According to our insider: “Following your publication, the station officer DSP Demba promptly visited the Gener and Child Welfare Office to verify the facts as the case had not been recorded in the station’s dairy. Subsequently, both the victim and the alleged perpetrator were summoned to the station, where they remained until 4pm. The situation is curently tense as developments continue to unfold.”
+
Awa is a maid from Mali who was working for a family in Brusubi Phase 2. She was allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment and was not even allowed to sleep inside the house.
A woman identified as Fatoumatta Krubally allegedly brought her to The Gambia. She is related to the family Awa was working for and was responsible for managing Awa’s wages.
The matter is currently at the Brusubi Police Station, but there are allegations that the police are attempting to brush the case under the carpet.
As of now, it remains unclear whether Awa has been sent back to the same household or taken to a place of safety.
We would like to inform the Station Officer at Brusubi that if anything happens to the young woman, he will be held responsible.
2026.2.11 The Banjul High Court has acquitted and discharged Abdoulie Sanyang of arson and contempt of court charges
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on alleged admissions made by Sanyang, but these statements were not supported by independent evidence. The sole eyewitness to the arson incident did not identify Sanyang as one of the perpetrators, and there was no forensic or documentary evidence linking him to the crime.
According to the Court’s Findings, The Accused Person, Abdoulie Sanyang, stood trial on two counts, namely: Count One – Arson, contrary to section 305(a) of the Criminal Code; and Count Two – Interference with Judicial Proceedings, contrary to section 99(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025.
The Presiding Judge Justice Ebrima Jaiteh stated that, The Court has thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties, the addresses of learned counsel, and the relevant principles of law. It remains emphasised that the burden lies solely on the Prosecution to prove the Accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden that never shifts and must be met with credible, cogent, and compelling evidence.
On the first count, the Prosecution alleged that the Accused either directly committed, or aided and abetted, the burning of the APRC Bureau in Kanifing in August 2016. The Court finds that while the fact that the building was burnt is not in serious dispute, the Prosecution failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal responsibility of the Accused for that act.
The sole eyewitness to the incident, PW6, Omar Touray a police testified that the perpetrators were masked, unknown to him, and could not be identified. Omar’s testimony, though credible as to the occurrence of the fire, did not in any way link the Accused to the commission of the offence. No forensic, documentary, or circumstantial evidence was led to place the Accused at the scene or to establish his participation in the planning or execution of the arson.
The Prosecution’s case on complicity rested almost entirely on alleged admissions contained in the Accused’s cautionary statement and remarks made during a radio interview. However, the Court finds that these utterances, when considered carefully and in context, fall short of a clear, voluntary, and unequivocal confession within the meaning of the Evidence Act.
Crucially, the Prosecution failed to produce any independent corroborative evidence, such as financial records, witness testimony, or transactional proof, to substantiate the allegation that the Accused financed or procured the burning of the building.
According to Justice Jaiteh, it is settled law that while an admission may be relied upon, a disputed or retracted extra-judicial statement, standing alone and unsupported by independent evidence, is unsafe as the sole basis for a conviction for a serious offence such as arson. He added that, The Court is not persuaded that the Prosecution established either the actus reus or the mens rea of arson against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Count One was not proved.
Findings on Count Two: Interference with Judicial Proceedings With respect to the second count, the Prosecution alleged that the Accused interfered with judicial proceedings by making statements during a radio interview which allegedly misrepresented ongoing court proceedings and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
However, The Court finds, as a matter of fact, that judicial proceedings were pending at the material time and that the Accused did make comments touching on those proceedings. However, the offence created under section 99(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025 requires far more than mere criticism or intemperate speech. The Prosecution was required to prove intentional conduct calculated to obstruct, prejudice, or undermine the administration of justice.
According to Justice Jaiteh, Having carefully reviewed the content of the impugned statements, the Court finds that although the Accused’s language may be described as ill-advised or provocative, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate that the statements were capable of prejudicing any party to the proceedings or that they posed a real risk to the fair administration of justice.
“No evidence was led to show that the remarks influenced judicial officers, interfered with the conduct of the proceedings, or impeded justice in any tangible manner” Jaiteh noted.
He stated that, The Court is guided by the enduring principle enunciated in Ambard vs Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, that justice is not a cloistered virtue and that fair, even robust, criticism of judicial proceedings is permissible, provided it does not obstruct justice. In a nonjury system, the threshold for establishing prejudice is necessarily high, and that threshold was not met in this case.
“Most importantly, the Prosecution failed to establish the essential mens rea of the offence. There is no evidence that the Accused intended, by his statements, to interfere with judicial proceedings or to show intentional disrespect in the criminal sense contemplated by the statute. The Court is not prepared to equate controversial public commentary with criminal interference, as to do so would unduly curtail constitutionally protected expression” Justice Jaiteh stated.
The Court therefore finds that Count Two was likewise not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In conclusion, the Presiding Judge stated that, In criminal proceedings, suspicion, conjecture, or public disapproval, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. Where the Prosecution fails to establish the essential ingredients of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court has no discretion but to acquit.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove its case against the Accused Person, Abdoulie Sanyang, on both counts.
Accordingly, the Accused Person is hereby Acquitted AND Discharged on Count Both counts.” Justice Jaiteh Delivered his final Judgement.
Immediately upon the pronouncement of the acquittal and discharge, Learned Counsel S. L. Jobarteh for the State orally notified the court of the prosecution’s intention to appeal against the acquittal pursuant to section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025. Counsel for the State further applied that the accused person be kept in custody pending the intended appeal, noting that Abdoulie Sanyang is not a resident of The Gambia.
At this stage, Learned Counsel K. Jallow rose and informed the court that she had been instructed to represent the accused person. The prosecution objected to her participation on the grounds that she had not previously appeared in the matter
In his ruling Justice Jaiteh stated that, This objection is misconceived and without merit. Counsel K. Jallow is a knowledgeable member of the Gambian Bar, and once properly instructed, she is entitled to enter appearance at any stage of the proceedings. The 1997 Constitution of The Gambia guarantees the right of an accused person to legal representation of their choice, and this constitutional right cannot be curtailed by the prosecution. The objection was therefore overruled.
Learned Counsel K. Jallow for Abdoulie Sanyang opposed the state’s the Application to Detain the Accused pending appeal and submitted that section 325(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act grants the court discretion to either detain or admit the acquitted person to bail. She further referred this court to its own earlier decision, whereby the court, after acquitting Muhammed Cesay and two others on a charge of murder, granted bail when a similar application was made by the State.
Counsel K. Jallow urged this court to adopt the same approach, arguing that Abdoulie Sanyang is now a free man in law following his acquittal.
In his Ruling, Jaiteh stated that, The court has thoroughly considered the submissions of both counsel. Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution entrenches the presumption of innocence, and although the accused has already been acquitted, this presumption continues to operate in his favour. The court is also aware that an acquittal restores the liberty of the accused, and any further deprivation of liberty must be strictly justified and exercised sparingly.
Jaiteh added that, Section 325(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, states that when oral notice of intention to appeal is given, the court shall either order the person to be detained or, upon application, admit the person to bail pending the appeal hearing. The provision clearly grants a judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with constitutional principles.
In the circumstances of this case, and considering that Abdoulie Sanyang has been acquitted, that he is a resident within the jurisdiction, and that no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated by the prosecution to justify further detention, this court declines to remand him. Instead, this court invokes its discretionary powers under section 325(3) and section 355 of the Criminal Procedure Act to grant him bail.
Accordingly, Abdoulie Sanyang is hereby admitted to bail on the following terms and conditions:
1.He shall enter into a bail bond in the sum of D50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dalasis).
2.He shall provide one Gambian surety.
3.The surety shall deposit his or her National Identity card with the Principal Registrar of the High Court
4.The surety shall swear and file an affidavit of means confirming the ability to meet the bail sum.
5.This bail shall lapse after thirty (30) days if the State fails to file a competent petition of appeal in accordance with section 325(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Counsel Francis C Anyanwu, the lawyer representing 56-year-old Ass Malick Njie (the accused), informed the court that he was planning to tender CCTV footage in the rape trial.
Ass Malick Njie is charged with rape, contrary to Section 3(1) (a) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013 and punishable under Section 4(1) (a) (lI) (bb) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2013.
The prosecution alleged that on the 5th day of February 2022, around Qcell building in the Kanifing, Municipality, in the Republic of The Gambia, within the jurisdiction of the High Court, Ass Malick Njie intentionally and under coercive circumstances had sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old boy and thereby committed an offence.Gambia travel guide
When the case was called for the testimony of the First Defence Witness (DW1), Counsel Anyanwu informed the court that he did not have a witness but had evidence to tender.
“My lord, I do not have a witness in this case but I have evidence to show this court. I have CCTV footage dated on the day of the alleged incident. I have written to Qcell but they have yet to respond to my request,” Counsel Anyanwu told the court.
Counsel Anyanwu informed the court that he sent the letter to Qcell on the 26th of January 2026.
Counsel Anyanwu then applied for an adjournment to secure the CCTV footage from Qcell.
Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh then asked Counsel Anyanwu whether he copied the court of the request letter sent to Qcell to retrieve the CCTV footage.
Counsel Anyanwu responded negatively, telling the court that he did not but would provide the court with a copy.
“If you send your letter there and you did not follow up, they will not use their credit to call you. You should go there and ask them. If they have it, or they don’t have it, I think that will be better than waiting for their response,” Hon. Justice Jaiteh told Counsel Anyanwu.
Hon. Justice Jaiteh further said that time is running out. He urged the defence counsel to close his case if he cannot secure witnesses or the CCTV footage as evidence.
“Your cases are all at the defence stage. If your witnesses are not forthcoming, I think you should close your cases and we go for the address, then judgment. Because all your cases are now at the defence stage,” Hon. Justice Jaiteb told Counsel Anyanwu.
Counsel Anyanwu responded that by the next adjourned date, he would close his cases including the rape case involving Ass Malick Njie, if he failed to secure witnesses or the CCTV footage from Qcell.
+
Amie Fandeh, widely known as Mamundow, a resident of Barra, is going through every mother’s worst nightmare. Earlier today, she received an urgent call informing her that her sister was in labour at EFSTH and desperately needed a blood donation.
Without hesitation, Mamundow rushed to Banjul, carrying her 7-month-old baby, determined to save her sister’s life. At the Banjul ferry terminal, she entered a taxi that was already full, with only the front seat available. But the driver refused to allow her to sit in front with her baby.
One of the passengers sitting behind offered to hold the child. When the taxi arrived at the garage, Mamundow stepped out to collect her change from the driver. In that short moment, the woman vanished with her baby.
Mamundow searched everywhere in panic and tears, but the woman and the child were nowhere to be found. What began as a journey to save a life has turned into an unimaginable tragedy.
The family is urgently appealing to the public for help in finding the missing baby.
2026.1.16 First jungler trial in Gambia: Hitman Sanna Manjang pleads not guilty to murder
Sanna Manjang, an alleged notorious hitman from former president Yahya Jammeh’s dreaded ‘Junglers’ death squad, has become the first of the group to face trial in The Gambia.
Standing before Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh at the High Court in Banjul, Manjang pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder, charges that mark a historic moment in the nation’s pursuit of justice.
The accused appeared before the High Court with legal presence on both sides. The State was represented by E. R. Dougan, alongside P. Gomez, F. Drammeh, M. Jammeh, and A. Badjie. Counsel for the defence included S. K. Jobe and F. Jammeh.
Sanna Manjang is charged with two counts of murder under Section 187 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10, Volume III, Laws of The Gambia 2009.Gambia travel guide
According to the particulars presented before the court, Count One alleges that Manjang unlawfully caused the death of Kajali Jammeh, also known as “Le Cock,” in 2006 at Kanilai in the West Coast Region.
The prosecution claims the victim’s neck was cut with a knife, an act said to have been carried out with malice aforethought.
Count Two relates to the alleged murder of Samba Wurry, also in 2006 at Kanilai.
The particulars of offence stated that Manjang stabbed the victim in the chest with a knife, resulting in his death. Manjang, however pleaded not guilty to both charges.
It would be recalled that Manjang was previously arraigned before Principal Magistrate Isatou Sallah-M’bai at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, where he was charged in connection with the murders of journalist Deyda Hydara, Ndongo Mboob, and Haruna Jammeh.
However, Commissioner A. Sanneh, representing the Inspector General of Police alongside Deputy Commissioner Badjie and Officer Manga, informed the magistrates’ court that the offence was capital in nature and therefore outside its jurisdiction.
As a result, the case was transferred to the High Court for proper adjudication.
The matter was adjourned until February 9, 2026.
Police investigations into the recent fatal stabbing incident at a forex bureau in Brusubi involving the late Isatou Fatty have registered significant progress. During the course of the investigation, a key witness positively identified an individual of interest, prompting further investigative action.
Following this development, the individual of interest was formally cautioned, interviewed, and a statement obtained. Investigators are currently verifying the information provided, including reviewing the stated alibis to either substantiate or refute them as part of due process.
The Gambia Police Force reiterates that no conclusions have been reached at this stage. The investigation remains active, and all inquiries are being pursued professionally to ensure accuracy, fairness, and full adherence to legal procedures.
Further updates will be shared as the investigation progresses. Members of the public with relevant information are encouraged to contact the nearest police station or call 9968885.
They chose Jinack because it is the only village in the country where the Police and Immigration are afraid to set foot.
x1200
(BANJUL, the Gambia) – Three Senegalese siblings, who were detained in the Casamance region following their arrest alongside fugitive former Gambian soldier Lt. Col. Sanna Manjang, have been released from custody. Their subsequent freedom aligns with the Gambian government’s official assessment that the trio poses no security threat.
The Badjie siblings, identified as Modou Badji (alias Gassama), Famara Badji, and Ansoumana Badji, were involved in the charcoal business in Bassène, a village in Senegal near the border with The Gambia, when they were detained by the Senegalese military.
Purely a Business Partnership, Says Family
Relatives of the trio spoke to The Gambia Journal, clarifying the nature of their relationship with Manjang. The family strongly asserted that the connection was purely commercial, linked to the trade in logs and charcoal.
“Sanna was just a partner in the charcoal business,” a relative explained, dismissing any suggestion of political or armed collaboration. The family member added that the brothers were unaware of Manjang’s dark past as an alleged hitman and member of former President Yahya Jammeh’s notorious “Junglers” unit.
The family initially suspected the detention was linked to their charcoal operations, which involve cutting timber—an activity sometimes subject to regulation in Senegal.
Gambian Authorities Downplay Threat
Following the arrest, the family reported being informed by Senegalese security forces that the three siblings and Manjang had all been handed over to Gambian authorities, a claim reportedly echoed by an APRC diaspora activist.
However, The Gambia’s National Security Adviser, Abubacarr Sulayman Jeng, provided clarity, telling The Standard that the Badjie siblings arrested with Manjang are “not of interest to The Gambia.” This official position corroborates the family’s account of the siblings’ limited involvement.
The release of the Badjie trio clearly indicates that the Senegalese authorities concur with The Gambia’s assessment. While the Badjie siblings are now free, Manjang, wanted for crimes including murder and torture under the Jammeh administration, remains the focus of an international manhunt, and his current status is undisclosed.
发表回复