By Arret Jatta
The Banjul High Court on Friday ordered state prosecutors to amend parts of the charges filed against Sana Manjang to clearly identify alleged co-conspirators before the case proceeds.
The matter was heard before Justice Sidi Jobarteh. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ER Dugan appeared for the state, while Counsel Sheriff Jobe represented the accused.
When the case was called, the defence raised a preliminary objection to an amended information filed by the prosecution on 9th March, 2026. Counsel Jobe argued that the amended charge sheet was incompetent because the prosecution did not first obtain leave of the court before filing it.
He submitted that once an accused person has taken a plea, any amendment to the information must be preceded by an application and an order of the court. Jobe relied on Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the prosecution must seek the court’s permission before making such amendments.
In response, Deputy DPP Dugan argued that Section 218 does not prevent the prosecution from amending an information during trial and maintained that the state can amend charges at any stage before judgment.
In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh held that although leave of court is generally expected before procedural steps are taken, the failure to obtain it in this case did not invalidate the amended information.
She noted that the accused had already been served with the amended charges and that allowing the amendment would not cause injustice to him. The court therefore held that the amended information filed on 9th March, 2026 was proper.
Following the ruling, the charges were read to the accused. However, the defence counsel objected to counts three and five, which relate to conspiracy. Jobe argued that conspiracy requires at least two people and that the prosecution failed to identify the persons with whom the accused allegedly conspired.
He submitted that the charges were vague and would make it difficult for the accused to properly prepare his defence.
In her ruling, Justice Jobarteh agreed that the conspiracy counts lacked sufficient particulars. She stated that under Section 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a charge must contain enough details to allow the accused to understand the allegations and prepare his defence.
The judge directed the prosecution to amend counts three and five to disclose, where possible, the identities of the alleged co-conspirators or provide sufficient details to identify them.
The case was adjourned to 25th March, 2026 for plea taking and hearing. The court also ordered the prosecution to amend the charge sheet and serve the defence with the revised document by 20th March, 2026.
