The Bundung High Court recently delivered a landmark ruling in a prolonged detention case, declaring the continued holding of a robbery-with-violence suspect for more than one year without trial to be unconstitutional. This significant decision shows the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental human rights. Justice Isatou Janneh, presiding over the case, subsequently granted the suspect, Omar Jallow, bail, albeit subject to a number of stringent conditions designed to ensure his appearance in court and compliance with legal proceedings. The ruling by Justice Janneh followed the submission of an Originating Summons, which Omar Jallow himself dated and filed on June 11, 2026, initiating the legal challenge against his prolonged incarceration.
Suspect's Challenge and Detention Details
Omar Jallow had initiated legal action to challenge his continued detention, specifically seeking a court order for his unconditional release or, alternatively, his release on recognizance. His application noted the extensive period he had spent in custody without the benefit of a trial. Authorities had initially arrested Jallow following allegations of robbery with violence, a serious charge that often carries significant penalties. Following his arrest, he was first detained at the Brusubi Police Station. Subsequently, he was brought before the Magistrates’ Court, which then ordered his remand at the Mile II Central Prison, the country's main correctional facility.
The remand warrant, a key document presented to the court during the proceedings, indicated that Jallow had been formally remanded on the robbery-with-violence charge until December 30, 2025. However, Jallow stated emphatically that he had remained in custody for more than one year without trial, a period far exceeding the initial remand order. He further claimed that this prolonged detention had adversely affected his health, specifically citing a deterioration in his eyesight. The Bundung High Court accepted Jallow’s evidence regarding his custody period without trial, noting that his claim was unchallenged by the prosecution, which failed to provide counter-evidence or an explanation for the extended detention. Crucially, the court noted that there was no evidence before it showing that the initial remand warrant, which expired on December 30, 2025, had subsequently been renewed or extended by any judicial authority. This absence of a valid, renewed warrant played a significant role in the court's determination of unconstitutionality.
Court's Constitutional Reasoning
The Bundung High Court, in its careful examination of the case, identified the central issue as whether Omar Jallow’s detention for more than one year and two months without trial violated his fundamental constitutional rights. This specific duration, exceeding one year and two months, was deemed critical in the court's assessment. During the proceedings, the court noted that no evidence had been presented by the State to demonstrate that Jallow’s initial remand warrant had been subsequently renewed or extended, leaving a significant legal vacuum regarding the justification for his continued imprisonment.
Justice Isatou Janneh, in delivering the court's judgment, referred to specific provisions of the Constitution of The Gambia, which serve as the supreme law of the land. Key among these were Section 19, which pertains to the fundamental right to personal liberty, and Section 24, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The court meticulously analyzed how Jallow's prolonged detention, unsupported by a renewed warrant and extending beyond a reasonable timeframe for trial, directly infringed upon these enshrined constitutional protections. The court determined that the prosecution’s administrative difficulties, which were cited as a reason for the delays, could not, on their own, justify the extended period of detention. Justice Janneh explicitly stated, "The prosecution’s administrative difficulties could not, on their own, justify prolonged detention." This declaration showed the principle that procedural challenges faced by the State cannot override or abrogate the fundamental constitutional rights of an individual. The court concluded that such administrative challenges, while perhaps legitimate in their own context, could not, under any circumstances, override fundamental constitutional rights, particularly those related to liberty and fair trial.
Despite finding the prolonged detention unconstitutional due to the clear violation of Jallow's rights, the court declined to order Jallow’s unconditional release. This decision was made after careful consideration of the serious nature of the robbery with violence allegation against him. The court acknowledged the need to balance the individual's constitutional rights with the public interest in ensuring justice for serious crimes.
State's Position and Bail Conditions
The State, represented in court by Counsel W.M.K. Drammeh, who was assisted by A.A. Cham, presented its arguments during the proceedings. Counsel Drammeh acknowledged the undeniable delay in the legal proceedings related to Omar Jallow’s case but nonetheless opposed the bail application through oral submissions. In his argument, Counsel Drammeh contended that Omar Jallow’s constitutional rights, while important, had to be carefully balanced against the broader public interest, particularly given the inherent seriousness of the robbery with violence charge. This argument noted the State's concern for public safety and the integrity of the justice system in handling grave offenses.
Despite this opposition from the State, Justice Janneh ultimately granted Jallow bail, albeit on a set of carefully stipulated conditions. These conditions included a recognizance of D500,000, requiring Jallow to formally acknowledge a debt to the court that would become payable if he failed to adhere to his bail terms. Additionally, he was required to provide a Gambian surety in the same amount, meaning a responsible Gambian citizen would vouch for his appearance and commit to paying D500,000 if Jallow absconded. Further conditions mandated that Jallow report to the police every two weeks, a measure designed to monitor his whereabouts and ensure his compliance with law enforcement. He is also strictly prohibited from leaving The Gambia without prior court permission, preventing any attempt to flee the jurisdiction.
In a move to ensure the State takes prompt action, the court granted the State a period of 30 days to file an indictment and regularise the proceedings against Jallow. This timeframe provides a clear deadline for the prosecution to formalize its charges and move the case forward. Pending the expiration of these 30 days, Jallow is to remain in custody, ensuring continuity while the State prepares its case. However, the ruling included a critical provision: if the State fails to file the indictment within the specified 30 days, Jallow is to be released forthwith, unless he is otherwise lawfully detained for a separate, unrelated reason. This conditional release mechanism serves as a powerful incentive for the State to act diligently and shows the court's commitment to preventing indefinite detention without formal charges. The ruling by the Bundung High Court thus sets a significant precedent regarding the constitutional limits of pre-trial detention in The Gambia.