Justice Sanneh orders convict to be deported after serving 10-year jail term

In his ruling, Justice Sanneh, said: “Having heard the defense counsel plea in mitigation on behalf of the convict, and watched the demeanor of the convict throughout his trial, he appears to be remorseful of his action. Furthermore, the fact that the convict’s mother and the deceased’s mother are twin sisters, these I will put into consideration when handing down the sentence.”

“The punishment for the offence of manslaughter as per the provisions of section 189 of the Criminal Code is Life Imprisonment. The convict cannot be unpunished under the circumstances. However, I will show the human face of the law to the convict this time not to give him a long term custodial sentence. Consequently, I sentence the convict as follows; that he is hereby sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, that the sentence to start running the first day he was arrested and detained (i.e. 24th May 2018) and that he be deported to Senegal his birth place upon serving his imprisonment term.” 

The accused person Bakary Jallow was arraigned for the offence of murder contrary to section 187 of the Criminal Code Cap 10 Volume 3 Revised Laws of The Gambia 2009. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The particulars of the offence alleged that the accused person on or about the 24th day of July 2020 at Yorro Berry Kunda (YBK) in the Central River Region (CRR) within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, caused the death of  one Alieu Sanyang, to wit: stabbing him with a screw driver causing his death; thereby committed an offence.

The prosecution called eight witnesses and tendered six exhibits namely: “A”, “B”. “C”  “D”, “O” and “O1” respectively whilst the accused testified for himself, called no witness and tendered one (1) exhibit  “Defense Exhibit 1” in his defense.

“I agreed with the defense that it was PW2, PW3 and the deceased who approached the accused to his vehicle on that fateful date. However, the question to ask and any answer thereto will guide this court whether the accused was provoked by the trio.”

“Relying on the named guided principles that the court should consider, I am not convinced that action of the trio especially PW3 and the deceased is obviously provocative as both the duo’s actions cannot be considered as provocative. Again, I don’t consider the provocative act to come from the deceased as I have already said his action were never provocative in the first place.”

“Assuming without conceding, one considers or terms any of the trio actions to be provocative to the accused, it will be the Ansumana Sanyang PW2 who kicked the deceased on his thigh and fell down but not the deceased herein. The accused retaliatory act which was instantaneous to the act reacted against from the said witness would have been justified had it was on the said witness but not the deceased Alieu Sanyang who was innocent.”

“Having stated the Legal Concept with co-existing elements in the defense of provocation, I am of the view that the act of the deceased was never obviously provocative as it never deprived the accused of self -control and the provocative act never came from the deceased.”

“From the above, I am not satisfied that the accused person, Bakary Jallow, was provoked and he lost his self-control in the process of his reaction towards the de cujus and this I shall hold as a fact. I shall accordingly resolve the issue of defense of Provocation against the accused person. “I shall accordingly hold that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.”