Sheriff Abba Sanyang, the first accused, faces charges of abuse of office, contrary to Section 90(1) of the Criminal Code, and giving false information to a public servant, contrary to Section 114(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The other accused persons Cherno Serending Sabally, Kalilu Sanyang, Bakary Gomez, Bakary Sanneh and Lamin Sabally are charged under Counts Three, Four, Five and Six with criminal trespass, contrary to Section 285A of the Criminal Code.
Counts Seven, Eight and Nine further allege that the accused falsely represented that the Kassa Kunda Village Development Committee owned the forfeited land, and with intent to defraud, obtained large sums of money from several companies.
According to the indictment, the co-accused allegedly obtained D12 million from Himfirm3 Company Ltd, D800,000 from Soninkara Real Estate, and D300,000 from Buildmatic Construction Ltd, after allegedly selling portions of the forfeited Kassa Kunda land under false pretences.
Following the taking of pleas, State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh applied for an adjournment to enable the prosecution to prepare its witnesses. He also requested that the accused persons be remanded in custody pending trial.
Counsel K. Sanyang, representing the first accused person, argued that the offences charged are bailable and urged the court to grant bail. He submitted that the Criminal Code had since been repealed and replaced by the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, suggesting that the charges should have been brought under the new legislation
Moreover, counsel Lamin J. Darboe, who represented the second to the seventh accused persons, also maintained that the offences were bailable and urged the court to grant bail on reasonable terms in line with Section 19 of the 1997 Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Counsel Darboe, however, disagreed with the argument that the charges should fall under the Criminal Offences Act, 2025.
He submitted that since the alleged offences occurred before the new law came into force, the applicable law remains the Criminal Code that was in force at the time.
He further argued that in relation to the amounts allegedly obtained in Counts Seven, Eight and Nine, the court should avoid imposing cumulative bail obligations on each accused person, as it would be disproportionate. Instead, he suggested that the total alleged amount should be reasonably divided among the accused.
For the prosecution, State Counsel Jobarteh informed the court that the State does not oppose bail, but urged the court to impose reasonable conditions to ensure the accused persons attend trial until judgment is delivered.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated that bail is generally the rule while detention pending trial is the exception, particularly where the offences charged do not carry penalties of death or life imprisonment. He noted that this principle is grounded in Section 19 of the 1997 Constitution, which protects personal liberty and upholds the presumption of innocence.
The court subsequently granted bail to the accused persons under the following conditions:
The 1st accused person, Sheriff Abba Sanyang, was admitted to bail in the sum of D1,000,000.
The 2nd to the 7th accused persons were each granted bail in the sum of D2,200,000.
Each accused person is required to provide one Gambian surety who must own landed property within The Gambia equivalent to or exceeding the bail amount.
The property must be valued by a government valuer or a recognised certified estate valuer, and the valuation report must be approved by the Principal Registrar of the High Court.
The case was adjourned until 20th April 2026.
