The Bundung High Court has declared the continued detention of Abdou Jawo for more than two years without trial unconstitutional. Justice Isatou Janneh ruled that the prolonged incarceration violated his constitutional rights to personal liberty and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Justice Janneh, delivering the ruling, found that Jawo had remained in custody since May 2024 without his criminal case progressing to trial, while the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that his detention had been continuously authorised by a valid judicial order.

The court consequently admitted Jawo to bail, while ordering the Office of the Attorney General to take immediate steps to regularise the criminal proceedings against him. Jawo had brought the matter before the High Court through an Originating Summons dated and filed on 11 June 2026, challenging what he described as his unlawful detention for two years and one month without trial.

He asked the court to declare his continued detention unlawful and unconstitutional and sought an order for his unconditional release. Alternatively, he asked to be released on bail upon entering into a recognisance, with or without sureties. The case arose from Jawo's arrest in March 2024 in connection with an allegation of robbery with violence.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

Following police investigations, he was brought before the Magistrates' Court on 15 May 2024, where he pleaded not guilty to the allegation and was remanded in custody. But the detention that followed extended far beyond the period covered by the remand warrant placed before the High Court.

Justice Janneh noted that the remand warrant showed that Jawo's detention had been authorised only until 15 August 2024. There was, however, no evidence before the court that the warrant was subsequently renewed or replaced by another judicial order authorising his continued detention.

Jawo told the court that since his remand he had never been brought to trial and had remained continuously in custody for more than two years. The prosecution did not file an affidavit in opposition to his application. Instead, the application was opposed through oral submissions by counsel for the respondent.

During the hearing, the prosecution did not dispute the length of Jawo's detention. Counsel also acknowledged that the Office of the Attorney General had not yet filed an information against Jawo and that the matter had never been mentioned before the High Court.

The delay, the court heard, was attributed to administrative difficulties in securing the case file. The prosecution asked the court for additional time to file the necessary information. Counsel also argued that because the allegation against Jawo involved robbery with violence, any bail granted should be subject to stringent conditions.

But the court was not persuaded that administrative difficulties could justify keeping an accused person in custody for more than two years without the prosecution taking the necessary steps to commence the case before the High Court.

Justice Janneh placed the right to personal liberty at the centre of the court's consideration. She highlighted the protection provided by Section 19 of the Constitution, which protects individuals from deprivation of liberty except in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

The judge also referred to Section 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees an accused person the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial court. The court stressed that these protections are not merely procedural safeguards but substantive constitutional rights designed to protect individuals against arbitrary and prolonged detention by the State.

In considering Jawo's application, Justice Janneh also emphasised the fundamental principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The seriousness of an allegation, the court made clear, does not remove that presumption.

The court found that Jawo had placed sufficient evidence before it showing that he had remained in custody since May 2024 without his case proceeding to trial. That evidence, the court observed, had not been challenged by the prosecution through a counter-affidavit.

"Affidavit evidence which is not challenged by a counter-affidavit is generally deemed admitted unless inherently incredible," the Court noted.

The absence of a counter-affidavit was particularly significant because the prosecution did not dispute the central facts relied upon by Jawo in seeking his release. The court also considered the prosecution's own admission that no information had been filed against Jawo and that the matter had never been mentioned before the High Court. According to the ruling, those admissions provided further support for Jawo's complaint that there had been no meaningful prosecutorial progress in the case.

The prosecution had explained the delay by referring to difficulties in securing the case file. But the court rejected that explanation as a sufficient basis for continued detention. While acknowledging the difficulties raised by the prosecution, Justice Janneh held that administrative inefficiency or institutional delay could not justify prolonged deprivation of liberty.

The State, according to the court, has a constitutional obligation to prosecute criminal cases diligently. An accused person cannot be kept in prison indefinitely while the prosecution attempts to organise its internal processes. The court therefore treated the delay not simply as an administrative matter but as an issue affecting Jawo's constitutionally protected rights. The court also rejected the argument that the seriousness of the alleged offence could, by itself, justify Jawo's continued detention.

Robbery with violence is a serious criminal allegation and carries severe punishment upon conviction. But the court stressed that the seriousness of an allegation cannot replace the constitutional requirement for diligent prosecution.

Jawo remains an accused person and has not been convicted of the offence. The court consequently found that his detention for more than two years without trial amounted to an unjustifiable infringement of his constitutional rights to personal liberty and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.

Despite finding that Jawo's constitutional rights had been violated, Justice Janneh declined to order his unconditional release. The court held that the constitutional violation did not extinguish the allegations against him.

The State remained entitled to pursue the criminal proceedings, provided that it did so in accordance with the law and within the requirements of the Constitution. The court therefore considered bail to be the appropriate remedy. The decision allows Jawo to regain his liberty while giving the State an opportunity to regularise the criminal proceedings against him.

Justice Janneh admitted Jawo to bail subject to a number of conditions. He is required to enter into a recognisance of D500,000. He must also provide a Gambian surety in the same amount. The surety is required to swear an affidavit of means to the satisfaction of the Principal Registrar of the High Court.

The surety must also deposit a valid national identity card or passport with the Principal Registrar. As part of the bail conditions, Jawo must report to the nearest police station to his residence once every two weeks until otherwise ordered by the court. He must attend court whenever required. He is also required to remain in The Gambia and cannot leave the country without the permission of the court.

The High Court also ordered the Office of the Attorney General to take immediate steps to regularise the prosecution. The court set a 30-day deadline for the prosecution to file the necessary information. If no information is filed within 30 days from the date of the ruling, Jawo must be released from custody forthwith, unless his continued detention is authorised before then by a valid order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The order places a clear deadline on the prosecution while preserving the State's ability to proceed with the criminal case. The court further directed that once Jawo complies with the bail conditions, he is to be released immediately unless he is otherwise lawfully detained.

The ruling therefore brought an end to Jawo's more than two-year detention without trial, subject to his compliance with the conditions imposed by the High Court and any lawful steps subsequently taken by the prosecution.