Courtesy of Kexx News
Justice Jaiteh of the High Court of Banjul has ruled in favour of Kumba Sinyan, declaring her detention in the convict wing of Mile 2 unlawful and a violation of her constitutional rights.
Kumba Sinyan, through her lawyer Sagarr C.T. Twum, filed a motion on December 5, 2024, seeking a declaration that her imprisonment in the convict section of the Female Wing of the Mile Two Central Prisons was unconstitutional and any other orders the Court may deem fitting.
The Motion stated that the transfer violated Section 36(2)(a) of the Prisons Act, which mandates the separation of remand prisoners from convicted criminals.
The motion was supported by an affidavit consisting of five paragraphs, along with a series of exhibits marked as "ACJ 1 to 7." The State opposed the motion, filing an opposing affidavit containing 21 paragraphs on December 6, 2024, along with one document marked as "R1" on January 19, 2025.
Kumba Sinyan's counsel provided a reply affidavit comprising 19 paragraphs. The State then filed an opposing affidavit of eight paragraphs, along with three documents marked as K1, K2, and K3, respectively.
In the oral arguments, Counsel Sagarr challenged her client's imprisonment in the convict section of Mile 2 Central Prison, arguing that Kumba Sinyan, as a remand prisoner, should be housed separately from convicted prisoners. She contended that the proper legal procedures were not followed during the change of Kumba's status and asserted that prison authorities do not have the authority to change the status of a remand prisoner as a convicted individual without a court order.
State Counsel M. Sanyang responded, arguing that the transfer was necessary to alleviate overcrowding in the remand section and that appropriate procedures were followed, citing sections of the Prison Act and the Constitution. She also pointed out that Kumba Sinyan had been involved in altercations and violations of prison rules.
Counsel Sagarr further argued that the process of charging Kumba within the prison system was flawed, as she was not given a proper hearing or allowed to defend herself before the transfer.
State Counsel contended that Kumba was not moved to the convict section but rather to a separate area created specifically to decongest the remand wing. She added that prison authorities acted within their legal powers under Section 17(2) of the Constitution, which permits certain restrictions on individual rights in the public interest.
Counsel M. Sanyang also asserted that Kumba violated prison rules under Section 62 of the Prisons Act by engaging in altercations with other inmates, which constituted a security risk and justified the decision to relocate her.
She further claimed that Kumba Sinyan was lawfully charged within the prison system for violating prison rules and that the transfer was part of managing her behaviour rather than a form of punishment. M. Sanyang insisted that the movement was administrative and necessary for maintaining order within the prison.
Counsel Sagarr challenged the authenticity of the prison records, particularly Exhibit R1, which documented the charges and transfer decision. She argued that the document contained alterations that sought to show that Kumba was not in the convict section.
Moreover, she highlighted inconsistencies in the records, such as missing signatures and alterations, she claimed that the document was manipulated to justify the transfer.
Justice Jaiteh, in his decision, stated he had carefully reviewed the motion papers, supporting affidavits, and attachments with great interest. He posed the question: "Was the applicant, a remand prisoner who had not yet been convicted, unlawfully placed in the convict section of the prison?"
Justice Jaiteh explained that the legal framework governing the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prisons Act, both of which mandate a clear separation between remanded and convicted prisoners.
He emphasized that the court needed to determine whether Kumba's constitutional rights were violated due to her transfer and whether the prison authorities acted within their legal powers. He added that the case raised broader concerns about the treatment of detainees and the extent of discretion prison administrators have over the housing of prisoners.
Justice Jaiteh highlighted that Kumba Sinyan had been charged with murder, a non-bailable offence under the law. Initially, she was held in the remand section of the prison while awaiting trial but was later transferred to the convict section, allegedly as a form of punishment or due to overcrowding in the remand section.
He pointed out that the transfer, according to Kumba Sinyan, violated Section 36(2)(a) of the Prisons Act, which mandates the separation of remand prisoners from convicted criminals. The action also breached her constitutional rights, including her right to liberty and a fair hearing as provided for in Sections 19 and 24(3) of the 1997 Constitution and International legal instruments also support the rights.
Justice Jaiteh said he reviewed Exhibit R1 and concluded that its discrepancies raise serious questions about record-keeping within the prison system and the potential abuse of authority. He noted that the prison authorities at Mile 2 Central Prison displayed a blatant disregard for due process and fundamental human rights.
Justice Jaiteh indicated that Kumba was not given a fair hearing before any disciplinary actions were taken, violating her right to procedural fairness. He said the inconsistencies in the official records highlighted a deliberate attempt to cover up administrative failures and justify unlawful actions.
He emphasized that imprisoning Kumba Sinyan in the convict section as a remand prisoner violated her constitutional rights to the presumption of innocence and fair hearing under section 24(3) of the Constitution and also contradicted the principle of separating remand prisoners from convicted criminals, as stated in the 1997 Constitution.
Justice Jaiteh condemned the actions of the prison authorities and highlighted the systemic failures in their processes. He deemed that the application had merit, which should set a precedent to prevent future arbitrary decisions, ensuring the protection of detainees’ rights.
He ruled that Kumba's imprisonment in the convict section was unlawful. Justice Jaiteh recommended that the Gambia Prison Service align its disciplinary procedures with international best practices, specifically the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
Additionally, prison officials should receive training on human rights standards and record-keeping, with independent oversight bodies established to monitor prison administration and investigate allegations of abuse.
Justice Jaiteh ordered that the ruling be served to the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Interior, the Inspector General of Police, and the Director General of Prisons for consideration to prevent future violations.
Copyright © 2025 Kexx News.
Follow Everyone Comment Fans @highlight #courtreporting #thenationeye #factualnews
No comments:
Post a Comment