By: Isatou Sarr
The High Court in Banjul has ordered state prosecutors to amend their indictment against former military officer Sanna Manjang and clearly identify the alleged co-conspirators linked to charges of murder, conspiracy and assault causing actual bodily harm.
The order was issued by Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh during proceedings in the on-going criminal trial after the defence raised objections to the wording of the amended indictment.
When the matter was called, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E. R. Dougan appeared for the State alongside A. Drammeh and A. Badjie, while the accused was represented by defence counsel S. K. Jobe.
The day’s proceedings focused on an amended bill of indictment filed on March 9, 2026, which charged Manjang with two counts of murder, conspiracy and assault causing actual bodily harm.
Before the charges were read to the accused for plea taking, defence counsel Jobe raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the amended indictment was not properly before the court because the prosecution had not first sought leave of the court to amend the charges.
Citing Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Jobe submitted that once an accused person has already taken a plea to an information, any subsequent amendment must be authorised by the court.
In response, Deputy DPP Dougan argued that the provision cited by the defence did not apply in the circumstances and maintained that the prosecution had the right to amend information during the course of a trial.
In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that while the prosecution did not formally seek leave before filing the amendment, the omission did not render the indictment incompetent or prejudice the accused.
She ruled that the amended information filed on March 9 was properly before the court.
However, further objections were raised when the conspiracy charges were addressed.
Defence counsel argued that the particulars of the alleged conspiracy were vague because the prosecution did not identify the individuals who allegedly conspired with the accused.
The defence maintained that references to groups such as “Junglers” or “Black Black” were insufficient and would make it difficult for the accused to prepare an effective defence.
Justice Jobarteh agreed with the defence on this point, ruling that a criminal charge must provide sufficient particulars to allow an accused person to understand the nature of the allegations against him.
The court therefore directed the prosecution to further amend the indictment to disclose the identities or sufficient particulars of the alleged co-conspirators in the conspiracy counts.
The State was ordered to file and serve the revised indictment on the defence by March 20, 2026.
The case was adjourned to March 25, 2026, when the accused is expected to take his plea and the court will continue hearing the testimony of the prosecution’s third witness.