The murder trial of Sanna Manjang continued before Justice S.K. Jobarteh, with a testimony from an investigator who described a secret detention centre in Kanilai where accused victims were allegedly beheaded and stabbed.
Jally MI Senghore, a police officer attached to the Brikama Division Crime Unit, took the stand as the prosecution’s first witness. He testified that a high-level joint investigation panel was constituted comprising the Police, NIA, and the Army formed in November 2025 to probe atrocities allegedly committed by the accused.
Jally MI Senghore testified that the panel focused on the disappearance and suspected murder of three individuals: Samba Wurry, Bai Dam, and Kajali Jammeh. According to the witness, an eyewitness led investigators to a site in Kanilai village, providing a physical demonstration of the events.
“The eyewitness led us to the crime scene; photos and exhibits were taken and documented,” Senghore told the court. The accused described the victims as destitute petty traders from the border region, but Senghore noted that their investigation reveals that only one had family ties in Gambia.
Jally MI Senghore revealed that the panel was informed that Kajali was beheaded while Samba Wurry was stabbed to death.
A heated argument erupted when Senghore began recounting statements made by Essa Keita, a man who was allegedly detained by the accused in Kanilai and who allegedly witnessed the murder.
Counsel SK Jobe objected twice, arguing that Senghore’s testimony constituted “hearsay” and that Keita should speak for himself as a listed witness in the bill of indictment.
Deputy DPP argued that the witness was testifying to the conduct of an official investigation and not hearsay. She emphasised Senghore’s narration is an interview he conducted which is a “fact in issue” or a “relevant fact” showing how the investigator arrived at the conclusions and why the accused was charged.
She relied on Section 19 of the Evidence Act which deals with the relevancy of facts.
Counsel S.K. Jobe in reply to the point of law argued that since Essa Keita was already listed as a witness in the Bill of Indictment, the court should hear the story directly from Keita. He argued that allowing the investigator to tell Keita’s story would unfairly prejudice the accused and bypass the requirement for direct, firsthand evidence. He cited Section 19(b) and 21 of the Evidence Act.
Justice S.K. Jobarteh in her ruling, balanced both sides. Justice Jobarteh dismissed the defence’s objection. She ruled that the investigator was not providing “hearsay” but was providing a narration of his interview.
The witness was allowed to explain the process of the investigation. As he continued, Counsel Jobe objected again when the investigator began detailing claims Essa Keita made about others. The Judge then agreed with the defence, ruling that while the investigator could speak about the fact that he interviewed the witness, he could not testify to the details of what someone else told Essa Keita.
After the ruling, Deputy DPP E.R. Dougan, asked whether a statement was obtained from the accused to which Senghore affirmed positively. After Senghore confirmed that he was indeed the officer who handled the interrogation and documentation,
Deputy DPP E.R. Dougan asked the Senghore to take a look at the statement of identification. Senghore identified them as the statements obtained from the accused on 3rd December, 2025.
Deputy DPP applied to tender the statements into evidence. Counsel S.K. Jobe didn’t object to the tendering of statements and the statements were admitted and marked as exhibits.
In cross-examination, Counsel Jobe challenged Senghore’s credibility, accusing the 15-year veteran investigator of lying to the court.
Counsel Jobe: How many statements did you record from the accused person?
Senghore: One.
Counsel Jobe: If I say you’re not truthful to the court because you didn’t obtain one statement from the accused?
Senghore: I obtained one statement from the accused.
Counsel Jobe: Which date did you obtain it?
Senghore: 03rd December 2025.
Counsel Jobe: Again, you’re not truthful. Take a look at the file of indictment and compare the statements in the bill of indictment and the statement you obtained from the accused.
Senghore: I have stated that during our investigation Inspector Samba J. Sowe also obtained a statement from the accused. He (Sowe) said that the statement was obtained on the second day the accused was arrested.
Counsel Jobe: When you visited Kanilai, the accused wasn’t there?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: And you didn’t accord the accused the opportunity to accompany you?
Senghore: During the investigation, the accused denied everything.
Counsel Jobe: And you will agree that Kanilai didn’t have a detention centre?
Senghore: There’s a detention centre in Kanilai.
Counsel Jobe: Is it correct that in every detention centre in the country, there must be someone in charge of the detention?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: But no one was in charge of that detention centre?
Senghore: That’s wrong.
Counsel Jobe: Who was in charge?
Senghore: The accused.
Counsel Jobe: How?
Senghore: To supervise the inflow of detainees in and out.
Counsel Jobe: And that detention centre is under the supervision of the military?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: And anyone who will be in charge of that detention centre will be from the military?
Senghore: No, that’s not correct.
Counsel Jobe: So, anyone can come and be in charge of that detention centre?
Senghore: No.
Counsel Jobe: Did you find out how the accused came into charge of that detention centre?
Senghore: He is the command.
Counsel Jobe: Meaning you have interviewed an officer of the Gambia Army Force?
Senghore: No, my lord, but that place is the base of a company and the accused was the head of that company and in service, the head of the company is the leader.
Counsel Jobe: So, was it a base of the company or a detention centre?
Senghore: That was a detention centre.
Counsel Jobe: So, it is correct that during your investigation you didn’t interview any of the Gambia Army Force to know who was in charge of that alleged detention centre?
Senghore: In my answer, I said the company’s command is the leader of the company.
Counsel Jobe: Did you interview anyone?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: Who did you interview?
Senghore: I can’t remember, but it’s one Badjie.
Counsel Jobe: Which rank?
Senghore: I can’t remember.
Counsel Jobe: Which battalion?
Senghore: I can’t disclose that, it’s intelligence.
Counsel Jobe: My lord, he has to disclose the person’s name.
Senghore: It’s an intelligence officer and I can’t disclose the battalion.
Counsel Jobe insisted that the witness has to disclose the intelligence officer’s name. Justice Jobarteh ruled that the witness could not be forced to disclose the intelligence information.
Counsel Jobe: Did you interview any other person?
Senghore: We did.
Counsel Jobe: Did you interview Essa Keita?
Senghore: Yes, Essa Keita was interviewed in Kanilai.
Counsel Jobe: So, no one was interviewed in the Kombos?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: So, all those you interviewed in Kanilai were all civilians?
Senghore: No.
Counsel Jobe: So, how many military officers did you interview?
Senghore: I can’t remember.
Counsel Jobe: How many years have you been an investigator?
Senghore: For 15 years.
Counsel Jobe: And you want this court to believe that a person who has been an investigator for 15 years can’t remember the names of officers he interviewed?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: So, you weren’t recording?
Senghore: I was taking jottings.
Counsel Jobe: So, if you’re asked to bring those jottings, would you be able to provide them?
Senghore: No, I can’t disclose my jottings.
Counsel Jobe: And the people you interviewed; the civilians are they male or female?
Senghore: They are males who were, in fact, interviewed by my colleagues.
Counsel Jobe: Who among your colleagues did the interview?
Senghore: I can’t remember.
Counsel Jobe: I’m putting it to you that you’re lying to the court.
Senghore: All I said is the truth and nothing but the truth.
Counsel Jobe: And how many places did you visit in Kanilai?
Senghore: One.
Counsel Jobe: And I assumed that’s the only detention centre you visited?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: Did you go to the room?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: It’s a room and a parlour?
Senghore: Double room and a parlour.
Counsel Jobe: Is it a double room and a parlour residence?
Senghore: At the moment, it’s occupied by the military as a guard room.
Counsel Jobe: Where was Essa detained in one of the rooms, either the left or the right?
Senghore: The left one, which is directly opposite the tap.
Counsel Jobe: What is the distance from the room to the tap?
Senghore: It is 20 meters or less.
Counsel Jobe: And you said Essa Keita told you he looked through the window?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: I’m putting it to you that the room was never used as a detention centre.
Senghore: My lord, that room was used as a detention centre.
Counsel Jobe: Because you believe what Essa Keita told you?
Senghore: No, not that, but the intelligence told me it was used as a detention centre since 2016.
Counsel Jobe: No intelligence exists that told you that it was a detention centre in 2016.
Senghore: It was used as a detention centre.
Counsel Jobe: Do you have any evidence to prove that intelligence?
Senghore: Yes, but for security reasons I can’t disclose that.
Counsel Jobe: I’m putting it to you that no intelligent person would say that place was used for a detention centre.
Senghore: I was told.
Counsel Jobe: Is it correct that you have never seen Samba Wurry?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: And equally, you didn’t know his family, village, or town he comes from?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: And you have never seen his dead body or a graveyard?
Senghore: Yes, that’s correct.
Counsel Jobe: And equally the same for Kajali Jammeh?
Senghore: Yes.
Counsel Jobe: And I’m putting it to you that the names Samba Wurry and Kajali are names that never existed.
Senghore: They did exist.
The case adjourned to February 24, 2026, at 12:00 PM for further hearing
