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 2: (7 to 9 April 2026) The Hearing of Ousman Sonko

>Day 5 (7 April): Decision on evidentiary motions<

 
The Court ruled on the evidentiary motions submitted the previous week, rejecting the vast majority of requests. This included applications to rehear plaintiffs, call new or additional witnesses, appoint experts, and seek international legal assistance with The Gambia. The Court considered that it had sufficient material to decide on the case and that the appeal stage allowed limited scope for further evidence. Only a small number of civil society reports on sexual violence were admitted as new evidence.

***

>Days 6 and 7 (8 and 9 April): Request to submit additional evidence<

 
The plaintiffs’ lawyers requested that a radio discussion on the work of the TRRC be added to the case file to substantiate the scope of the attack against the population. The defence opposed the request, arguing that the material lacked value as evidence. The Court admitted it at the opening of the session the following day.

***

>The Hearing of Ousman Sonko<

[Ousman Sonko was heard throughout days 5, 6, and 7.]

 
Hearing on his personal and financial situation

Mr Sonko stated that as a Minister of the Interior, he earned GMD 50,000 per month and received no bonuses. He said he did not know the reasons for his dismissal in 2016 and had not received any compensation. Following his arrest, he was no longer able to support one of his sons’ studies. He declined to answer whether he was married, stating that this was a private matter.

He described his daily life in detention as routine and had no comments on his current conditions, noting that they had been difficult in previous facilities. He added that he had no plans for after his release.

The latest report on his conduct in detention indicated that he had shown very good behaviour towards staff and other detainees. As a result, he benefited from a more flexible regime, including open cells during the day and freedom of movement. He was described as well integrated and without disciplinary issues. He had worked in the prison laundry since July 2023 and, since 2024, had been responsible for hygiene-related logistics, performing both roles satisfactorily. He had not received personal visits since his transfer to the current facility and had been able to make phone calls since 2023.

Hearing on the alleged offences

• On the general Gambian context under Yahya Jammeh

Mr Sonko explained that the justice system under Yahya Jammeh had been fair, and that the judiciary had been independent.

He expressed his regret at not being heard before the TRRC, as he would have liked to share his view of history, which could have contributed useful elements regarding the responsibilities to be established and clarified certain misconceptions or false accusations.

In all the positions he had held within the government, he had carried out his duties as expected. No authority or individual under his control had been accused of committing crimes, and in particular not the acts discussed in the present trial.

He stated that, prior to the trial, he had not been aware of any public threats made by Yahya Jammeh against the population. According to him, there had been no state policy targeting civilians during his tenure, nor had he known of any such cases. Those who had been targeted, he said, were the individuals involved in attempted coups in 2000 and 2006.

Regarding the 2016 events, he maintained that the demonstration had been unauthorised and therefore illegal, which explained the arrests, and that journalists had circulated false information. He stated that the security services in The Gambia had not coordinated to attack the population, and added that what happened resulted from spontaneous actions by security forces.

During his 10 years as Minister of the Interior, he had never had any discussions about torture. He had participated in the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva because he was involved in state security matters, not human rights, which fell under the Ministry of Justice.

Ousman Sonko explained that he had facilitated the visit to The Gambia of Juan Méndez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture. Mr Méndez had commended the guidelines on the use of force that he had developed for police forces.

He stated that Méndez had not been prevented from visiting certain parts of the Mile 2 prison, and that it was Méndez himself who had refused when he realised he would not be able to conduct the visit alone. He added that he did not know why Méndez had not been granted access to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), and that he had not been aware of Méndez’s reports, which had been transmitted solely to the Minister of Justice. He further noted that NGO reports alleging torture in The Gambia had always been vague and had never mentioned the police.

During his tenure, he had not been aware of acts of torture carried out by the NIA, and in any event, it had not been under his effective control. He had never worked with or within the NIA, and its reports had not been transmitted to him. The agency had been directly under the President’s authority and reported to him without intermediary.

The Junglers had not existed as an official unit; they had been selected by the President himself from the State Guard to carry out his activities, namely the crimes highlighted by the TRRC. He had learned of their existence in 2006 but had only become aware of their activities through the questioning of Bai Lowe, who had been heard during the Swiss investigation.

Since 1995, a section of Mile 2 prison had been managed by the armed forces, which were not under his control. Access to this wing fell under the responsibility of the Director General of Prisons and the State Guard.

He had also sought to improve detention conditions by increasing the food budget for detainees, new structures had been built, and some prisoners released.

He had no comment on certain media reports suggesting that the number of victims of Jammeh’s regime was higher than that established by the TRRC.

• On the charges related to the January 2000 murder

[In first instance, Sonko was found guilty of killing AM, a perceived political opponent. At the time of the events, Sonko was serving as commander of the State Guards Battalion.] 

Besides Landing Sanneh and AM, Sonko was not aware of other individuals involved in the 2000 coup attempt, and he did not know why they had confided in him about their intentions. If the coup would have succeeded, and Landing Sanneh would have become President, Sonko would not have been assigned any role in the new government, and he did not know what position AM would have held.

The operations carried out in connection with Landing Sanneh and AM had complied with constitutional and regulatory rules: they had been justified and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. At the time, AM had been an active armed soldier on duty at the state house.

Jammeh had ordered their arrest because they had been enemies of the state given their intent to overthrow the government. Whilst it had been necessary to stop them, it had not been planned for AM to be killed.

Ousman Sonko reiterated that he had committed no offence in relation to AM: both the Gambian Constitution and the rules on the use of force had been respected. He added that it was incorrect to portray AM as a political opponent of the President, because he himself had chosen to betray his oath and the Gambian people through the coup attempt.

President Jammeh had never thanked Sonko for reporting the plan to overthrow him.

• On charges of multiple rapes committed against the same person between 2000–2002 and in 2005

[In first instance, all charges of sexual violence were discontinued.] 

Sonko stated that he had no sexual interaction with the plaintiff, G., who accused him of rape, and that what was written on the indictment was a lie, and that he had an alibi. He then said nothing more on the matter, and referred to what he had said during his interrogation and in the first instance trial.

• On the repression of alleged coup in March 2006

[In March 2006, an alleged coup plot against Jammeh is discovered and thwarted. In first instance, Sonko was found guilty of the unlawful deprivation of liberty and acts of torture. At the time, Sonko was Inspector General of the national police.]

Sonko stated that the people involved in the coup had been arrested by the Junglers, who were not under his command.

When the President set up a panel to investigate the March 2006 coup attempt, M. Sonko had not been part of it, as it fell under the NIA. He said he had only gone on a few occasions to observe, but that he had asked no questions and had reported his observations to no one, although he now could not remember what he had witnessed.

• On the killing of a politician in 2011

[In 2004, Baba Jobe, former majority leader in the National Assembly and a member of Jammeh’s Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), was convicted of economic crimes following a fallout with the President. In 2011, he was killed in custody while hospitalised. At the time, M. Sonko occupied the position of Interior Minister.]

Ousman Sonko said he never ordered Junglers to enter Mile 2 prison or to have an officer posted near Mr Jobe so that military personnel could access him when he was transferred to hospital. He said those who claimed otherwise were lying.

He shared that he was not aware of the circumstances of Jobe’s death at the time and had no reason to doubt it was natural, as Jobe was ill. He explained he had nothing to do with Jobe’s death, and was unaware of any coordination between security services for that purpose. He added that the TRRC had concluded that Yahya Jammeh and the Junglers had been responsible for Jobe’s murder, and so he could not understand why he himself had been found responsible about it in first instance.

He added that Jobe’s family had expressly asked for no post-mortem investigation to be conducted, and they had asked Sonko to order for the body to be returned to them, which he did.

• On the 2016 events related to the 14 April demonstration

[On 14 April 2016, members of the United Democratic Party (UDP), the largest opposition party in The Gambia, organised a demonstration calling for electoral reform. Many were arrested and tortured. At first instance, Sonko was found guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty and acts of torture against several demonstrators, including acts that led to the death of one detainee.]

Sonko explained that the 14 April demonstration had been illegal, as it had not been authorised. He had been informed about the demonstration by the then Inspector General of Police (IGP), who notified him that police officers had been deployed. The IGP then informed him of the subsequent arrests following the demonstration. Sonko did not enquire about what would happen to those who had been arrested: as a former IGP himself, he knew that an investigation would take place and, if needed, charges would be brought.

On 16 April, Sonko was informed that another protest had been organised in response to the arrests. He had then called the IGP to take necessary measures and later contacted him again for a report.

Sonko had then learned about the death of an individual who had been arrested during the first protest. The death had occurred at the NIA and had not been discussed with police officials. The Gambian court that examined these events in the trial known as “NIA 9” did not find Sonko or the police responsible, but rather officers of NIA. There had been no collaboration between the NIA and the police during the April 2016 events.

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

***

Proceedings will resume on Tuesday, 14 April.

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.