceesay’s application and found what it described as a significant defect.
The warrant confirmed that Ceesay had been charged with robbery with violence under section 273(2) of the Criminal Code. However, the section requiring the court to specify the period for which he was to remain in custody had been left blank.
Justice Janneh held that the omission was not merely a procedural irregularity.
She said a remand warrant is the legal authority for depriving a person of liberty and must therefore be clear, precise and limited in duration.
According to the ruling, a remand order that does not specify the period of detention cannot reasonably be treated as authorising indefinite incarceration.
The court also found no evidence that further remand orders had been issued or that Ceesay had appeared before a competent court for the renewal of his detention.
Justice Janneh acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation against Ceesay but said the gravity of the charge could not, by itself, justify keeping an accused person in detention indefinitely when the prosecution had failed to advance the case for more than two years.
The judge stressed that constitutional protections apply to accused persons regardless of the seriousness of the allegations against them.
She also pointed to the presumption of innocence, which remains in place until an accused person is found guilty by a competent court.
The court therefore declared that Ceesay’s continued detention for more than two years without trial violated his constitutional rights to personal liberty and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under sections 19 and 24 of the Constitution of The Gambia.
Although the court found that Ceesay’s constitutional rights had been violated, Justice Janneh declined to order his unconditional release.
The judge said such an order would effectively determine the consequences of the pending criminal proceedings.
She held that the purpose of the constitutional proceedings was to protect Ceesay’s rights and not to determine whether he was guilty or innocent of the robbery allegation.
Instead, the court admitted him to bail under strict conditions.
Ceesay must enter into a recognisance of D500,000 and provide a Gambian surety in the same amount.
The surety must swear an affidavit of means to the satisfaction of the Principal Registrar of the High Court.
The court also ordered the surety to deposit valid national identification cards or passports with the Principal Registrar.
Under the bail conditions, Ceesay must report to the nearest police station to his residence once every two weeks.
He must also attend court whenever required and obtain permission from the court before leaving The Gambia.
The court further directed the Office of the Attorney General to take immediate steps to regularise the prosecution. Justice Janneh ordered that if no information is filed within 30 days from the date of the ruling, Ceesay must be released from custody.
The court, however, added that this would not apply if, before the expiry of the 30-day period, his continued detention is authorised by a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Justice Janneh also ordered that once Ceesay complies with the bail conditions, he must be released immediately unless he is otherwise lawfully detained.
The application was therefore allowed in part. The court declared Ceesay’s prolonged detention unconstitutional but rejected his request for unconditional release, granting him bail instead and giving the prosecution 30 days to regularise the criminal case.
