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.
Lawyer Borry S. Touray for the accused asked the second prosecution witness, Ousman Gibba of the Special Investigation Unit of the police, whether they had conducted an opinion poll to determine the impact since the inception of the audio,but the witness said ‘no’ to his question.
The witness confirmed in court that the accused, Mr Dibba, was a politician and a member of the United Democratic Party.
He also confirmed that since the inception of the audio, no demonstration had taken place in the country on account of the audio and he had not seen any publication in the newspapers in The Gambia that someone showed ill-will against the president due to the audio.
PW2 further confirmed to the court that he had not seen any group of persons presenting any petition to the investigation team showing dissatisfaction against the president because of the audio.
Lawyer Borry S. Touray also asked the witness if any movement or association had been formed to bring disturbance to the country regarding the audio, and he said “no”.
It would be recalled that Lawyer Borry for Dibba, announced their intention to challenge the charge before a plea was entered.
The lead lawyer, Borry Touray, argued that the charge under section 51(1) was “merely a definition” and not an actual offence, which was 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.
In his 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.
On June 6, 2024, Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally delivered his ruling on the oral application made by Ebrima Dibba’s legal team.
In his ruling, the Principal Magistrate upheld counsel Borry S. Touray’s argument that Ebrima Dibba was charged under the wrong section.
Principal Magistrate Krubally emphasised the importance of basing charges on the appropriate laws when prosecuting individuals who have allegedly committed offences, adding that the purpose of criminal charges preferred against the person is to inform him or her of the offence, wrong, incorrect action, or words done thereby violating the existing laws of the land.
“It is indeed fundamental for any authority vested with the powers to press a charge against anyone to be very cautious and conscious of the said offences when to be preferred against anyone because, at the end of the day, the person against whom the said offences are to be preferred will be judged by the legal authorities for such and by extension the public in which case those impatient may characterise him in a negative light,” the Principal Magistrate said.
The case was adjourned until 9 September 2024.
