By Arret Jatta
Proceedings continued yesterday at the high court in the case of the state versus Sanna Manjang, a member of former president Yahya Jammeh’s hit squad with the defence mounting a strong challenge to the police investigation process.
Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions M Dugan appeared alongside F. Drammeh and A Badjie for the state, while Counsel SK Jobe represented the accused.
A police officer attached to the Kairaba Police Station testified as the latest prosecution witness. He said in November 2025 he was instructed to join an investigation panel probing the alleged killings of Kajali Jammeh, Bai Dem and Samba Wurry, which the state alleged were carried out by the accused.
He explained that his role in the panel was limited to obtaining cautionary and voluntary statements and that on 8th November 2025, he visited Manjang at the Mile 2 Central Prison and obtained his statement in the presence of an independent witness. However, he said Manjang refused to sign the statement in the absence of his lawyer.
The officer further told the court that on 17th November, 2025 he joined a team of investigators in Kanilai where one Essa Keita pointed out a building allegedly used as a detention centre.
Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not verify the information provided by Essa Keita and did not personally speak to the soldiers found occupying the centre. He said his supervisor spoke to them but he did not hear what was discussed.
The witness also confirmed that he had never seen Kajali Jammeh, his identification documents, his body or grave. He gave the same response regarding Samba Wurry.
When asked about the investigation report, he said it was with DSP Jally MI Senghore and that he did not sign it. He told the court he only saw the signature of Senghore on the document.
At the close of the testimony, DPP Dugan informed the court that the state intended to file an additional witness.
To this, Counsel Jobe objected, describing the move as “piecemeal prosecution” and urged the state to file all documents they intend to rely on so that the defence can prepare properly.
DPP Dugan rejected the characterisation, stating that both parties are before the court for the administration of justice and that the prosecution’s duty is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Jobarteh encouraged the DD Dugan to “do the needful” and serve the defence counsel with the additional witness.
The case has been adjourned to 9th March.
