The alleged offences relate to the 2004 killing of journalist Deyda Hydara, as well as the deaths of Ndongo Mboob and Haruna Jammeh.
“He is presumed innocent and murder is bailable under the new law,” according to his defence.
Moving the bail application, defence counsel S.K. Jobe argued that the accused was first arraigned and remanded at the magistrates’ court, and the case transferred due to the seriousness of the charges. He said that under the new Crimes Offences Act, murder is now a bailable offence, contrary to earlier legal frameworks.
“What we are asking from the court is respect for the accused person, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and those rights must be respected,” he submitted. “Until a bill of indictment is filed, he has the right to bail.”
Jobe insisted that granting bail was necessary to allow proper communication with his client and meaningful preparation for the defence.
He told the court that he had been denied access to Manjang at Mile 2 Prison.
He said he was instructed to first seek approval from “Security Adviser” before seeing his client; a requirement he described as unlawful and unprecedented.
“The family also made efforts to see him to assist in preparing our defence, but they too were denied access,” he said.
Director of Public Prosecutions A.M. Yusuf opposed the application, arguing that while the matter was transferred from the magistrates’ court due to its nature, the charges remain valid until replaced by an indictment.
He stressed that murder is not ordinarily bailable, and counsel’s application “is not tenable”.
“Yes, he is presumed innocent, but the offence is not bailable and the accused can be put in custody under the circumstances,” Yusuf told the court.
He added that investigators had attempted to engage Manjang, but the accused refused to speak, making it unclear whether he had requested legal representation.
He argued that issues surrounding prison access did not constitute legal grounds for bail.
In his reply on points of law, counsel Jobe maintained that the DPP’s position was incorrect under the current legal framework.
“The argument that murder is not bailable is not the law,” he said, insisting that the accused has an absolute right to see his lawyer and to remain silent. “The accused is under the custody of the court, and only the court can compel him to talk. He is innocent until proven guilty; therefore all his rights must be respected.”
In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh noted that the case was assigned to her court on 4 December 2025 and mentioned within the seven-day period required under High Court Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022. She observed that although the State had not yet filed a bill of indictment, the High Court could not operate purely on a “holding charge”.
However, she held that despite the absence of an indictment, the charges before the magistrates’ court were capital offences, and the defence had not satisfied the statutory conditions required for bail in such cases.
“I do not see the rights of the accused being infringed at this stage,” she ruled. “His detention was done in accordance with the law, and his case has been mentioned before the High Court within a reasonable time.”
Justice Jobarteh ordered the Director General of Prisons to grant counsel S.K. Jobe access to his client pending arraignment. She then gave the State until 12 January 2026 to file a bill of indictment.
The case was adjourned until 15 January 2026 for plea taking at 10 a.m.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
GTU reiterates its actions not politically motivated
Sep 16, 2022, 12:02 PM
