Sanna Manjang Murder Charges Dropped as Court Allows New Assault Indictment

The High Court on Friday allowed prosecutors to withdraw murder charges against former Jungler Sanna Manjang and replace them with two counts of assault causing actual bodily harm, rejecting defence arguments that the late amendment would unfairly prejudice the accused.

Justice S.K. Jobarteh ruled that the prosecution had satisfied the requirements of Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act and that the amendment would not compromise Manjang’s right to a fair trial. The judge then took Manjang’s plea on the revised indictment, and he pleaded not guilty to both assault charges.

The ruling marked a significant shift in a case that had undergone multiple revisions since it was first filed earlier this year. Following the plea, the State adopted all evidence previously led during the trial and formally closed its case, paving the way for the Defence to argue that there is no case for Manjang to answer.

The dispute centered on a further amended information filed on July 16, 2026. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions E.R. Dougan asked the court to proceed with the new charges and invite the accused to enter a plea.

Defence lawyer S.K. Jobe objected, arguing that the prosecution had failed to obtain the court’s permission before filing the amended indictment. He contended that the latest revision was part of a series of changes that reflected weaknesses in the State’s case rather than legitimate prosecutorial corrections.

According to the Defence, prosecutors initially filed a two-count indictment for murder in January 2026 before expanding it to six counts in March. The indictment was later reduced to four counts before the latest amendment removed the remaining murder allegations altogether and substituted two assault charges.

Mr. Jobe argued that allowing the amendment after the prosecution had presented its evidence would deprive the Defence of the opportunity to seek a dismissal of the murder charges through a no-case submission. Had the State closed its case on the original indictment, he argued, the court would have been required to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to support the murder allegations.

He further submitted that Manjang had remained in custody for nearly seven months because of the gravity of the murder charges and that withdrawing those allegations at the close of the prosecution’s case would undermine the accused’s legitimate expectations and amount to an injustice.

Relying on Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defence maintained that amendments to criminal charges are permissible only where statutory requirements are met and where they do not prejudice an accused person.

The prosecution disagreed.

Ms. Dougan argued that Section 85 of the Constitution empowers the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute, undertake, and amend criminal proceedings as circumstances require. She said the revised indictment reflected the evidence available to the state and had been made “in the interest of justice.”

She also argued that the Defence would suffer no prejudice because it retained the right to recall witnesses for further cross-examination if necessary. In addition, she contended that the Defence had misapplied Section 218 because the amendment had been initiated by the Prosecution rather than directed by the court.

In reply, Mr. Jobe maintained that the constitutional powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions are not unlimited and remain subject to judicial oversight to safeguard the fairness of criminal proceedings.

Justice Jobarteh ultimately rejected the Defence’s objections.

In her ruling, she held that the statutory conditions under Section 218 had been met and that the amended information had been properly filed and served on the Defence. She added that the court could not disregard a document that had been regularly filed simply because prosecutors had not made a separate formal application for leave to amend.

The judge therefore allowed the amendment and proceeded with the arraignment.

Under the revised indictment, Manjang is charged with two counts of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to Section 228 of the Criminal Code.

The first count alleges that in March 2006, at the former National Intelligence Agency headquarters in Banjul, Manjang, while serving in the Gambia Armed Forces and as a member of the Junglers, assaulted Tamsir Jasseh by beating and kicking him, causing severe injuries.

The second count alleges that during the same period Manjang assaulted military officer Yaya M.S. Darboe by beating him with sticks, pouring molten plastic on his body, tying him inside a sack and winching him up, causing serious injuries and bleeding.

Manjang pleaded not guilty to both charges.

After the plea was entered, the Prosecution successfully applied for all evidence previously taken in the proceedings to be adopted before announcing the close of its case.

Defence counsel then informed the court that he had not anticipated the State would close its case at Thursday’s sitting and sought leave to apply for bail, noting that the court was about to begin its vacation.

Ms. Dougan requested that any bail application be made formally in writing rather than orally. Justice Jobarteh granted that request.

Mr. Jobe also notified the court that the Defence intends to file a no-case-to-answer submission.

The matter was adjourned to July 28, 2026, when the court is expected to hear the Defence’s bail application before considering whether the case should proceed.