The murder trial of Sanna Manjang continued before Justice S.K. Jobarteh, with a police investigator alleging the existence of a secret detention centre in Kanilai where victims were reportedly beheaded and stabbed.
Jally M.I. Senghore, an officer attached to the Brikama Divisional Crime Unit, appeared as the prosecution’s first witness. He told the court that in November 2025, a high-level joint investigation panel comprising the police, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), and the armed forces was constituted to probe alleged atrocities linked to the accused.
According to Senghore, the panel focused on the disappearance and suspected killing of three individuals: Samba Wurry, Bai Dam, and Kajali Jammeh. He said an eyewitness later led investigators to a location in Kanilai village and physically demonstrated how the events unfolded.
“The eyewitness took us to the crime scene, where photographs were taken and exhibits documented,” Senghore testified.
He added that while the accused had described the victims as destitute petty traders from the border region, investigations revealed that only one of them had family ties in The Gambia. Senghore further told the court that the panel was informed Kajali Jammeh was beheaded, while Samba Wurry was stabbed to death.
Tensions rose in court when Senghore began recounting statements allegedly made by Essa Keita, a man said to have been detained in Kanilai and who purportedly witnessed the killings.
Defence counsel S.K. Jobe objected twice, arguing that the testimony amounted to hearsay and insisting that Keita, who is listed as a witness in the Bill of Indictment, should testify personally.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) countered that Senghore was merely explaining the conduct of the investigation, not offering hearsay evidence. She argued that his narration concerned interviews he conducted and constituted “facts in issue” or “relevant facts” under Section 19 of the Evidence Act.
In response, Counsel Jobe maintained that allowing the investigator to relay Keita’s account would unfairly prejudice the accused and bypass the requirement for firsthand testimony, citing Sections 19(b) and 21 of the Evidence Act.
Justice Jobarteh dismissed the defence objection, ruling that Senghore was describing his investigative process rather than presenting hearsay. However, when the witness later began detailing what Keita had allegedly said about third parties, the judge upheld a renewed objection, clarifying that Senghore could testify about conducting interviews but not about statements attributed to others through Keita.
Deputy DPP E.R. Dougan subsequently asked whether statements had been obtained from the accused. Senghore confirmed that he conducted the interrogation and documentation, identifying statements recorded on December 3, 2025.
The prosecution applied to tender the statements into evidence. Defence counsel raised no objection, and the documents were admitted and marked as exhibits.
During cross-examination, Counsel Jobe challenged Senghore’s credibility, accusing the 15-year veteran investigator of being untruthful.
Senghore maintained that he personally recorded one statement from the accused on December 3, 2025, while another was obtained earlier by Inspector Samba J. Sowe. He also testified that a detention facility existed in Kanilai and claimed the accused was in charge of supervising detainees at the site.
Under sustained questioning, Senghore said the facility was both a military company base and a detention centre. He acknowledged interviewing military personnel but said he could not disclose their identities or battalion affiliations for intelligence reasons. Justice Jobarteh upheld his refusal to reveal such details.
Counsel Jobe further pressed Senghore on his inability to recall the names and ranks of officers interviewed, despite his years of investigative experience. Senghore stated that he relied on jottings, which he said he could not disclose.
The defence also challenged Senghore’s assertion that Essa Keita had been detained in one of the rooms at the Kanilai location, suggesting the premises were never used as a detention centre. Senghore insisted that intelligence reports indicated the site had served that purpose since 2016, though he declined to produce such information in open court, citing security concerns.
Counsel Jobe also highlighted that Senghore had never seen Samba Wurry or Kajali Jammeh, nor their bodies or graves, and questioned whether the alleged victims even existed. Senghore firmly rejected that suggestion.
The case was adjourned to February 24, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. for continuation of proceedings.
Comments are closed.