By Omar Bah
Former Interior Minister Ousman Sonko used his address during an appeal hearing in a Swiss court to offer condolences to the families of Jammeh-era victims while mounting a direct challenge to how his case has been handled, questioning evidentiary standards and the denial of interpretation at first instance.
Sonko, seeking an appeal against his conviction in Switzerland for alleged crimes against humanity in The Gambia, told the appeals court that during his tenue, he had carried out his duties “to the best of his ability, in accordance with Gambian law and with respect for human rights.”
He said he had sought support from European and Swiss authorities to promote such policies during his tenure.
Sonko was unequivocal in his denial of torture. “Torture is never acceptable and I have never believed otherwise,” Sonko told the court.
The former minister’s sharpest criticism was reserved for the trial process itself. He questioned why the benefit of the doubt had not been applied to him, arguing that “evidence in favour of his innocence had been dismissed while evidence against him had been given greater weight.”
He also raised the lack of interpretation during the first-instance proceedings.
“I regretted the lack of interpretation at first instance and wondered whether, because I am African, the judges had considered that I did not need to understand what I was accused of,” he said. He thanked the appeals court for providing interpretation services during the current hearing.
Despite contesting the charges and the process, Sonko directly addressed the plaintiffs, expressing his “deepest condolences to the plaintiffs for what they had endured” and said he hoped the trial would “contribute to the process of truth and justice in The Gambia.”
Ousman Sonko served as Interior Minister under Yahya Jammeh from 2006 to 2016, a period during which security forces are accused of torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. He was arrested in Switzerland in January 2017 after NGOs filed a criminal complaint. His case is a landmark test of universal jurisdiction for Jammeh-era crimes.
He dened of criminal responsibility and an attack on procedural fairness. He asserts compliance with Gambian law and human rights, rejects torture as policy, and frames his defense around evidentiary imbalance and language rights.
The appeals court now has to weigh his claims of bias against the testimony and documentation presented by plaintiffs and prosecutors. The outcome will signal how European courts balance due process complaints from African officials with the evidentiary demands of universal jurisdiction cases.
