For more information on the Ousman Sonko case and the appeal proceedings, see our press release and Q&A (available in English, French and German).

Week 3: (14 to 16 April 2026) The Appeal Concludes

>Day 8 and 9 (14 and 15 April): The Parties Plea<

• On crimes against humanity

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the first-instance court only looked at whether the crimes were systematic, and did not examine whether they were also widespread: it based its conviction for crimes against humanity on this single criterion.

They submitted that, under international case law, a widespread attack can be established by looking at the cumulative effect of many individual acts over time. In this case, serious crimes such as torture, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, unlawful detention and killings were committed repeatedly over a period of 22 years against a large part of the population. The German court in the Bai Lowe case also found that the attack was widespread, and similar findings were made by the TRRC, which also noted that it had not been able to identify all victims. The Court should therefore take these elements into account – in addition to the high number of victims and to the geographical scale of the attack, that actually went beyond the Gambian borders – and find that the attack against the population was also widespread.

Regarding systematicity in relation to acts of sexual violence (which was not recognised in first instance), noted such violence was in fact used as a tool of repression under Yahya Jammeh’s regime, against both women and men, but that the first-instance court did not fully assess the available evidence on this point.

For these reasons, the Court should find that the attack against the civilian population was both systematic and widespread.

The defence pleaded that the Swiss administrative authorities, when examining asylum applications from Gambian nationals during the relevant period, had consistently found no evidence of widespread violence against the population in The Gambia. It also pointed to the regular and cooperative relationship between Switzerland and The Gambia in organising the return of rejected asylum seekers, in which Sonko had been involved as Minister of the Interior for ten years. In the defence view, this reflected political stability and security in the country and excluded the existence of crimes against humanity. Such argument was strongly rejected by the lawyers to the plaintiffs and by the OAG.

The defence further argued that the Court’s decision on Switzerland’s jurisdiction over acts committed before 2011 showed a misunderstanding of the concept of crimes against humanity. In particular, the Junglers were not an official unit and had no formal existence, acting independently and outside the control of the head of State. As a result, there could be no State policy of attack. And the NIA was, by law, prohibited from carrying out acts of torture, meaning that no State policy to commit such crimes could be inferred.

The defence reiterated that no attack directed against the civilian population existed. Security forces had responded to criminal activities, including coup attempts in 2000 and 2006 and unlawful demonstrations in 2016, and that those targeted did not fall within the notion of a civilian population by law. They further maintained that the acts were neither systematic nor widespread.

The defence also submitted that Sonko could not be considered a superior in relation to the alleged crimes during his time as Minister of the Interior, nor a co-perpetrator, as he had no influence over the actual perpetrators such as the NIA or the Junglers.

• On the acts from 2000 to 2002 and in 2005 (sexual violence)

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the repeated rapes suffered by one of the plaintiffs should be treated as a single course of conduct in legal terms, meaning that even the oldest acts, which the first-instance court had considered time-barred, should still be taken into account.

They argued that sexual violence was not only widespread during the regime but also organised at the highest level of the State, with practices such as the “protocol girls” illustrating this pattern.

The plaintiff is the widow of a person targeted by the regime as an enemy of the State. The accused acted in his official capacity and used State resources – and that the acts were clearly connected to the wider and systematic attack against the civilian population.

In its plea, the defence did not challenge the first-instance court’s discontinuation of the rape allegations from 2000 to 2002 and in 2005. It argued that the accusations were unfounded, as Sonko was not in The Gambia for most of that period and therefore had an alibi. It also submitted that the complainant was not credible due to inconsistencies in her statements.

• On the January 2000 murder

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the accused intended to murder AM, and not to arrest him. The witness heard on the matter (on day 4) did not provide any new elements and his credibility was contested. They argued that the crime had already been established and clearly linked to the broader attack against civilians, and was an example of the regime’s violence and should be qualified as aggravated considering the circumstances in which it occurred.

The defence pleaded that AM was the instigator of a violent coup attempt. Ousman Sonko’s intention was to arrest him, not to kill him. The arrest was planned on Bond Road to avoid harm to the population, given the victim’s violent character. The defence stated that the use of force was proportionate and justified, as the victim opened fire first, and therefore the facts could not be qualified as murder.

• On the March 2006 acts of torture, unlawful detention, sexual violence

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the crimes were proven and not disputed. The accused denied responsibility, but they argued that his statements were inconsistent and not credible, while the victims’ accounts were detailed, consistent and supported by other evidence.

They stated that Sonko was involved and played an active role in the investigative panel, was present during torture sessions, and bore responsibility for the detention of people at Mile 2 prison. The arrests of journalists were part of the regime’s repression.

Additionally, when it comes to the acts of sexual violence, they followed similar patterns than torture – both used to break the will of a person to stand against the regime. These acts should therefore be qualified both as rape as a crime against humanity and as torture.

They also argued that sexualised violence inflicted on a male victim, should be recognised not only as torture (as it had been by the lower court) but also as violation of sexual autonomy as crimes against humanity, regardless of whether the perpetrators had a sexual motive.

These acts, they submitted, constituted aggravated crimes against humanity, as they endangered the victims’ lives and were particularly cruel, especially where victims were forced to witness the torture of others.

The defence contested Switzerland’s jurisdiction over the March 2006 events due to the prohibition of retroactive application of the law. It argued that these events did not form part of an attack against the population, but rather were a response to alleged coup plotters and journalists accused of spreading false information.

The defence further argued that the evidence showed that Sonko was not a member of the investigative panel, and at most acting as an observer on some occasions. The acts of torture were committed after the interrogations by the Junglers within the intelligence services, who operated under the direct authority of the president. Sonko bore no responsibility for these acts and had no influence over the detention of the plaintiffs, which was decided by the NIA. As Inspector General of Police, he also had no control over Mile 2 prison.

• On the 2011 murder

The OAG argued that both the killing and Sonko’s responsibility over Baba Jobe’s murder were clear, as he played a key role in facilitating the act carried out by the Junglers. It took place in a particularly cruel set up which would fall under the aggravated provision of the law.

The defence pleaded that the Baba Jobe could not be considered a political opponent, but rather a war criminal under international sanctions. While this did not justify the killing, the defence maintained that Sonko played no role in it. It also reiterated that the death was not linked to any attack against the civilian population and that Sonko should therefore be acquitted of these charges.

• On the April 2016 acts of torture, unlawful detention, homicide

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that there were demonstrated routine practices within the police and a well-established collaboration with security forces to repress opponents of the regime.

Whilst Sonko denied any responsibility as Minister of the Interior, the case file showed the opposite: he had played a key role in the actions of the police and in the control of prisons, and should therefore be considered a central figure in the collaboration of the security forces for the purpose of repression.

Sonko refused to explain his exact role on 14 April 2016, or gave misleading accounts. Evidence in the case file, including personal notes seized in Switzerland, indicated that he had ordered arrests and received instructions to “shoot and kill”. Several witnesses also placed him at police headquarters on the day of the events.

The parties argued that the police, the NIA and the prison authorities acted together in the arrest, torture and prolonged detention of the plaintiffs, which lasted much longer than Sonko claimed in an apparent attempt to evade responsibility.

Sonko never attempted to present a credible account of his conduct and role in April 2016, but his position as Minister of the Interior at the time of the events already entailed responsibility: he had given instructions to transfer the arrested persons to the NIA or, at the minimum, had approved or failed to oppose them. These elements alone established his responsibility for the crimes committed as a co-perpetrator, given his senior position, his full knowledge of how the Gambian system operated and of its long-standing repression of the population.

The parties argued that the Court should take into account aggravating factors that the lower court did not consider, noting that the victims were held in conditions amounting to torture, that the acts were particularly cruel with severe consequences, and that the high-ranking position of the accused as a minister should be reflected in the assessment.

The defence pleaded that Sonko’s responsibility in the 14 April acts had to be assessed in light of the evidence. The report of Juan Méndez, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, did not mention any acts of torture committed by the police, and therefore Sonko could not legally be considered a co-perpetrator of offences that his subordinates had not committed. The case file also showed that, as Minister of the Interior, Sonko had no operational control over the police or the prisons. As a political authority, he had set up a prison visiting committee and, according to several witnesses, he had improved detention conditions.

Additionally, the police had not been informed of the planned demonstration on 14 April, while the NIA had been aware of it through infiltration. The defence argued that the police used proportionate force to carry out arrests, after which the NIA took control of detainees without police involvement, excluding any collaboration. The defence stated that the detainees were brought before a judge in due time and that the conditions of detention could not be attributed to Sonko, as Mile 2’s high-security wing was under military control.

The defence referred to the “NIA-9” trial, which clarified responsibilities for the events of 14 April 2016 and confirmed that there had been no collaboration between the police and the NIA, the latter having conducted the operations alone. Therefore, Sonko could not be held responsible.

• On the plaintiffs’ claims for reparations

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the trial was not only about examining the criminal responsibility of one individual, but also about recognising the impact on survivors, who continue to suffer physically and psychologically, and that reparations aim to alleviate this harm. They further submitted that Switzerland has jurisdiction over these claims and that Swiss law applies.

The defence requested the acquittal of Sonko on all charges and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for reparations, and that the aggravating factor of crimes against humanity could not be applied to any of the alleged offences. It also sought financial compensation for the detention Sonko has undergone to date.

• On the sentence and measures to be imposed

The OAG, which is the only party allowed to plea on the sentencing, argued that, for all the acts described in the indictment, Sonko should be sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated crimes against humanity. It also requested his expulsion from Switzerland for 15 years, as well as payment of the reparations awarded to the plaintiffs and the procedural costs.

***

>Day 10 (16 April): Sonko Addresses the Court<

Sonko reiterated that he had carried out his duties to the best of his ability, in accordance with Gambian law and with respect for human rights, and had sought support from European and Swiss authorities to promote such policies.

He emphasised that torture is never acceptable and that he had never believed otherwise.

He also 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 regretted the lack of interpretation at first instance and wondered whether, because he is African, the judges had considered that he did not need to understand what he was accused of. He thanked the appeal court for providing interpretation services on this occasion.

Sonko expressed his deepest condolences to the plaintiffs for what they had endured and said he hoped that this trial would contribute to the process of truth and justice in The Gambia.

He did not remember whether the President had been abroad at the time of the protests and had had no contact with him.

***

The appeal trial concluded. The oral judgement will be read out at a later date.

This summary is provided for information purposes only. It is based on notes taken during the hearings and does not constitute an official court record.