By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator, Sweden
The ongoing prosecution of Sanna Manjang has reignited intense public debate. While no reasonable Gambian contests the necessity of accountability for crimes committed during the Jammeh-era, it is equally important that public discussion be grounded in law, not conjecture. Unfortunately, recent commentary has injected legal inaccuracies and political speculation into what is, in reality, a straightforward matter of criminal justice.
Several claims being circulated deserve correction.
Sanna Manjang Is Not a Serving Member of the Gambia Armed Forces
The suggestion that Sanna Manjang remains an active member of the Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) is legally false.
Under the Gambia Armed Forces Act (GAFA) 1985, any soldier who is absent without lawful authority for more than 30 days is formally recorded as Absent Without Leave (AWOL). After three months, the individual is deemed a deserter. Importantly, under military law, prolonged desertion—especially extending over years—results in the automatic loss of military status. Sanna Manjang has not been in active service for over two decades. In law, he is no longer a member of the armed forces and therefore cannot be treated as such.
There is no legal basis for presenting a person in military uniform when he is no longer a legal member of the institution.
Civilian Courts Have Lawful Jurisdiction
Even if Sanna Manjang were a serving soldier (which he is not), the claim that only a court-martial could hear his case is incorrect.
Military law governs internal offences such as desertion, insubordination, or disciplinary breaches. However, crimes such as murder, torture, enforced disappearance, arson, and aggravated assault fall squarely under civil jurisdiction—regardless of whether the accused is a soldier or civilian.
Uniform does not confer immunity.
Military rank does not shield criminal liability.
Human-rights violations are not subject to military privilege.
The High Court of The Gambia therefore retains full jurisdiction.
Prosecution of One Suspect Is Not “Selective Justice”
It has also been argued that prosecuting Sanna Manjang while other Junglers remain uncharged amounts to selective justice. This misunderstands how criminal prosecutions work.
Prosecutorial decisions rest on:
availability of witnesses,
sufficiency of evidence,
admissibility standards,
and custody status of suspects.
Courts do not wait for multiple defendants to be arrested before proceeding against one who is already in custody and sufficiently implicated. No legal standard anywhere in the world requires that crimes be prosecuted in “batches.”
Justice is not rendered invalid because it is first.
Living Freely Does Not Mean Legal Innocence
The fact that some former Junglers remain at liberty does not render this prosecution illegitimate. It means only that investigations, evidence-gathering, and jurisdictional obstacles differ case by case. Prosecution is not a popularity contest or a public spectacle; it is a legal process driven by evidence, timing, and access to suspects.
To halt a legitimate trial simply because others have not yet been charged would institutionalize impunity rather than cure it.
The TRRC Was Not a Court — and Does Not Replace One
Another misunderstood point is the role of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). The TRRC was:
not a judicial body,
issued no convictions,
rendered no binding verdicts.
It produced findings and recommendations only.
Criminal prosecution comes after truth commissions—not before. The courts are not enforcing TRRC conclusions; they are applying the Criminal Code of The Gambia using evidence and witness testimony subjected to judicial scrutiny.
This Is Not Electoral Politics—It Is Delayed Justice
To label this prosecution “election-driven” trivializes years of survivors’ suffering and ignores the reality of systemic delay in post-dictatorship accountability.
Justice delayed by two decades is not political—it is overdue.
Timing does not invalidate legitimacy.
Conclusion
This is not a show trial.
This is not political theater.
This is lawful prosecution.
Sanna Manjang stands before a civilian court because:
he is lawfully a civilian,
his alleged crimes are civilian offences,
and the court holds jurisdiction.
The real threat to justice is not prosecution.
It is public confusion fueled by false legal claims.
Gambians deserve truth based on law—not speculation.
Justice must proceed—not retreat.
No comments:
Post a Comment