Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The High Court has revised the timeline for the filing of written briefs in the criminal matter involving Ousainou Bojang and his sister, warning against further delays and fixing March 30, 2026, for judgment.
The case came up for the adoption of written addresses when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) informed the Court that the State was still within the time previously granted to file its brief.
The prosecution argued that it had been served with the defence brief “recently,” although no specific date of service was disclosed to assist the Court in verifying that claim. On that basis, the State maintained it was entitled to the full twenty-eight days earlier granted by the Court.
Defence Counsel, Mr. A. Sillah, countered that the matter is fundamentally the prosecution’s case and that the State, as prosecutor, ought to be fully seized of its own evidence and legal arguments. He submitted that the prosecution should not require additional indulgence before filing its address.
In a landmark ruling, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh underscored the purpose of written briefs within criminal proceedings, stressing that they are intended to promote fairness and efficiency—not delay.
“This Court must emphasize that the preparation and exchange of written briefs are not meant to cause delay but to promote a fair, efficient process,” Justice Jaiteh stated, warning against delays in delivering judgments, which undermine the constitutional requirement that trials be completed within a reasonable time.
“Justice delayed, especially in criminal cases, has consequences not only for the accused but also for victims, witnesses, and the public’s confidence in the justice system,” he added.
The judge cited the High Court Practice Direction of 2013, specifically Direction 1(5), which provides that where written addresses are ordered, they must be filed within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing, with each party taking a maximum of 14 days to file and serve on the opposing party.
In the present case, the hearing concluded on December 16, 2025. Justice Jaiteh noted that due to delays in the preparation of the records of proceedings, the Court had exercised its discretion to grant a 28-day period, already an enlargement beyond the 14 days contemplated for each party under the Practice Direction.
The Court acknowledged that the Court’s Audio Transcription (CAT) process was not completed within the expected timeframe, contributing to the delay.
However, with the defense having filed its brief and the State Law Office already in receipt of it and preparing its response, Justice Jaiteh ruled that it was both fair and necessary to amend the earlier timeline to prevent further delay in delivering judgment.
Accordingly, the previously allocated 28 days was varied. The State has now been ordered to file and serve its written brief within 14 days from the date of the ruling, falling on March 12, 2026.
The defense will have four days thereafter, until March 17, 2026, to file any reply strictly on points of law, if so advised.
The Court further ordered that all briefs filed, including the State’s forthcoming submission within the new deadline, shall be deemed duly adopted without the need for formal adoption in open court.
The matter was adjourned to Monday, March 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for judgment.
Justice Jaiteh made it clear that no further applications for extension of time would be entertained. He also directed all parties to file and exchange their respective lists of authorities on or before March 17, 2026.
The Court reiterated that compliance with procedural timelines is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental element of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and the efficient administration of justice.
