By: Isatou Sarr
The Banjul High Court Annex presided over by Justice Sonia Akinbiyi on Tuesday, 25th February 2025 has found Sarjo Corr and Momodou Juldeh guilty of thieving charges pressed against them and were sentenced to ten years imprisonment each.
The thieving incident took place at Access Bank’s Barra Branch in the North Bank Region of The Gambia. The charges included conspiracy, theft, fraudulent false accounting, and the heinous acts originating in 2020.
In the case, Counsel Adama S. Jaw represented the first accused while A.M. Dabo stood for the second accused. The state was ably represented by Counsels Sohna Jawara and M. Drammeh.
Presiding over the case, Justice Sonia Akinbiyi emphasized the enduring principle established in Goyangkayili V. ESLY Yilbuk and Ors (2015) LPELR 24323 (SC), declaring, “The law is trite and enjoins a Court to act on unchallenged evidence.” Similarly, as noted in R.O Iyere V. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd. (2008) LPELR 1578(SC), Justice Akinbiyi affirmed, “When evidence is provided without contest, the Court must accept it as true unless it is extraordinarily unbelievable.”
She said the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence, meticulously proving beyond a reasonable doubt, each charge of fraudulent false accounting, a direct violation of section 303 of the Criminal Code, Volume III Chapter 10:01 of the Revised Laws of the Gambia, 2009.
Delivering her judgment Justice Akinbiyi found both accused guilty on multiple counts, emphasizing the seriousness of their crimes.
She acknowledged that when sentencing involves a term of years, various mitigating factors should be considered, such as the convict’s age, whether they are a first-time offender, and their displayed remorse. Referring to Kola Famoroti v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) LPELR-40885 (CA), she noted that while some offenses merit mandatory sentences leaving no room for discretion, others may warrant consideration of these factors to potentially reduce their sentences.
For the charge of conspiracy, the court imposed a joint sentence of two years for both convicts. In addressing the joint charge of theft by a clerk, they each faced a three-year sentence. Additionally, for the charge of destroying evidence, the same three-year term was imposed.
However, on the gravest charge of money laundering—a crime demanding a mandatory sentence—each convict was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.
On the individual severed counts of fraudulent false accounting, each convict received a cumulative sentence of two years, serving concurrently. Thus, they would each ultimately endure a ten-year prison term.
The prosecution also sought an alternative option of a monetary fine instead of imprisonment for the first accused, citing his remorse and cooperation in revealing vital details about the offenses. Justice Akinbiyi noted that when a court carries the authority to impose imprisonment but lacks explicit power to levy a fine for a specific offense, it may, at its discretion, impose a fine instead of imprisonment, referencing Julius Bayode Ayeni V. The State.
While the first convict had $85,200, 155,000 CFA, and other assets recovered, the second accused persisted in denying his involvement despite overwhelming evidence against him, ultimately refusing to return his share of the stolen funds. As the court weighed these factors, it aimed for a balanced approach in exercising discretion.
In conclusion, the court’s determination resulted in the following sentences:
- First Accused Convict: Sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labor, with an option of a fine of D4,000,000.00 (Four Million Dalasis), to be processed for restitution through the court.
Through this gripping case, the justice system affirmed its commitment to addressing financial crimes with the utmost seriousness, ensuring that those who disrupt societal trust face the consequences of their actions.