Fourteen members of the Gala Movement on Monday, 11 May 2026, appeared before the Kanifing Magistrates' Court on charges of unlawful assembly and common nuisance following their arrest at the Westfield Youth Monument on 8 May.
The accused persons, who were escorted to court under heavy paramilitary security at around 1:50 p.m., were later granted bail after the prosecution said it was not opposing their release.
The case, filed by the Inspector General of Police, accused them of gathering at the Westfield Youth Monument without obtaining a permit from the Inspector General of Police. The accused persons arrived at the court at 13:50, while the case was heard at 15:01.
Those charged are Omar Saibou Camara, Hakeem Touray, Alieu Sarr, Omar Sanyang, Abdoulie T. Bah, Ebrima Janha, Alieu Bah, Muhammed Sillah, Mamadou Jallow, Kemeseng Sanneh, Fallou Galas Ceesay, Kaddy Jadama, Maimuna Bah and Ebrima Kaira.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
According to the charge sheet, the accused persons "unlawfully assembled at the Youth Monument, Westfield without a permit from the Inspector General of Police."
The prosecution also accused them of causing public inconvenience.
In the second count, police alleged that the accused persons acted "with intent to cause annoyance, obstruction or cause any inconveniences to the public in exercise of common rights."
The prosecution team was led by Deputy Commissioner of Police B. Jarju, who appeared for the Inspector General of Police, alongside Deputy Superintendent of Police Yaya S. Colly.
The defence team was led by lawyer M. Tabally, supported by L.S Camara, A.J Njie, A. Fatty, A. Jorbarteh, B. Badjie and M.B Sanyang.
When the matter was called, DCP Jarju applied for an adjournment, saying the prosecution needed time to prepare its witnesses.
"We are applying for an adjournment in this matter in order to make progress in the next adjourned date by inviting the first prosecution witness in this case," Jarju told the court. "In order to prove our case against the accused persons before the court."
Jarju informed the court that the prosecution was not objecting to bail for the accused persons.
"We are not opposed or objecting to the bail of the accused persons," he said.
However, the prosecution asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that some of the accused persons were already facing similar charges before the same court.
"We want the court to take judicial notice of the fact that the first accused person Omar Saibo Camara, the third accused person Alieu Sarr, the fifth accused person Abdoulie T. Bah, the seventh accused person Alieu Bah, and the eleventh accused person Fallou Gallas Ceesay are standing trial before her worship Sallah Mbaye of this very court and the late Your Worship Thomas of Blessed Memo ries on similar charges," Jarju submitted.
He urged the court to warn the accused persons against committing similar alleged offences while the case is ongoing.
"As such, we only want the court to take judicial notice of that fact," he stated.
The defence strongly pushed back against the prosecution's remarks, arguing that each criminal matter should be treated independently.
Counsel Tabally said the defence application for bail was based on sections 19 and 24 of the 1997 Constitution.
"We respectfully apply for the bail of the accused persons," she submitted.
"We request the Honourable Court to grant our application."
She reminded the court that granting bail is discretionary but urged the magistrate to exercise that discretion carefully.
"We are clear to the fact that granting our application is clearly discretionary. However, we respectfully urge the Honourable Court to exercise this discretion judiciously and meticulously," Tabally argued.
The defence lawyer also noted that the offences before the court were misdemeanours under the Criminal Procedure Act.
"Under the consideration of Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the charges against the accused persons are misdemeanours," she said.
Responding to the prosecution's request for judicial notice, Tabally argued that the existence of other pending cases should not affect the present matter.
"It is the principle of natural justice that every case tried by a competent court of justice should be tried differently without any preference," she told the court.
"Every case tried by a competent court of justice should be tried and determined differently without putting into consideration any pending case or matter."
Tabally further argued that although the charges may appear similar, the facts of the cases are different.
"It is our respectful submission that the charges before this Court, in so far as they are similar to the charges mentioned by the Prosecution in the Honourable Court, are very independent and different in fact as seen in the particulars of the offence," he said.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
He urged the magistrate to disregard the prosecution's submission and grant bail.
"We urge this Honourable Court to respectfully disregard the submission made by the Prosecution and grant our application," he said.
The court later granted bail to all 14 accused persons.
"In the absence of any objection from the Prosecution and defence, the Court hereby grant bail," the magistrate ruled.
The bail conditions require each accused person to provide one Gambian surety in the sum of D80,000. The court further ordered that the sureties provide documents to be verified by the appropriate authorities.
The magistrate also ordered the sureties to provide contact details and residential addresses to the court registrar.
"The sureties have to guarantee the presence of the accused in court," the magistrate stated.
The court warned that any surety would be liable for the bail amount if an accused person absconds.
"If the accused has absconded, the surety shall be liable to the bail sum," the magistrate ruled.
The case was adjourned to 11 June 2026 at 12:30 p.m.
