LAMIN MARKET LAND DISPUTE: WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND?

New Evidence Puts Focus on Original Agreement, Temporary Tenure and Community Ownership

By Jarra News Media Investigative Desk

The increasingly tense dispute over the Lamin Market land has taken a new turn, with competing claims of ownership involving businessman Ansumana “Julakay” Marenah, proprietor of Julakay Group, the Lamin community and the Brikama Area Council.

What began years ago with a request to establish a restaurant on part of the Lamin Market premises has now evolved into a wider controversy involving land ownership, market stalls, rental payments and the authority of the Lamin Village Development Committee (VDC).

At the heart of the controversy is one fundamental question:

Who legally owns the land on which the restaurant and the market stalls stand?

The Lamin VDC’s Position

The Lamin VDC maintains that the disputed property is community land belonging to the people of Lamin and that the VDC represents the community in matters concerning the development and management of the land.

According to the VDC’s account, the property was initially placed under the authority of the Area Council and was subsequently leased to the Brikama Area Council in the late 1990s.

The VDC further says that Julakay Marenah later approached the relevant authorities seeking permission to construct a restaurant on a portion of the market premises.

Permission was reportedly granted, but according to the community’s account, the permission was for a temporary development, rather than an outright transfer of ownership.

The Temporary Agreement

Jarra News Media’s investigation has uncovered an important account concerning an agreement reached between the parties.

According to sources familiar with the matter, sometime between 2007 and 2009, Ansumana “Julakay” Marenah approached the Lamin VDC and the Brikama Area Council seeking permission to construct a restaurant on part of the market space.

The parties reportedly reached an agreement that the structure would be temporary and would not constitute permanent ownership of the land.

The agreement was handwritten and signed in the presence of retired Magistrate Surahata Danso, who was then serving at the Brikama Magistrates’ Court.

Those reportedly involved in signing the document included Ansumana Marenah, representatives of the Brikama Area Council, including the late Local Government Officer Musa Cham, as well as a witness presented by Marenah.

Retired Magistrate Danso also signed and stamped the document.

Retired Magistrate Confirms Agreement

Speaking to Jarra News Media, retired Magistrate Surahata Danso confirmed that he personally wrote, signed and stamped the agreement.

Danso said the arrangement was temporary and based on a 15-year tenure, with any renewal dependent on an agreement between the parties.

He also recalled that Marenah was required to make payments to the Lamin VDC and the Brikama Area Council, although he said he could not remember the exact monthly amount stipulated in the agreement.

The retired magistrate’s testimony is significant because he was directly involved in preparing and authenticating the document at the time.

Danso subsequently advised that the disputed portion of land should be returned to the community authority, which he identified as the Lamin VDC.

He further urged the Minister of Local Government and Lands, Hon. Amat Bah, to investigate the matter thoroughly and examine the original documents and circumstances surrounding the agreement.

From Parking Space to Market Stalls

The dispute, however, extends beyond the original restaurant.

According to the Lamin VDC’s account, Marenah later sought additional space to provide parking for customers visiting the restaurant.

The additional space was reportedly approved for that purpose.

The VDC alleges that the area subsequently intended for parking was instead developed into numerous market stalls, eventually numbering more than 20.

The community further claims that occupants of some of these stalls have been paying substantial monthly rents, reportedly ranging between D10,000 and D15,000.

These claims have not been independently verified by Jarra News Media and require documentary confirmation.

The VDC’s position is that if the property remained Council or community land, the collection of substantial private rental income from structures built on that land raises important questions about the authority under which such payments were collected.

Julakay’s **Ownership Claim

Marenah**, however, disputes the VDC’s version of events.

He has maintained that he has owned the property since the former Yahya Jammeh administration and that the land was allocated to him after he presented development plans and obtained the necessary approvals from the relevant authorities.

His position is therefore fundamentally different from that of the Lamin VDC.

While the VDC maintains that Julakay was given temporary use of a portion of community/Council land, Marenah maintains that the property is legally his.

That leaves the most important issue unresolved:

Where are the documents establishing ownership?

The Documents Could Settle the Dispute

In a dispute of this nature, competing verbal accounts alone cannot conclusively establish ownership.

The critical documents would include any title deed, lease agreement, allocation papers, development approvals, site plans, receipts for rent or other payments, Council records and the original temporary agreement reportedly prepared by retired Magistrate Danso.

Jarra News Media believes these documents should be examined by the relevant authorities and, where appropriate, made available to the parties concerned.

Political **Allegations

The **controversy has also acquired a political dimension.

Marenah has alleged that current Brikama Area Council Chairman Yankuba Darboe threatened that the property would be taken from him if the UDP comes to power.

This is a serious allegation. Jarra News Media has not independently established the veracity of the claim, and Chairman Darboe should be given an opportunity to respond to the allegation.

The political claim should therefore be treated separately from the underlying land dispute, which can ultimately be resolved through documentary evidence and the appropriate legal and administrative processes.

What Does the Original Agreement Say?

The testimony of retired Magistrate Danso has brought renewed attention to the original agreement.

If the document indeed provides for a temporary 15-year arrangement, rather than a transfer of ownership, its terms could be central to determining the rights of the parties.

At the same time, any subsequent document, renewal, title deed, lease, Council resolution or government decision could potentially alter or clarify the legal position.

That is why the original records matter.

Lamin Deserves **Answers

The **Lamin Market dispute is no longer simply about a restaurant or market stalls.

It concerns land, community rights, public authority, private investment and potentially substantial rental income.

The Lamin community deserves clarity.

Was the land transferred or merely leased?

Was Julakay given permanent ownership or temporary use?

Was the additional space authorised only for parking?

Were the market stalls subsequently approved?

Who had the legal authority to collect rent from the stalls?

And most importantly, what do the official land and Council records say?

Jarra News Media believes that these questions should be answered through evidence rather than speculation.

Retired Magistrate Surahata Danso, who says he personally prepared and authenticated the temporary agreement, remains available to clarify the circumstances surrounding the document.