By Arret Jatta
The high court in Banjul, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh yesterday acquitted and discharged former Gambian soldier Abdoulie Sanyang on charges of arson and interference with judicial proceedings, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Sanyang was arrested at Banjul International Airport as he was heading home to Europe where he now resides. His trouble with the law came from a radio interview in which he was alleged to have admitted to taking part in arson attack on the APRC bureau, among other things.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh held that although evidence established that the APRC Bureau in Kanifing was deliberately torched in 2016, the prosecution did not provide sufficient proof linking the accused to the crime.
Case history
Sanyang had faced two criminal counts; unlawfully settting fire to the APRC Bureau in 2016, and interfering with judicial proceedings after statements he made during a live radio interview on West Coast Radio in August 2025, in which he allegedly described court proceedings as “clandestine” and controlled.
The prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered nine exhibits, including audio and video recordings of the interview, statements allegedly made by the accused and investigative reports. The defence called only the accused as its sole witness.
Court findings on arson
Justice Jaiteh found that eyewitness’ testimony confirmed that the APRC Bureau was willfully set on fire by masked individuals. However, the key issue was whether the accused bore criminal responsibility for the act.
The court ruled that the prosecution relied heavily on alleged admissions contained in cautionary statements and remarks made during the radio interview. Because these statements were disputed and later retracted by the accused, the law required independent corroborative evidence linking him to the offence.
“No financial records, communications, or witness testimony were produced to demonstrate that the accused aided or financed the arson,” the judge said.
While suspicion may exist, the court emphasised that criminal liability must be grounded in proof rather than conjecture. “Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused person’s participation in the burning beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the arson charge.
Court findings on judicial interference allegations
The court acknowledged that judicial proceedings in another criminal matter were ongoing at the time of the accused’s radio interview and that he made public comments touching on those proceedings.
However, the judge ruled that the prosecution did not demonstrate that the statements misrepresented the case, prejudiced any party, or showed intentional interference with the administration of justice.
Justice Jaiteh noted that the law distinguishes between protected criticism and criminal conduct. Citing established legal principles, he said criticism of courts is permissible provided it does not obstruct justice.
The court found no evidence that the remarks influenced judicial officers or created a real risk of prejudice, particularly within The Gambia’s non-jury system. “At most, the statements were ill-advised or provocative, but did not meet the threshold for criminal liability,” the court said.
Acquittal and bail pending appeal
Having determined that both charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court acquitted and discharged Sanyang.
Immediately after the judgment, state counsel SL Jobarteh notified the court of the prosecution’s intention to appeal and applied for the accused to remain in custody, citing concerns that he was not a resident of The Gambia.
The defence opposed the application, arguing that following acquittal the accused regained his liberty and should be released.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that the prosecution failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting detention. Emphasising constitutional protections, the judge stated that an acquittal restores an individual’s liberty and any continued detention must be strictly justified.
The court therefore granted bail under Section 325(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Sanyang was ordered to enter a bail bond of D50,000 with one Gambian surety, whose national identity card must be deposited with the court and supported by an affidavit of means. The bail will elapse after 30 days if the state fails to file a competent petition of appeal.
