By Nelson Manneh
The President of the Gambia Transport Union, Mr Omar Ceesay, has called on the government to introduce clear regulations for tricycle operators, citing growing safety concerns and public complaints. His appeal comes amid reports of road accidents and fears that unregulated tricycles—popularly known as “tok-toks”—pose risks to passengers and other road users, particularly in congested areas.
Mr Ceesay said the government should “act urgently” to set up a national framework that would standardize licensing, safety checks, and operating permits for tricycle riders across the country. “Better regulation could lead to mandatory refresher courses for drivers and stricter licensing requirements, which would improve road safety for everyone,” he said. “Introducing clearer guidelines could help local authorities better manage tricycle traffic and reduce congestion, particularly on busy highways.”
He added that regulation would also protect operators from exploitation and help professionalize the sector. “A national framework could create more consistent rules for permits, fees, and safety equipment, preventing issues like illegal fees and fraud,” he said. “For tricycle operators, new regulations might bring higher costs for maintenance, permits, and training, but could ultimately protect them from exploitation and improve their livelihoods.”
The Gambia Transport Union (GTU) is a non-governmental body that represents commercial drivers, vehicle owners, and road transport workers nationwide. It advocates for better working conditions, safer roads, and the formalization of the transport sector through collaboration with government agencies and development partners.
Mr Ceesay said the growing number of tricycles on Gambian roads has changed the dynamics of local transport. “Tok-toks have significantly affected the Gambian taxi business by providing a faster, more affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative for short-distance travel, especially in congested urban areas,” he said. “This competition has led to a struggle for the established taxi sector, which faces regulatory issues, declining demand, and is struggling to compete with the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of tok-toks.”
He noted that while tricycles have become popular with commuters, their legal status and safety standards remain unclear. “Tuk-tuks offer a viable and often preferred alternative for passengers, particularly for short journeys, diverting customers from traditional taxis,” he explained. “The flexibility and lower operating costs of tok-toks can lead to a decline in the demand for traditional taxis, which are generally seen as less agile in congested areas.”
Justice Jaiteh to Rule on ‘No Case to Answer’ in Health Officials’ Economic Crime Trial
By Mariama Marong
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court in Banjul will on 28 October 2025 deliver a ruling on a ‘No Case to Answer’ submission filed by defence lawyer Kadijatou Jallow on behalf of her clients; three health officials accused of economic crimes. The defence made the application after the prosecution closed its case, urging the court to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence.
The accused persons are facing 18 charges, including official corruption, disobedience of statutory duty, conspiracy to commit felony, economic crime, forgery, and theft.
On 9 July 2025, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, responded to the defence’s application, arguing that the prosecution had presented enough evidence to warrant the accused persons to open their defence. The case involves allegations of theft, forgery, and economic crime connected to consultancy payments under the Ministry of Health.
In his submission, DPP Yusuf said the accused persons — Bala Kandeh, Omar Malleh Jassey, and Muhammad Lamin Jaiteh — forged consultancy documents in connection with a project handled by Hepdo, a consultancy firm. “On count seven, which deals with forgery, the accused persons sometimes made a false document in a consultancy work,” Yusuf told the court. “Witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW6 informed the court that they were never part of any consultancy work with Hepdo.”
He cited Section 317 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes forgery and the making of fake documents. “Forgery is the process of making false documents intended to deceive,” he said. The prosecution argued that the first and second accused, Kandeh and Jassey, knowingly made false documents related to the consultancy in a dishonest manner.
DPP Yusuf said: “The evidence given by PW1, PW2, and PW6 all indicated that their names were used by the first and second accused persons, but they have never engaged in forgery dealings with the accused.” He also told the court that PW5 denied having received any payment or submitting his CV to Hepdo for consultancy.
According to Yusuf, testimony from several witnesses showed there was no advertisement or proper process for the consultancy work. “PW6 testified that no advertisement was made for the consultancy on the project. The money was from the Project Coordinating Unit,” he said. He added that PW1 testified that he made payment of the said money to Hepdo and that all necessary measures were supposedly carried out for consultancy.
The DPP told the court that the accused persons conspired to steal D2,934,357.12 meant for a consultancy study on malaria vector control. He said: “Balla Kandeh and Muhammad Lamin Jaiteh, between December 2018 and July 2019, conspired and stole the funds for consultancy to assess the susceptibility status of malaria vectors to insecticides.”
He argued that all the ingredients of theft had been established, emphasizing that Kandeh, as head of the National Malaria Control Program, was a public officer and acted dishonestly in handling public funds. “The first accused person was the head of a public agency under the Ministry of Health, established by an Act. Therefore, he is a public servant,” Yusuf said.
He urged the court to reject the defence’s application, maintaining that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case.
However, defence lawyer K. Jallow disagreed entirely, arguing that her clients should not be required to open their defence because the prosecution had failed to prove any of the charges. “We disagree entirely with the claim that Bala Kandeh is a public servant,” she said, citing Section 3 of the Criminal Code.
On the forgery counts, Jallow said the evidence of PW3 and PW4 showed they were not the authors of the CVs used in the consultancy and did not implicate her clients. “None of the witnesses pointed at the accused persons as the authors of the CVs,” she told the court. She added that “the witnesses of the State claimed that they have never seen the documents beforehand and they have no relation with the accused persons.”
“The prosecution’s case has not warranted the accused persons to open their defence because they have not established any evidence that implicates them,” Jallow concluded.
Justice Jaiteh adjourned the case to 28 October 2025 for his ruling on the no-case submission.
