By Lawyer Alieu Gako
The inclusion of Almameh James Manga in the team of police prosecutors, who charged Sana Manjang on multiple counts of murder before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, raises a serious conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the trial. Both individuals (that is, Sanna Manjang and Almameh Manga) were named in the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) for alleged human rights violations. While an internal investigation by the Gambia Police Force is said to have later cleared Manga, his prior association with the same era and system of alleged abuses creates a perception of bias.
According to the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 2024, one of the core “professional principles” is that a legal practitioner must “act with independence and integrity” and “maintain high standards of work.” Prosecutors, as legal practitioners, are bound by these principles. All four prosecutors in the case, including Mr. Manga, are legal practitioners who are bound by the provisions of the Legal Practitioners’ Act. When a prosecutor’s own name has been publicly linked to the same pattern of conduct being tried, it compromises the perceived impartiality of the prosecution and risks undermining public confidence in the judicial process. To uphold the regulatory objective of “protecting and promoting the public interest,” Manga should not have been Part of the police prosecution team that presented Sanna Manjang before the Magistrates’ Court in Kanifing. He should have recused himself from the case.
Furthermore, Sana Manjang’s right to adequate legal representation is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Section 24(3)(d) of the Constitution of The Gambia 1997 states that every person accused of a crime shall be entitled to “defend himself or herself in person or, at his or her own expense, by a legal practitioner of his or her own choice, or where the interests of justice so require, to be provided with legal representation at the public expense.” His lack of legal representation in court violates this right. Clearly, both the Police and the State are very well aware that they are under an obligation to have provided Mr. Manjang with access to legal representation. Upon his arrest, he had a right to be informed by the Police of his right to see or contact his lawyers. They should not have presented him before the court without respecting this right. Where Mr. Manjang is unable to afford a lawyer, he should have been provided one by the State through the legal aid scheme for persons facing capital offences charges.
The Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 2024, also introduces a duty to provide free legal services to indigent persons, reinforcing the State’s obligation to ensure access to justice. Regardless of the severity of the charges, Manjang’s right to a fair trial includes the right to competent legal counsel to challenge the evidence against him, ensuring the trial is conducted justly. It must be noted that one of the cardinal principles of our constitution is the right to the presumption of innocence. Mr. Majang, regardless of the allegations against him, must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, his rights must be respected at all costs.
Returning to the issue of prosecutors, international best practices in criminal justice emphasize that the prosecutor’s role is not simply to secure a conviction, but to ensure a fair trial. For example, Canadian law clearly establishes that the prosecutor’s duty is “to see that justice is done through a fair trial on the merits,” not merely to win the case. This principle is echoed in the Gambian Constitution’s commitment to “justice for all” (Preamble) and the right to a fair hearing (Section 33). A prosecutor with a perceived personal history connected to the accused cannot fulfill this neutral, justice-seeking role impartially. Allowing such a prosecutor to continue risks turning the trial into a perceived personal or systemic vindication rather than a dispassionate adjudication of facts.
Therefore, to comply with both constitutional mandates and the Legal Practitioners Act, the Gambian authorities must take two steps. First, the State should not include anyone in the prosecution team whose name was mentioned by the TRRC to have committed human rights violations. This step will eliminate the conflict of interest and preserve the trial’s legitimacy. Second, Sana Manjang must be provided with competent legal representation at state expense if he cannot afford it, as required by the Constitution and National Legal Aid Act. This is not about sympathy for the accused, but about upholding the rule of law. Under our constitution, every person charged with an offence, no matter how grave the offence, is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In conclusion, the Manjang case presents a critical test for Gambia’s post-TRRC legal system. Adhering to constitutional guarantees and ethical legal standards—by removing a conflicted prosecutor and ensuring the accused’s right to counsel—is essential for demonstrating that justice is administered fairly, transparently, and independently, even for those accused of grave crimes. This is the foundation of public trust in a reformed judiciary.
Authorities
Conflict of Interest & Prosecutor Recusal: Based on the “professional principles” in Section 3A(2) of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 2024 (independence, integrity, high standards) and the constitutional right to a fair trial (Section 33, 1997 Constitution).
Right to Legal Representation: Explicitly guaranteed under Section 24(3)(d) of the 1997 Constitution and supported by the new Part IVA on free legal services to indigent persons in the 2024 Amendment Act.
Prosecutor’s Role & Canadian Reference: The role of the prosecutor in Canada is defined by case law and guidelines (e.g., R. v. Boucher [1955] S.C.R. 16) and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook, which states the prosecutor is a “minister of justice” whose goal is a fair trial, not victory. This aligns with the Gambian constitutional imperative for justice.
General Legal Council’s Duty: The Council’s function to “uphold standards of professional conduct” (Section 4(1)(b), Principal Act) provides the overarching regulatory authority for enforcing these ethical requirements.
The author, Lawyer Alieu Gako, is a current Ongoing Licensing student with the Law Society of Ontario, Canada, with a passion for human rights and good governance.
