State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh, appearing alongside S.B.J. Kongira, adopted the prosecution’s final brief as well as its reply on points of law dated January 16, 2026, relying on the arguments and authorities cited therein.
It could be recalled that Former Gambian soldier Abdoulie Sanyang is standing trial at the High Court after his arrest in August 2025, facing charges of arson for allegedly participating in the planning and burning of the APRC Bureau in Kanifing South in 2016, as well as interference with judicial proceedings linked to remarks he allegedly made during a live radio interview that prosecutors say undermined the judiciary.
Counsel told the court that the prosecution was also relying on the cautionary statement of the accused marked as Exhibit P3, as well as Exhibit P7, being the video footage, and Exhibit P9, the corresponding audio recording tendered before the court.
According to the prosecution, the accused made clear remarks in both P3 and P7 which, they argued, amount to admissions in relation to the offences charged. State Counsel Jobarteh drew the court’s attention to pages 9 and 10 of the final address, where the prosecution outlined specific remarks allegedly made by the accused.
The prosecution submitted that Abdoulie Sanyang facilitated, contributed to, or financed the burning down of the APRC Bureau, a building which investigations revealed to be owned by former Speaker of the National Assembly, Abou Denton.
The state also relied on the testimony of PW6, Omar Touray, described as an eyewitness, who testified that the building was burned down on the material day by persons he believed to be members of the security forces.
State Counsel Jobarteh argued that although the defence attempted to isolate the accused from the incident, physical presence at the scene was not required to establish criminal liability, stressing that the accused’s own statements in P3 and P7 showed that he contributed to or financed the burning of the APRC Bureau.
“This is an admission,” Counsel Jobarteh submitted, adding that facts admitted require no further proof, relying on the authority of Antoinette Mayotte.
During submissions, Justice Jaiteh sought clarification on the distinction between a statement and an admission.
“But when you make a statement, is it the same as when you admit it?”
Counsel Jobarteh responded that it was for the court to determine, but maintained that when a person states that he financed or contributed to the commission of an offence, such a statement amounts to an admission for the purpose of establishing the elements of the charge.
On the issue of judicial interference, the prosecution argued that words allegedly uttered by the accused showed disrespect to the courts, particularly in relation to Ousainou Bojang’s case, which is currently before the court, as well as references made to the 2021 presidential election.
The prosecution relied on Section 99(1)(d) and (i), submitting that subsection (d) relates to comments likely to prejudice the outcome of a case, while subsection (i) covers acts showing disrespect to judicial proceedings, whether pending, concluded, or announced. Counsel argued that the defence’s interpretation limiting the scope of the provisions was misconceived.
The state therefore applied for the court to adopt the final address and reply on points of law.
For the defence, Counsel F. Bondi adopted the accused person’s final address, relying on all the arguments and authorities contained therein.
Counsel Bondi urged the court to acquit and discharge Abdoulie Sanyang.
The matter was adjourned until February 10th 2026.
