Sergeant Jagne’s suit was filed against three respondents: the Gambia Armed Forces as the 1st Respondent, the Clerk of the National Assembly as the 2nd Respondent, and the Attorney General and Minister for Justice as the 3rd Respondent. He is asking the court to declare his arrest and detention unlawful and is seeking D2.2 million in compensation along with legal costs.
Wednesday’s proceedings were notable as they marked the first time the National Assembly appeared in court represented by its own Legal Department. The Assembly’s team, led by Counsel Lamin M. Dibba, with Counsels Aji Sainey Kah and Amadou Bah, raised objections over how the Assembly was served with court documents.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent objected to the service of the amended Originating Summons, arguing that under Section 22 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, civil court processes cannot be served on the National Assembly while it is in session. The court was told that at the time the amended summons was served, the Assembly was sitting during its Budget Session.
Principal State Counsel Abdulmuhsin Abubakar Wakawa, representing the 1st and 3rd Respondents, informed the court that while they were properly served with the original Originating Summons, they were unaware of any application seeking the court’s permission to amend the process.
Presiding Judge, Justice Sonia Akinbiyi K.J.W, questioned whether the objections raised were merely technical, remarking that “courts are tired of technical issues”.
In response, Counsel for the National Assembly argued that the provision cited was not a mere technicality but one designed to protect the constitutional principle of separation of powers. He told the court that when the National Assembly is sitting, its primary duty is lawmaking and representation, and that the issue, though appearing technical, was constitutionally important.
Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents also stressed the seriousness of the matter, arguing that the applicant had filed an amended process without first obtaining the court’s leave. He added that the purpose of the amendment was unclear, particularly as the applicant was not present in court to explain it.
In her ruling, Justice Akinbiyi directed that the court would wait for the applicant’s appearance before addressing the issues raised. She noted that the applicant had written to the court explaining that he was appearing before another High Court in a different matter. However, the judge held that since the applicant had earlier been granted the opportunity to choose a different date and time, the claim of a clash was “frivolous and lame”.
The court consequently awarded costs of D5,000 to the 1st and 3rd Respondents and an additional D5,000 to the 2nd Respondent. The amounts are to be paid on or before the next adjourned date, set for 13 April 2026 at 11:00 a.m.
