The High Court of The Gambia, presided by Justice Jaiteh, has overruled the no-case submission filed by defence Counsel on behalf of Abdoulie Sanyang. The ruling ordered the accused Abdoulie Sanyang to enter his defence on the two charges he faces.
Abdoulie Sanyang is standing trial on two counts: Arson, contrary to section 305(a) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025. The charge alleges that Abdoulie Sanyang unlawfully and wilfully caused a building, the APRC Bureau, to be set on fire.
Also, interference with pending judicial proceedings, contrary to section 99(d) and (i) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025. Prosecution alleges that he made statements during a live broadcast on West Coast Radio’s “Coffee Time” describing the courts as clandestine.
Misrepresenting an ongoing criminal matter (The State v. Ousainou Bojang) by uttering a speech capable of prejudicing the parties and undermining the authority and dignity of the Court.
Abdoulie Sanyang has pleaded not guilty to both counts.
The Prosecution called six witnesses, plus one subpoenaed witness, and tendered documentary evidence, including audio/video recordings (Exhibits P7 & P9) of the interview. Therese Fatou Gomez authenticated the audio of the live broadcast, which was played in open court. An IT specialist, Paul S. F. Sambou, tendered a flash drive containing the video footage.
The Accused’s (Abdoulie Sanyang) statements (Exhibits P1-P3). Police Officer Mbaye Conteh tendered the voluntary and cautionary statements of Abdoulie Sanyang.
The most important exhibit was the video evidence (Exhibit P7), which the Court noted captures the accused explicitly stating he paid individuals to burn the building forming the subject of the Arson charge.
The footage also captured the statements concerning the pending case of The State v. Ousainou Bojang, where he described the courts as “clandestine”.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh focused on Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2025, which mandates the court to acquit an accused only if, at the close of the prosecution’s case, “a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him or her to make a defence”.
Justice Jaiteh determined that the Prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to require an explanation from the Accused, thus establishing a prima facie case on both counts.
On count one (Arson), Justice Jaiteh found that the accused’s admission in Exhibit P7—that he paid individuals to burn the building constitutes direct evidence of procurement of the offence under section 26(1)(d) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025.
Justice Jaiteh said the law holds that a person who procures others to commit an offence is deemed a principal offender, adding that the admission was deemed sufficient evidence to require a defence.
On count two (Interference with Judicial Proceedings) Justice Jaiteh said the audio and video recordings were found to clearly capture the Accused’s public statements on a live broadcast, including describing the courts as clandestine and misrepresenting judicial processes.
Justice Jaiteh concluded that it was direct and credible evidence capable of undermining public confidence in the judicial process.
Justice Jaiteh found the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses coherent, admissible, and probative. Justice Jaiteh overruled the submission, and the no-case submission was overruled, and Abdoulie Sanyang was ordered to enter his defence.
