The State has filed a petition for appeal against the High Court judgment that acquitted and discharged Abdoulie Sanyang of arson and judicial interference charges. Senior State Counsel Saikou Lamin Jobarteh filed the petition today 13th February, 2026, just three days after Justice Ebrima Jaiteh’s Judgment.
In the appeal, the State is seeking to have the High Court’s judgment set aside and replaced with a conviction and sentence appropriate for the crime charges against Abdoulie Sanyang.
State’s appeal focuses heavily on what it describes as “glaring admissions” made by Abdoulie Sanyang, which the prosecution argues the trial judge ignored.
The State contends the trial judge (Justice Jaiteh) erred by requiring further proof of facts that Abdoulie Sanyang already admitted to in his cautionary statement and a video recording of his radio interview with West Coast.
The state further argues that by requiring “independent evidence” or “heightened proof” to corroborate a retracted statement, the trial judge (Justice Jaiteh) introduced a legal standard unknown to the law.
State Appeal highlights a segment of the radio interview where Sanyang allegedly stated, “when we burnt down the APRC Bureau, we facilitated this… I am part of it, I can never deny it”. The State argues the judge failed to accord any probative value to that admission.
The State alleges the judge misapplied Section 75 of the Evidence Act by imposing an unnecessary burden on the prosecution to prove facts that were already admitted.
Regarding the second count, the State challenges the judge’s interpretation of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025. State argues the law does not require proof of a “tangible or realistic” capacity to influence proceedings. Instead, it argues the statute only requires proof that a speech or writing is capable of prejudicing any person in favour of or against parties to the proceedings.
State maintains it was not legally necessary to call a judicial officer to testify about their feelings regarding a statement for a person to be found guilty of interference.
The appeal also takes issue with the conduct of the defence at the close of the trial. The State argues the judge erred by allowing Counsel K. Jallow to appear and override the existing counsel on record without formal notification or instructions.
State asserts the failure to treat the court with the dignity and respect required by established protocols of legal practice.
The State (Appellant) is requesting that the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court judgment in its entirety. They are asking the court to hold that the acquittal was a deviation from standard judicial norms and to substitute it with a conviction and sentence that is commensurable with the gravity of the offences charged.
