Gambiaj.com – (Bakau, The Gambia) – The High Court in Bakau has ordered a stay of proceedings in the murder trial of Kumba Sinyan, pending a crucial ruling from the Supreme Court on the applicability of key procedural rules guiding criminal trials.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Adenike J. Coker, follows a State application seeking to suspend the High Court’s proceedings until the Supreme Court determines whether certain High Court Practice Directions issued in 2013 and 2019 should apply to the case.

The application, filed by State counsels R. Duanda and M. Sanyang on May 7, 2025, argues that the Practice Directions — specifically Directions 5(3) of the 2013 directive and Direction 1 of the 2019 version — require clarification from the apex court.

The State is challenging a High Court decision to restart the trial de novo (anew) following a judicial transfer.

Justice Coker had earlier ordered the trial to begin afresh after the case was reassigned from Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh to her court. This order followed an application from defense counsel S. Twum, who argued that a fresh hearing was necessary due to the change in the presiding judge.

However, the Attorney General’s Chambers appealed Justice Coker’s de novo order to the Supreme Court and simultaneously filed a motion to halt further proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on the matter. Defense counsel Twum opposed the motion.

In support of the application, the State submitted a 7-paragraph affidavit from Yassin Senghore, a clerk at the Attorney General’s Chambers, and two supporting exhibits. An affidavit in reply was also filed by legal clerk Fatou Waggeh, along with three exhibits. The defense responded with a 5-paragraph affidavit from Adama Cooper Jah of Twum’s chambers and three exhibits.

Justice Coker explained that the central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court must begin the trial anew or resume from where the previous judge left off. “The State’s challenge at the Supreme Court aims to test not only this specific ruling but the practice directions themselves,” she said.

While recognizing that the accused remains in custody on a capital offense and that over 10 witnesses have already testified, Justice Coker reasoned that forcing the State to restart the trial now could result in unnecessary delays and complications if the Supreme Court later rules in their favor.

“This is an unfortunate sacrifice the defense will have to make,” Justice Coker noted, but added that it would be imprudent to take “one step forward and two steps backward.”

Citing the balance of convenience and the risk of prejudice to the State, the judge concluded that it was “meet and just” to await the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant procedural directions.

Accordingly, Justice Coker granted the State’s application, staying all High Court proceedings in the case until the Supreme Court delivers its ruling.