In order to analyse her mental and psychological state before to presenting her defence, Kumba Sinyan, who is presently on trial for the suspected murder of her former fiancé, Momodou Lamarana Jallow, has filed a motion asking the court to order a professional mental health or psychiatric examination.

Kumba Sinyan, a young businessman, is accused with murder in accordance with Section 187 of the 2009 Gambia Laws Criminal Code. The charge against Kumba Sinyan is that on September 14, 2022, at The Friendship Hostel in Bakau, he willfully injured Lamarana Jallow’s abdomen, causing his death. This offence is punishable by death under Section 188 of the Criminal Code, Laws of the Gambia 2009.

Counsel Sagar C.T. Twum represented Kumba Sinyan and told the court that the motion was filed in compliance with Sections 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code Volume 3, Section 29 of the Women’s Act 2010, and Section 24 of the Republic of the Gambia’s 1997 Constitution. Counsel Twum further supported the motion with a five-paragraph affidavit sworn by Dawda Sowe, a legal clerk at Harriet Martha (H.M.) N’dow Law Chambers.

The document states that on April 15, 2024, Kumba Sinyan complained of migraines and lightheadedness, which led medical staff at Mile 2 Central Prison to recommend that she take a break. She is in a psychologically unstable state and shows symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), according to subsequent counselling sessions. The medical team advised continued psychosocial support in addition to an immediate mental assessment by licenced specialists.

After receiving this diagnosis, she was also told that she was in a volatile psychological state by the medical staff at the Mile Two infirmary, who have been providing counselling to the accused (Kumba Sinyan). The accused individual may not be competent to stand trial because, according to the medical professionals, she is also exhibiting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Consequently, they suggested that in addition to continuing psychosocial treatment, the accused individual have an urgent psychiatric evaluation performed by a licenced mental health expert. In the affidavit supporting the motion, Mr. Sowe stated, “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.”
Counsel Twum maintained that it is imperative to ascertain whether Kumba Sinyan needs psychiatric counselling or medical attention, as well as the kind of care that is required and when and where it should be given. She also underlined the importance of determining whether Kumba Sinyan’s mental health, welfare, and well-being are adequately supported by Mile 2 Prisons and whether any further precautions are required for her to take part in the study.

The state’s attorney, Counsel Mammy Sanyang, objected to the application, pointing out that the defence had already made attempts to get the accused mental and psychological support. Counsel Twum, however, upheld the application’s legitimacy.
Please remind my wife of the decision made on the previous postponed date. The accused’s request for mental and psychological support was made by the defence. There are no averments in the defense’s affidavit indicating that they try to get the accused some kind of psychiatric or mental support. Counsel Sanyang contended that “they have not made any allegation to indicate that they have checked the accused person’s mental status.”

In support of the request, Counsel Sanyang said that the prosecution had also referenced Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The identical Criminal Procedure Code section was also brought up by Counsel Sanyang for the court’s consideration.
Counsel Sanyang said, “My lord, we also rely on section 161 of the Evidence Act.”

Counsel Twum responded to the state Counsel’s submission by arguing that Counsel Sanyang had misinterpreted the application in front of the court and she stuck to her original position.

The application for an order was granted by the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, after the arguments made by both Counsels.
The accused person’s attorney has requested that the accused be medically tested in order to determine whether or not she is competent to stand trial. Once such an application is made, it is provident to grant the application in order to dispel any uncertainty and in the interest of justice. In the given circumstances, the Court is unable to validate the claims presented until the Accused undergoes a medical examination.