Sanna Manjang in court
The High Court, presided over by Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh, has dismissed a preliminary objection challenging the validity of murder charges brought against Sanna Manjang, paving the way for the accused to take his plea.
The objection was raised by defence counsel S.K. Jobe, who argued that the charges were null and void on the grounds that they were founded on a “dead and non-existent” law. Counsel Jobe contended that the prosecution relied on Section 187 of the Criminal Code, which he said had been repealed by Section 344 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, thereby stripping the court of jurisdiction.
Following the ruling, Manjang pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder relating to the deaths of Kajali Jammeh, also known as “Le Cock,” and Samba Wurry, both allegedly killed in 2006.
When the case was called for plea taking, the State was represented by a team of prosecutors led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E.R. Dougan, alongside P. Gomez, F. Drammeh, M. Jammeh, and A. Badjie. The accused was represented by counsel S.K. Jobe and F. Jammeh.
Justice Jobarteh ordered the court clerk to read the bill of indictment. The first count alleged that Sanna Manjang unlawfully caused the death of Kajali Jammeh in 2006 at Kanilai by cutting his neck with a knife, contrary to Section 187 of the Criminal Code.
Before the second count was read, defence counsel raised a formal objection to the competence of the charges, which were filed on 12 January 2026. Counsel Jobe submitted that once a law is repealed, it ceases to exist and cannot be revived, likening it to “a dead person.” He cited authorities including Onagoruwa v I.G.P. (1991) and Madumere v Onuoha (1999), arguing that a repealed statute is obliterated as if it had never been enacted.
He further argued that since the Criminal Code is no longer recognised under Section 7 of the 1997 Constitution, no person could lawfully be charged under it, rendering the entire information incompetent.
In response, State Counsel E.R. Dougan argued that the alleged offences occurred in 2006, when the Criminal Code was still in force. She submitted that the applicable law is the one in effect at the time of the alleged offence and that the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, cannot be applied retrospectively. She urged the court to dismiss the objection and proceed with the plea.
In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh identified the central issue as whether the repeal of the Criminal Code by the 2025 Act rendered the charges incompetent. She held that although Section 344 repealed the old Code, it must be read together with the savings provision in Section 2(1)(c) of the Criminal Offences Act.
“Nothing in this Act shall affect the liability or trial of a person in respect of an act done or commenced before the commencement of this Act,” the judge noted.
Justice Jobarteh emphasised that criminal liability attaches at the time an offence is committed, not at the time of trial, and that applying the new law retrospectively would infringe the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial. She consequently dismissed the preliminary objection and declared the charges competent.
“The repeal of the Criminal Code by Section 344 of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, does not invalidate prosecution for offences committed before the commencement of the Act,” Justice Jobarteh ruled, ordering the accused to take his plea.
Defence counsel subsequently requested an adjournment, stating that he had only been served with the bill of indictment the previous day and had not had sufficient time to consult with his client. The court declined to adjourn the plea but stood the matter down for 20 minutes to allow counsel to consult with the accused in the court library.
After the consultation, the charges were read to Sanna Manjang in English. He pleaded not guilty to both counts of murder.
The prosecution applied for an adjournment to prepare its first witness. Justice Jobarteh granted the application and adjourned the case to 9 February 2026 for the commencement of the hearing.
Comments are closed.