By Sainabou Sambou
High Court Judge, Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, on Friday dismissed a defence application to strike out amended murder and conspiracy charges against former soldier Sanna Manjang, ruling that the prosecution’s revised indictment could stand.
The decision came after defence counsel Sheriff K. Jobe argued that the amended information, filed by the state on March 9, 2026, was legally invalid because the prosecution had not first sought and obtained court permission to amend the original charges to which Manjang had already pleaded in January.
Relying on Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Jobe submitted that the court must expressly order any amendment during trial. “The key point is that the order of the court must come first,” he told the judge. “Without that order, any amendment made is null and void.” He urged the court to dismiss or strike out the amended document entirely.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E.R. Dugan, appearing for the state, opposed the objection. She maintained that the prosecution had acted lawfully, that Manjang had been given adequate time to review the new charges, and that the amendment served the interests of justice. Dugan pointed to Section 218(2), which permits amendments to be endorsed on an information, and noted that the same court had already acknowledged the amended charges by adjourning the matter for plea-taking on them.
After hearing both sides, Justice Jobarteh ruled that the defence objection lacked merit and upheld the amended indictment.
The defence immediately raised a second challenge, this time targeting Counts Three and Five — both alleging conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour. Jobe argued that the charges were defective and ambiguous because they failed to identify the alleged co-conspirators by name. He stressed that the offence of conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, and that the accused must know the identity of those he is said to have conspired with.
The particulars referred only to unnamed individuals associated with the notorious “Junglers” or “Black Black” group, which Jobe described as insufficient. “The accused cannot properly defend himself if he does not know the identity of the person he allegedly conspired with,” he submitted, asking the court to strike out the two counts.
Prosecutor Dugan countered that the charges were clearly drafted and that the law does not invariably require the names of co-conspirators to be stated. She added that Manjang had confirmed in open court — when the clerk read the charges — that he understood them, and urged the judge to dismiss the objection.
In a nuanced ruling, Justice Jobarteh acknowledged that conspiracy inherently involves two or more persons and that an accused must be able to understand the case against him clearly. She found that the current particulars did not sufficiently identify the alleged co-conspirators.
Rather than striking out the counts, however, the judge ordered the prosecution to furnish the names of the other accused persons or alleged co-conspirators — or provide sufficient identifying details — to ensure fairness and enable Manjang to mount a proper defence.
Manjang, a former member of the Gambia Armed Forces and the paramilitary “Junglers” unit, faces six counts in total: Two counts of murder in connection with the 2006 killings of Kajali Jammeh (also known as “Le Cock”) and Samba Wurry in Kanilai; Two counts of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour; and Two counts of assault causing actual bodily harm against Tamsir Jasseh and military officer Yahya M.S. Darboe.
The high-profile case was adjourned to Thursday, March 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for continuation.
