The Gambia government has formally filed an appeal challenging the recent acquittal of Abdoulie Sanyang, who was cleared of charges including arson and judicial interference. The petition was submitted on Friday, February 13, 2026, by Senior State Counsel Saikou Lamin Jobarteh, just three days after Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court issued the verdict.
In its appeal, the State seeks to have the High Court’s ruling overturned and replaced with a conviction and sentence deemed appropriate for the alleged offenses. Central to the appeal are what prosecutors describe as “glaring admissions” by Sanyang, which they contend were disregarded by the trial judge.
The government argues that Justice Jaiteh erred by requiring additional proof for facts already admitted by Sanyang in his cautionary statement and a radio interview with West Coast. According to the petition, the judge introduced an “independent evidence” standard not recognized under Gambian law, effectively raising the burden of proof on the prosecution.
The appeal highlights a segment of Sanyang’s radio interview in which he allegedly stated, “When we burnt down the APRC Bureau, we facilitated this… I am part of it; I can never deny it.” Prosecutors argue that the judge failed to give this admission proper evidentiary weight.
The State also disputes Justice Jaiteh’s interpretation of the Criminal Offences Act, 2025, concerning the judicial interference charge. Authorities maintain that the law does not require proof of a tangible ability to influence proceedings, only that a statement or writing be capable of prejudicing any person involved in a case. The appeal further notes that it was unnecessary to call a judicial officer to testify regarding the impact of Sanyang’s statement.
The petition additionally raises procedural concerns, asserting that the judge allowed counsel K. Jallow to assume control of the defense without formal notification, contravening established legal protocols.
Through the appeal, the State is urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court’s judgment in its entirety, arguing that the acquittal departed from standard judicial norms. Prosecutors are seeking a conviction and sentence reflective of the severity of the charges.
Comments are closed.