Defense describes Dibba’s sedition charges ‘incompetent’

Mr. Dibba appeared before Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally at the Banjul Magistrate’s Court on a count of sedition charges on Wednesday.

The Inspector General of Police (IGP) charged Mr. Dibba with Seditious Intention under section 51(1) (a), punishable by section 52(1)(b) & (c) of the Criminal Code Volume One, Laws of The Gambia 2009.

The IGP alleged that in May 2024, Dibba recorded and published a WhatsApp audio accusing the President of being “greedy, immature, rude, and foolish,” aiming to incite contempt against the President or the government.

Lead Lawyer for Dibba, Counsel Borry S. Touray, announced their intention to challenge the charge before a plea was entered. Touray argued that the charge under section 51(1) is merely a definition and not an actual offence, which is outlined in section 52. He requested the court to strike out the charge, as it did not empower the court to impose any criminal sanction.

“We intend to challenge the charge against the accused (Ebrima Dibba). We are challenging the offence in which the accused is charged before he takes his plea. The offence under which the accused (Ebrima Dibba) is charged under section 51 subsection 1 is only a definition of the Section. It is clear from the provision it is only a definition section or provision.

“The actual provision where the offence is created and one can be charged with is Section 52. It is clear here that Section 52 is the correct provision criminalising sedition. So the charge before the court is incompetent and we urged it to be struck out. Because it does not give the power to the court to impose any criminal sanction,” Counsel Touray submitted. 

In response, Commissioner Sanneh, representing the IGP, argued that the charge was proper, referencing both sections 51 and 52 to support their case. He requested the court to dismiss Counsel Touray’s application and proceed with Dibba’s plea.

“We refer the court to section 51 which the accused is charged and further refer to section 52 which punishes the same. This is why we charged him with section 51 and its punishment section thereto, and we are saying that section 52 sub 1 B and C matches with section 51 sub 1 A. It is our submission that the Counsel’s application be dismissed since it’s misconceived, and we ask the accused to enter his plea,” Commissioner Sanneh submitted. 

Principal Magistrate Krubally adjourned the case to Thursday for a ruling.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dibba has been granted bail in the sum of D100,000.

Some reporting from Kerr Fatou