Court Rejects Sanna Manjang’s Application to Strike Out New Charges

Written by Mama A. Touray

The Banjul High Court has rejected an application by former Jungler Sanna Manjang seeking to strike out four new charges filed against him by State prosecutors earlier this month. Justice Sidiki K. Jobarteh delivered the ruling after hearing arguments from both the defence and the prosecution during proceedings on Friday.

Manjang, a former member of the Junglers, a paramilitary unit widely accused of carrying out killings and other abuses during the rule of former president Yahya Jammeh, is currently standing trial on murder charges linked to alleged crimes during that period. On March 9th, State prosecutors amended the indictment before the court by filing four additional charges against him.

The new charges include two counts of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour and two counts of assault causing actual bodily harm. According to the particulars of the offence, prosecutors allege that in March 2006 at the premises of the National Intelligence Agency, NIA, and other locations in Banjul, the accused conspired with others to cause bodily harm to two individuals.

The State further alleges that Manjang assaulted one of the victims at the NIA premises by beating and kicking him, causing serious injuries. In another count, prosecutors claim he assaulted a second victim in Banjul in 2006 by beating him with sticks, pouring molten plastic on his body, tying him in a sack, and winching him up, resulting in serious injuries and bleeding to the face, body, and legs.

Defence counsel Sheriff K. Jobe objected to the amended indictment and asked the court to strike out the new charges, arguing that the amendment was not done according to the proper legal procedure. Jobe told the court that although the State has the authority to amend an indictment, the law requires a court order before such changes are made once the accused has already taken a plea.

“No amendment can be done to information on which the accused has already taken a plea without a court order,” Jobe argued. He referred to provisions in both the former Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, which he said make it clear that a court order must come before any amendment to an indictment.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E.R. Dougan opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had the legal right to amend the indictment and that the accused had been given sufficient time to review the new charges. Dougan also told the court that the amendment had already been acknowledged during the previous court sitting.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Jobarteh ruled in favour of the State and dismissed the defence application to strike out the amended indictment. However, the defence raised a further objection to counts three and five of the new indictment, arguing that the charges were ambiguous.

Jobe argued that the conspiracy charges failed to identify the individuals with whom the accused allegedly conspired, which he said made the charges unclear. He also objected to the description of the group involved as “black black or Junglers”, arguing that the wording was vague and could leave the accused uncertain about the case he must answer.

In response, Dougan argued that there was no ambiguity in the charges and noted that the accused had already told the court he understood them when they were read to him. After considering both arguments, Justice Jobarteh ruled in favour of the defence on this point and directed the State to clarify the charges by specifying the names of the individuals involved in the alleged conspiracy.

The matter was adjourned to Wednesday March 25th for plea taking on the revised charges.