By Landing Ceesay
Kumba Sinyan, currently on trial for the alleged murder of her former fiancé, Momodou Lamarana Jallow, has filed a motion requesting the court to order a professional mental health or psychiatric assessment to evaluate her mental and psychological condition before she presents her defense.
A young entrepreneur, Kumba Sinyan faces charges of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code, Laws of the Gambia 2009. Prosecutors claim that on September 14, 2022, at The Friendship Hostel in Bakau, Kumba Sinyan intentionally caused the death of Lamarana Jallow by inflicting a fatal injury to his abdomen, an offense punishable by death under Section 188 of the Criminal Code, Laws of the Gambia 2009.
Representing Kumba Sinyan, Counsel Sagar C.T. Twum informed the court that the motion is filed in accordance with Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia, Section 29 of the Women’s Act 2010, and Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code Volume 3. Additionally, Counsel Twum presented a five-paragraph affidavit sworn by Dawda Sowe, a Legal Clerk at Harriet Martha (H.M.) N’dow Law Chambers, in support of the motion.
According to the affidavit, Kumba Sinyan complained of migraines and dizziness on April 15, 2024, prompting medical professionals at Mile 2 Central Prison to advise her to rest. Subsequent counseling sessions revealed that she is in a psychologically volatile state and exhibits signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The medical team recommended an urgent psychiatric evaluation by qualified professionals, as well as ongoing psychosocial support.
“Following this prognosis, she has also been informed by the medics at the Mile Two infirmary, who have been offering counseling to the accused person (Kumba Sinyan), that she is in a volatile state psychologically. The medics further indicated that the accused person is also showing signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and therefore she may not be fit to stand trial.
“As a result, they recommended that a psychiatric evaluation be carried out on the accused person as a matter of urgency by a qualified mental health professional in addition to ongoing psychosocial support. She (Counsel Twum) believes that the accused person does not have access to essential mental health services at Mile Two Prisons by qualified professionals, which she (Kumba Sinyan) has a right to since these are not available at the Mile Two Prisons,” Mr. Sowe said in the affidavit in support of the motion.
Counsel Twum argued that it’s crucial to determine whether Kumba Sinyan requires medical treatment or psychological support, the type of treatment needed, and where and when it should be administered. Furthermore, she emphasized the need to assess whether Mile 2 Prisons provide suitable conditions for Kumba Sinyan’s mental health, well-being, and welfare and whether special measures are necessary for her participation in the trial.
In response, Counsel Mammy Sanyang representing the state, objected to the application, citing previous efforts by the defense to secure mental and psychological support for the accused. However, Counsel Twum maintained the validity of the application.
“If my lady will be reminded of the order made on the last adjourned date. The defence made an application for the accused to secure mental and psychological support. In the affidavit of the defence, there are no averments that indicate that they make efforts to secure psychological and mental support for the accused. They have not made any averment to indicate that they have checked the accused person’s mental status,” Counsel Sanyang argued.
Counsel Sanyang argued that the prosecution also cited Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code in defense of the motion.
Counsel Sanyang also directed the court’s attention to the same section of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“My lord, we also rely on section 161 of the Evidence Act,” Counsel Sanyang submitted.
In reply to the state Counsel’s submission, Counsel Twum contended that Counsel Sanyang had completely misunderstood the application before the court, and she maintained her position on the matter.
Following arguments from both Counsels, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, granted the application for order.
“Counsel to the Accused Person has made an Application for the Accused to be medically examined to ascertain if she is fit for trial. Once such an Application is made, to clear any doubt and for the interest of justice, it is provident to grant the application. The Court cannot, in the circumstances, clear the assertions made unless the Accused is medically examined.