Court Orders State to Identify Alleged Co-Conspirators in Trial of Former Soldier Sanna Manjang

Sanna Manjang -photo: Kexx

A High Court judge has ordered prosecutors to provide clearer details about alleged accomplices in the case against former military officer Sanna Manjang, who is facing charges of murder, conspiracy, and assault linked to acts committed during the former regime.

Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh ruled on Friday that the state must amend portions of its indictment to specify the identities, or provide sufficient particulars, of the individuals said to have conspired with Mr. Manjang. The judge said the current wording of the charges was too vague to allow the accused to adequately prepare his defense.

The ruling came during proceedings in which prosecutors sought to read a new bill of indictment, filed on March 9, 2026, against Mr. Manjang. The indictment contains two counts of murder, two counts of conspiracy, and one count of assault causing actual bodily harm.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E.R. Dougan and B. Badjie appeared for the State, while Sheriff K. Jobe represented the accused.

Before the charges could be read, Mr. Jobe raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the amended indictment was incompetent because the prosecution had not obtained the court’s permission before filing it.

“My Lady, before the accused person takes his plea to the amended information filed on the 9th of March 2026, we have a preliminary objection to it,” Mr. Jobe told the court.

He argued that once an accused person has already pleaded to an indictment, any amendment must first be authorized by the court. Citing Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he said the prosecution had neither applied for leave nor received an order from the court permitting the amendment.

Ms. Dougan, responding for the State, maintained that the prosecution has the authority to amend its information at any stage of the proceedings and argued that the cited provision did not apply in the manner suggested by the defense.

In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh examined whether the amended indictment was properly before the court despite the absence of prior leave.

Quoting Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which addresses the amendment of charges during trial, the judge said the law does not explicitly require prosecutors to seek leave before making such amendments. However, she noted that because the High Court is a court of record, parties are generally expected to obtain permission before taking procedural steps.

Even so, she said the absence of formal leave did not prejudice the accused or undermine the fairness of the proceedings. The court therefore ruled that the amended indictment filed on March 9 was properly before it.

Following that decision, the court began reading the first two counts of murder to Mr. Manjang. Mr. Jobe raised another objection, arguing that the charges were brought under provisions of the old Criminal Code, which he said had been repealed.

Justice Jobarteh rejected that argument, relying on an earlier ruling that the charges were valid because the alleged offenses occurred before the current Criminal Offences Act came into force.

The defense also challenged the conspiracy counts, arguing that they were both legally flawed and vague. Mr. Jobe said the prosecution had failed to identify the alleged co-conspirators, instead referring broadly to groups such as the “Black Blacks” or the “Junglers,” units widely associated with abuses under the former government.

“It takes two people to conspire,” Mr. Jobe argued. “The prosecution has not named or identified who those others were.”

He said the lack of specific identities would make it difficult for the accused to prepare his defense.

Ms. Dougan responded that the relevant provision of the Criminal Code does not require prosecutors to name every alleged co-conspirator and insisted that the charges were sufficiently clear.

Justice Jobarteh sided with the defense on that point. She said criminal charges must contain enough detail to inform an accused person of the exact nature of the allegations against them.

“In the present case, the amended information states that the accused ‘conspired with others’ to commit an offence but does not disclose the identity of those alleged co-conspirators,” the judge said. “The accused is not expected to speculate from the list of witnesses who the co-conspirators are.”

The court ordered the prosecution to amend Counts 3 and 5 to disclose the identities or provide sufficient particulars of the alleged co-conspirators. Prosecutors were directed to serve the revised indictment on the defense by March 20.

The case was adjourned to March 25, 2026, when Mr. Manjang is expected to take his plea, and the hearing is scheduled to begin.