Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh has ordered the State to further amend its indictment against former military officer Sanna Manjang. The ruling came after the defense successfully argued that conspiracy charges were too vague to allow for a proper defense.
When the case was called, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) E.R. Dougan and B. Badjie appeared for the State, while Counsel Sheriff K. Jobe represented the accused.
Today’s proceedings was for the new bill of indictment, filed on March 9, 2026,which charges Sanna Manjang with two counts of murder, conspiracy, and assault causing actual bodily harm to be read for plea taking
However, before the new bill of indictment was read to him, Counsel S.K. Jobe raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of the indictment.
“My Lady, before the Accused Person takes his plea to the Amended Information filed on the 9th of March, 2026, we have a preliminary objection to it,” Counsel Jobe stated.
“It is our contention that the said Amended Information is incompetent because there was never an order of this Court that the Information be amended. It is our submission that once an accused person pleads to an information, any subsequent amendment of that information requires that the leave of the court must first be sought and obtained.”
Counsel Jobe further cited Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that an order for amendment must be made by the court before the prosecution can competently effect a change.
Counsel Jobe maintained that since the prosecution made no application and the court did not order an amendment on its own, the document was incompetent and should be struck out.
In her reply, Deputy DPP Dougan argued that Section 218 does not apply in that context and asserted that the prosecution has the right to amend its information at any stage of the trial.
Counsel Jobe, replying on points of law, maintained that Section 218 is indeed the governing provision for the matter before the court.
In her ruling, Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh addressed whether the amended information was properly before the court without prior leave.
“Section 218 of the CPC, which is headed ‘Amendment of Charges,’ states that where at any stage of the trial it appears to the Court that the evidence discloses an offense other than the offense with which the accused is charged… the Court may, if satisfied that no injustice to the accused will be caused, order an amendment of the charge,” the Justice noted.
Justice Jobarteh continued, “The provisions did not state that the prosecution shall seek leave for the court to grant any amendment made to any charge. However, this is a court of record, and leave shall be sought and granted before any steps are taken in this trial. If steps are taken without leave, it can be remedied if it will not occasion injustice to either party.”
Justice Jobarteh concluded that the lack of formal leave did not infringe upon the rights of the accused or affect the proceedings, ruling that the Amended Information filed on March 9, 2026, was properly before the court.
Following the ruling, the charges Counts 1 & 2 (Murder) were read to Sanna Manjang. Counsel Jobe immediately raised fresh objection maintaining his earlier position that the law under which Sanna Manjang is charged the old Criminal Code has been repealed and is inapplicable as it has been repealed.
On counts 3 & 5 (Conspiracy) Counsel Jobe challenged the conspiracy charges on two lanes. First, Counsel Jobe argued the law was “wrong” and inapplicable as it’s the old criminal code. Second, Counsel Jobe argued that the particulars were ambiguous.
“It takes two people to conspire, and the prosecution has not named or identified who those others were,” Jobe argued.
Counsel Jobe further submitted that referring to groups like the “black black” or “Junglers” was insufficient and would make it difficult for the accused to prepare his defense.
DPP Dougan countered that Section 69 does not explicitly require the co-conspirators to be named and insisted there was no ambiguity.
Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh agreed with the defense regarding the conspiracy particulars.
“An information or charge must disclose sufficient particulars of an alleged offence to enable the accused person to understand the nature of accusations against him,” the Justice ruled.
“In the present case, the amended information states that the Accused ‘conspired with others’ to commit an offence but does not disclose the identity of those alleged co-conspirators. The accused is not expected to speculate from the list of witnesses who the co-conspirators are”.
Justice Jobarteh ordered the prosecution to further amend the particulars in Counts 3 and 5 to disclose the identities or sufficient particulars of the alleged co-conspirators and further ordered the state to serve the new amended bill of indictment to the defense by March 20, 2026.
Regarding the murder charges (Counts 1 and 2), the court relied on its previous ruling that the accused was properly charged as the alleged events occurred before the current Criminal Offence Act was in force.
The matter was adjourned to March 25, 2026, at 10:00 AM for plea-taking and the continuation of the hearing.
