The appellants—Serign Mass Gaye, Samba Ceesay and Muhammed Bah—had challenged both their convictions and sentences handed down on 20 August 2025 by Senior Magistrate Isatou Jallow. Filing their petitions from Mile 2 Central Prison on 17 September 2025, they sought leniency and reductions in their custodial terms. Their appeals were later amended by defence counsel Lamin A. Ceesay.
For judicial efficiency, the High Court consolidated the three appeals, which arose from the same incident and raised similar legal issues.
The Convictions and Sentences
Serign Mass Gaye was convicted of unlicensed driving and reckless and dangerous driving. He received a fine of D1,000 and three months’ imprisonment with hard labour for driving without a licence, plus a fine of D25,000 and three years’ imprisonment with hard labour for reckless driving.
Samba Ceesay was convicted of reckless and dangerous driving, fined D25,000 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Muhammed Bah was convicted of unauthorised use of tinted glass and reckless driving. He was fined D20,000 for the tinted glass offence, with two years’ imprisonment in default of payment, and fined D25,000 with a three-year custodial sentence for reckless driving.
Defence Arguments
Counsel Lamin A. Ceesay argued that the sentences were excessive, stressing that the appellants were first-time offenders who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He urged the court to substitute custodial sentences with fines, suspended sentences, or community service, warning that imprisonment could jeopardise the future of the first appellant, a student.
The defence maintained that the trial magistrate placed undue emphasis on deterrence and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors.
Prosecution’s Position
State Counsel M. Sarr, assisted by N. F. Njie, opposed the appeals, insisting that reckless and dangerous driving poses a grave threat to public safety and so the sentences were justified.
The High Court’s Ruling
Justice Jaiteh ruled that since the appellants had pleaded guilty, the High Court’s role was limited to reviewing whether the sentences were lawful or excessive under Section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025.
He found that the sentences fell well within the statutory limits of the Motor Traffic Act, which allows up to five years’ imprisonment for reckless driving. The judge noted that the trial magistrate had considered mitigating factors but rightly balanced them against the seriousness of the offences.
Court records revealed that the appellants engaged in stunt driving that disrupted traffic, damaged vehicles, and caused distress to the public.
Justice Jaiteh stressed that reckless driving is a growing menace in The Gambia, responsible for numerous accidents, injuries and deaths.
“The courts cannot ignore the growing menace of reckless and dangerous driving in this country,” he declared, adding that public roads are shared spaces where pedestrians, families and schoolchildren deserve safety.
Concluding, Justice Jaiteh held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any error of law or manifest excess in sentencing. The High Court therefore dismissed the consolidated appeals and affirmed both the convictions and sentences.
The judgment sends a clear message: reckless and dangerous driving will not be tolerated. The judiciary, Justice Jaiteh emphasised, will continue to enforce the law firmly to protect lives and ensure public safety.
