By Landing Ceesay
Counsel Sagar Thomas-Twum, representing Kumba Sinyan in her murder trial at the High Court of The Gambia, is set to face a disciplinary hearing with the General Legal Council (GLC) for defying an order from Hon. Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh.
The issue arose when Counsel Sagar refused to withdraw a question and instructed her client, Kumba Sinyan, not to answer questions posed by the court.
Kumba Sinyan, a young entrepreneur, is charged with murder under section 187 of the Criminal Code Revised Laws of The Gambia 2009. The prosecution alleges that on September 14, 2022, at The Friendship Hostel in Bakau, Sinyan fatally wounded Lamarana Jallow with an object, an offense punishable by death under section 188 of the Criminal Code Cap of the Laws of The Gambia 2009.
On June 26, 2024, Sinyan began her defense by recounting the events leading to Jallow’s death, eventually admitting to the killing but claiming it was in self-defense.
On July 30, 2024, during the continuation of her defense, Kumba’s lawyer, Sagar, requested that the court hand over her client’s phone so that telephone numbers could be searched to identify potential witnesses for the trial.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh approved the request after the Prosecution did not object.
Counsel Sagar then questioned Kumba Sinyan about a taxi driver she had mentioned in her testimony, asking her to provide the driver’s phone number and full name from her contacts.
Kumba Sinyan informed the court that the taxi driver’s name is Babucarr Mbye, and his Africell number is 76xxxxxxx.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh asked for the phone back and noted that the number Kumba provided was saved under a different name than Babucarr Mbye.
Kumba Sinyan clarified to Hon. Justice Jobarteh that she had saved the number under “Babucarr Taxi” rather than “Babucarr Mbye.”
Counsel Sagar inquired if Kumba Sinyan had mentioned a person named Ramou Sarr in her testimony.
Before Kumba could reply, the State’s lawyer, Counsel Mammy Sanyang, objected, stating that Kumba Sinyan had not referred to anyone named Ramou Sarr in her earlier testimony.
Counsel Sagar clarified that Kumba Sinyan had indeed mentioned Ramou Sarr while discussing her interactions with Demba Bah, the receptionist at the Friendship Hostel.
He also noted that Demba Bah had referenced Ramou Sarr in his own testimony.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh confirmed that Ramou Sarr was indeed mentioned in Kumba Sinyan’s testimony.
“Can you provide us with Ramou Sarr’s contact details?” Counsel Sagar asked Kumba.
Kumba then provided the court with both Ramou Sarr’s Qcell and Africell numbers. She saved her numbers as Ramsin Kobbo in the phone. The numbers Kumba gave are 37×××××× saved as Ramsin and 222××××× saved as Kobo.
“You are now in the middle of your defence, are there any people you would like to call as your witnesses that can help you in your defence?” Counsel Sagar asked. Kumba.
“Yes, Ramou Sarr, Awa Faal, Maimuna Njie,” Kumba told the court.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh then asked for the details of Awa Faal, just like Ramou Sarr but Kumba Sinyan’s Lawyer, Counsel Sagar disagreed with that request.
Counsel Sagar said revealing the contact details of Awa Faal as a potential witness might prejudice the defence of her client.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh insisted that the question be asked in an open court, and Kumba Sinyan should answer the question in an open court.
Counsel Sagar also told the court that Kumba Sinyan would not answer the question in an open court.
“You either withdraw the question or it is answered as it is. The names and phone numbers of the witnesses should be given in full. The accused has been mentioning the names of other people in open court. So why can’t she do the same with this one? What is wrong with this one?” Hon. Justice Jobarteh asked.
“Since the beginning of this trial, we have been treated unfairly. We have a very unusual defence in this court. It is the constitutional right of the accused to have a fair defence,” Counsel Sagar responded to Hon. Justice Jobarteh.
“If you feel or think that this court is depriving your client of her rights, you can go and appeal it. But you cannot tell this court what to do,” Hon. Justice Jobarteh told Counsel Sagar.
Counsel Sagar insisted that Kumba Sinyan would not answer the question, and she applied for an adjournment.
“Then at this point, I am applying for an adjournment so that we can go and advise ourselves on this matter,” Counsel Sagar responded.
“Counsel, I am not adjourning this case. Your client has been calling names including doctors since she started her defence. So what is stopping her from mentioning the details of this particular witness and their details? This is an open court, and it is either you withdraw your question or the accused (Kumba Sinyan) answer the question as it is in the court,” Hon. Justice Jobarteh told Counsel Sagar.
Counsel Sagar draws a comparison between the case of the Prosecution and the current matter before the court. She argued that the prosecution never applied to their witnesses to be called in an open court.
“My lady, the prosecution never comes to the court to apply to bring their witnesses in an open court. So why would you ask me to reveal the details of my witnesses in an open court? If I do that, anyone can call these witnesses, and it infringes their rights,” Counsel Sagar told the court.
In response to Counsel Sagar’s adjournment application, State Counsel Mammy Sanyang told the court that the defence had ample time to prepare their defence without any interference.
“Since the 26th of June, the defence has opened their case without any pressure. The phone was given to the defence for far too long, therefore they had ample time to go through the phone and take whatever they wanted. The defence did not take what they wanted from the phone until they tendered the phone into evidence. So it is very unnecessary for the defence to come and unnecessarily argue over the same phone they tendered into evidence. I think what the defence is doing right now is prejudicial to the matter,” Counsel Sanyang told the court.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh refused the adjournment application filed by Kumba Sinyan’s Lawyer and ordered for either Kumba to answer the question or the question be withdrawn by Counsel Sagar.
However, Kumba Sinyan’s Lawyer, informed the court that her client would not answer any question in court, and she would also not withdraw the question.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh then informed the court that she would stand for a recession.
After 10 to 15 minutes of stand down, Hon. Justice Jobarteh returned to the courtroom and adjourned the case.
However, before adjourning the case, Hon. Justice Jobarteh cautioned Kumba Sinyan’s Lawyer for disobeying her orders in an open court.
“Counsel’s refusal to obey the court orders is not only disrespectful but make me to question whether she is fit to be a legal professional. I want to order for the closure of the defence case, but I advised myself that the accused should not be punished for the action of her lawyer. Therefore, I will refer the case to the General Legal Council for disciplinary hearing and actions on this matter,” Hon. Justice Jobarteh informed the court.
Hon. Justice Jobarteh then adjourned the case to the 24th of October 2024.