The High Court has rejected an application by lawyer Omar Jammeh seeking to hold his civil suit against Momodou Lamin Jarju, alias Rongo, behind closed doors and to prohibit media houses from reporting on the proceedings.
In a ruling delivered on 18 May 2026, Justice Oledi Uko Uduma upheld the constitutional principle of open justice, ruling that the case should continue in public and that there was no basis for imposing a blanket ban on media coverage.
Jammeh filed the application in June 2024 after instituting a civil action against Rongo. In his application, Jammeh argued that the proceedings should be conducted in camera to protect his private life, professional reputation and family interests. He also sought an order preventing Foroyaa and other media houses from reporting on the case.
He further contended that because of his profession as a lawyer and the existence of confidential information arising from a previous lawyer-client relationship between the parties, the court should exercise its constitutional discretion to exclude the public and the media from the proceedings.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The court considered the constitutional provisions governing public hearings and the right to privacy. Justice Uduma observed that while the Constitution recognises certain circumstances in which court proceedings may be held in camera, the general rule remains that judicial proceedings should be conducted in public.
The judge explained that the principle of open justice is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy because it promotes public confidence in the courts, encourages transparency and accountability, and helps ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
After reviewing the facts of the case, the court found that the dispute concerns allegations of defamation and breach of contract arising from professional dealings between the parties. According to the ruling, such matters involve public conduct and professional transactions and do not fall within the type of highly private or sensitive matters that would ordinarily justify excluding the public from court proceedings.
The court further held that a party who voluntarily brings a matter before the courts cannot ordinarily seek to prevent public scrutiny of those same proceedings merely by invoking privacy concerns.
Justice Uduma also found that Jammeh's status as a legal practitioner did not entitle him to special treatment under the law. The court noted that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to uphold principles of transparency and accountability, and that the integrity of the legal profession is best protected through fair and open proceedings rather than secrecy.
Although the court expressed concern about the allegation by Jammeh that information relating to the case may have been leaked to the media before the first court appearance, it held that such allegations did not justify shutting the public out of the proceedings.
The court also considered Jammeh's request to prohibit media organisations from reporting on the case and concluded that such an order would raise significant constitutional concerns relating to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Justice Uduma held that the media performs an important role in informing the public about the administration of justice and that restrictions on court reporting can only be justified in exceptional circumstances. The court found that no such exceptional circumstances had been established in the present case.
The ruling further clarified that the constitutional power to exclude members of the public from court proceedings relates to physical access to the courtroom and does not provide a basis for preventing journalists from reporting on proceedings that are conducted in open court.
In balancing the competing interests of privacy, freedom of expression and the public interest in open justice, the court concluded that the circumstances of the case overwhelmingly favoured maintaining public proceedings.
The court found no evidence that the litigation involved intimate personal matters, family secrets or other highly sensitive information that would justify departing from the constitutional requirement that court proceedings be held in public.
At the conclusion of the ruling, the court dismissed the application in its entirety, ordered that the proceedings continue in open court, and declined to impose any restrictions on media coverage. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and directed that the substantive case proceed to a hearing on the next adjournment date. The case will continue on 30 June 2026.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Background of the case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed in May 2024 by lawyer Omar Jammeh against Momodou Lamin Jarju, popularly known as Rongo.
In the suit, Jammeh sought D100 million in damages, comprising D50 million for alleged defamation and another D50 million for an alleged breach of contract. He also sought general damages and D100,000 in legal and administrative costs.
Rongo denied the claims and filed a counterclaim seeking D175 million against Jammeh. In his defence, Rongo alleged that Jammeh trespassed into his family's traditional lands using fraudulent documents and falsely claimed ownership over portions of the property. He further alleged that Jammeh forged his signature on land transfer documents and subsequently sold parts of the land to third parties. Rongo is relying on a police report prepared in respect to alleged forgery by Lawyer Jammeh.
