Justice Isatou Janneh of the Bundung High Court recently ordered two sureties to pay D250,000 each after two accused individuals, whom they had guaranteed, absconded. The court issued the directive following the failure of the sureties to ensure the attendance of the accused persons, who are now at large. The absconded individuals were facing charges related to living on the earnings of prostitution, according to court documents. The two accused persons are presumed to be Nigerian nationals. This decision by the Bundung High Court mandates the sureties to fulfill their financial obligation, showing the serious responsibilities undertaken when guaranteeing an accused person's presence in court.
Sureties Held Liable
The ruling by Justice Janneh stemmed from an ex parte motion filed by the State on December 15, 2025. The motion specifically sought the forfeiture of recognizances executed by the sureties in the case. Each accused individual had been released on a recognizance of D500,000, which was secured by one Gambian surety. This substantial sum noted the gravity of the charges and the commitment required from those standing as surety. Fatou Jammeh acted as surety for the first accused person, while Saihou K. Sidibeh guaranteed the attendance of the second accused.
The accused had initially been granted police bail by the National Agency Against Trafficking in Persons (NAATIP) before their cases moved to the High Court. This initial stage involved the establishment of the recognizance agreements that would later become the subject of the court's forfeiture proceedings. Following the filing of an indictment, both accused persons disappeared and could not subsequently be located, leading to a significant legal challenge for their guarantors. The prosecution then applied to the High Court, requesting the sureties to provide an explanation as to why their recognizances should not be forfeited.
Fatou Jammeh's explanation, stating that she did not fully understand she had accepted liability for D500,000, was rejected by the court. The court firmly ruled that misunderstanding the legal consequences of signing a recognizance cannot invalidate a legally binding undertaking, particularly in the absence of fraud, coercion, or forgery. This ruling reinforced the principle that individuals must be fully aware of the commitments they make in legal proceedings. Saihou K. Sidibeh admitted to the court that he had never met the second accused before agreeing to stand surety for them at the request of counsel, a revelation that weighed heavily in the court's assessment of his diligence. The court found this lack of prior acquaintance to be a significant breach of the expected prudence from a surety.
Legal Basis and Mitigation
Justice Janneh ordered each surety to pay D250,000 to the State, remitting part of the initial D500,000 recognizance amount. This decision, while imposing a substantial penalty, also reflected the court's exercise of discretion in balancing justice with the circumstances presented. The court found Saihou K. Sidibeh did not follow the procedure outlined in Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, when acting as a surety. This section details the proper steps and responsibilities of sureties, which were evidently not adhered to in this instance.
Justice Janneh considered Sections 129 to 138 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, in her deliberations regarding the forfeiture of recognizances. These sections provide the full legal framework for bail, recognizances, and their forfeiture, guiding the court's decision-making process. Saihou K. Sidibeh had attempted to withdraw from his recognizance by returning to NAATIP, but this action did not fulfill the legal requirements for a formal and effective withdrawal. The court emphasized that withdrawal procedures must be followed strictly to be legally valid. Senior Counsel Sunmbo Akinbo voluntarily undertook to bear half of the financial liability for the second accused, contributing to the court's decision regarding the reduced payment. This intervention by Senior Counsel Akinbo was a mitigating factor that influenced the final amount ordered from Saihou K. Sidibeh.
Further details emerged regarding the sureties' circumstances. Fatou Jammeh’s father had intended to stand surety for the first accused but could not do so due to an expired passport, noting an unforeseen administrative hurdle that ultimately led to Fatou Jammeh taking on the responsibility. The court exercised its discretion under Section 136(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, to remit part of the penalties for both sureties. This section allows the court to reduce the amount of a forfeited recognizance if it deems it just to do so, considering all the circumstances of the case. Justice Janneh stated, "A prudent surety should know the accused person well enough to assess the risk of absconding, maintain contact with the accused and, where necessary, exercise such influence as may reasonably secure the accused’s attendance before the Court." This statement served as a strong reminder of the due diligence expected from anyone acting as a surety. The Bundung High Court ordered that the sums must be paid by instalments within 90 days, providing a structured payment plan for the sureties.
Case Status and Future Actions
The Bundung High Court issued warrants for the arrest of both accused persons following their disappearance. These warrants signify that the individuals are now officially fugitives from justice, and law enforcement agencies are authorized to apprehend them. Consequently, the criminal case was struck out due to the continued absence of the accused individuals, who remain at large. This administrative action means the current proceedings cannot continue without the accused present.
Pending payment of the ordered sums, both sureties were granted bail. Fatou Jammeh and Saihou K. Sidibeh were each admitted to bail in the sum of D250,000, with an accompanying requirement for one Gambian surety in a like amount. This interim measure allows them freedom while they arrange for the payment of their financial obligations.
The court also directed the Principal Registrar to transmit a certified copy of the ruling. This transmission is intended for the General Legal Council for consideration under Section 28(8) of the Legal Practitioners Act. This step indicates that the conduct of any legal professionals involved, particularly in how the sureties were engaged or advised, may come under review by the professional body.
The State retains the option to relist the matter or file a fresh indictment once the accused persons are arrested, according to court proceedings. This indicates that legal action against the absconded individuals can resume if they are apprehended, ensuring that the charges against them are not permanently dropped but merely suspended until their capture. The issuance of arrest warrants and the potential for future prosecution show the ongoing commitment to bringing the accused to justice.