Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The National Assembly on Tuesday appeared before the High Court in Banjul in response to a suit filed by Sergeant Adama Jagne, who is challenging his arrest and detention for contempt following his summons to testify before a parliamentary Special Select Committee probing the sale and disposal of assets identified by the Janneh Commission.
Sgt. Jagne’s application is filed against the Gambia Armed Forces as 1st Respondent, the Clerk of the National Assembly as 2nd Respondent, and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice as 3rd Respondent.
He is seeking a declaration that his arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful, as well as compensation of D2.2 million and legal costs.
The proceedings marked a milestone for the legislature, as it was the first time the National Assembly was represented in court by its newly established Legal Department.
The Assembly’s legal team, led by Counsel Lamin M. Dibba and assisted by Counsel Aji Sainey Kah and Counsel Amadou Bah, raised preliminary objections challenging the validity of the court processes served on the Assembly.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent objected to the service of the amended Originating Summons, arguing that Section 22 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act bars the service of civil court processes on the Assembly while it is in session.
He submitted that the amended summons was served during the Assembly’s ongoing Budget Session, rendering the service improper.
Dispute around the amended summons
Principal State Counsel Abdulmuhsin Abubakar Wakawa, representing the 1st and 3rd Respondents, told the court that while they had been duly served with the original summons, they were not aware of any court order granting leave to amend the process.
Presiding Judge Justice Sonia Akinbiyi K.J.W. questioned whether the objections amounted to mere technicalities, remarking that “courts are tired of technical issues.”
In response, counsel for the National Assembly maintained that the provision relied upon was constitutionally significant, aimed at safeguarding the doctrine of separation of powers and ensuring that the legislature is not distracted from its core functions during sittings.
Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents also argued that the applicant had improperly filed an amended process without the court’s permission, questioning the motive behind the amendment. He further noted that Sgt. Jagne was absent from court to clarify the matter.
In her ruling, Justice Akinbiyi held that the court would only address the substantive issues once the applicant appears in person.
She disclosed that Sgt. Jagne had written to the court stating that he was attending another High Court matter, a justification the judge dismissed as “frivolous and lame,” noting that he had previously been given the opportunity to select an alternative date and time.
The court awarded costs of D5,000 each to the 1st and 3rd Respondents and D5,000 to the 2nd Respondent, to be paid on or before the next adjourned hearing scheduled for 13 April 2026 at 11:00 a.m.
