Tag: Ousman Sonko

 

The proceedings resumed at 1 PM sharp with the Court’s reading of its decision on the preliminary questions discussed during the first day. Read our recap for day two.

The Court announced that the ruling will not be translated into English.

On the arguments made by the defense against the indictment, it was ruled that the amendment made after the filing of the indictment before the Court was undertaken in compliance with the law and is hence valid. As a result, the trial will be based on the extended and amended indictment.

More importantly, the Court ruled that the legal criteria leading to its jurisdiction are, a priori, met but that this question can only be fully answered with the examination of the substance of the cause: were crimes against humanity committed in The Gambia during the considered period of time? Once the broader context regarding crimes against humanity is set by examining all the evidence and evidence material, the Court will then consider the parties’ arguments and case law to decide on its jurisdiction, as well as on the statute of limitations.

The Court then examined the numerous claims made by the defense regarding the alleged violation of procedural rules during the course of the investigation led by the federal Prosecutor. It was ruled that the evidence gathered had been collected in compliance with the law and was well documented. As a result, the casefile remains as it is.

Regarding the translation of the proceedings, the Court recalls German has been the procedural language since the beginning and that the law does not provide for proceedings to take place in English as this is not an official national language. Thus, it will stick to its previous decision and not provide interpretation for parts of the trial that it considers not essential for the parties to understand.

Consequently, the trial will proceed, and the Court will examine Ousman Sonko’s criminal responsibility over all the charges brought against him, including facts that took place from 2000 onwards (murder of Almamo Manneh) and repeated sexual violence acts committed on his widow, as well as acts of torture committed in 2006 on persons who had been suspected of a coup in March 2006. The Court will also examine Ousman Sonko’s criminal responsibility over the detention conditions imposed on the plaintiffs arrested in April 2016 as inhumane treatment within the frame of crimes against humanity.

Coming next: hearing of the parties. 

 

---

Going forward on the substance of the case

 

 

As prescribed by law, the Court recalled Ousman Sonko of the charges pending against him, based on the indictment. He was then asked to answer questions on his personal situation. He refused to answer in detail about his health situation. However, when asked by his lawyer, he explained that he had been spitting blood because of the bad air quality in the Swiss prison. The accused then affirmed that his seven years of pre-trial detention had been the worst time of his life.

Regarding his financial situation, Ousman Sonko said that he had no more savings and that his family was in financial difficulty. He was still owning the house he occupied in The Gambia but had no other bank accounts than the ones listed in the casefile.

His plans for the future were to return to The Gambia and study law.

Ousman Sonko was then allowed to make a statement. He reaffirmed that he was not guilty of the crimes he was being charged with. Throughout his career, he had always been loyal to his country and served it as best as he could. He would have been happy to address the TRRC if he had had the opportunity and would have reminded the Gambian people of the complexity of the Gambian context.

According to him, during his time as Minister of Interior, he tried to improve the detention conditions as much as he could in, notably, tripling the food budget for prisoners. He also worked to improve the conduct of security forces on the use of force. As Inspector General of Police (IGP), he made efforts to professionalize the police. He stated that he was proud of his achievements.

Ousman Sonko then formulated critics against the Government of Switzerland, arguing that during the years of investigation, the authorities prevented him to obtain the diplomatic protection from his country and that the country was not in position to lecture anyone on human rights.

The accused was then questioned on the general context of attack against the Gambian population.

Ousman Sonko contested the entire charges brought against him with regards to such a context. Amongst other declarations, the accused claimed that he was not aware – and had never heard – Yahya Jammeh’s speeches where he publicly threatened the population – respectively human rights defenders or political opponents – in 2000, 2006, 2009 and 2016.

During his term as Minister of Interior, it is possible that people had been tortured but as far as his Ministry was concerned, he had no knowledge of such crimes. The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) had never been under his control or authority, and he had never worked for the Agency. The Junglers belonged to the State guard battalions which was within the Republican National Guard, under the Ministry of Defense, headed by Yahya Jammeh. The accused claimed he had no knowledge of any harsh treatment that took place in the security wings of Gambian prisons.

Upon his counsel’s questions, Ousman Sonko stated that he had never participated in any meeting with the President Jammeh to develop a strategy to attack the civilian population, neither had he taken part of any Cabinet meetings where torture at the NIA was discussed. In fact, he argued that security services matters were never the subject during those meetings. Neither as IGP nor as MoI was he ever informed about the actions of the Junglers and the NIA never informed him of any acts of torture taking place.

Coming next: the Court will examine the facts related to Almamo Manneh’s murder in 2000. Read day three. 

The trial of Ousman Sonko opened today, 8 January 2024, at 9:00 AM before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court, where three judges will be examining the former Gambian Minister of Interior’s responsibility over the numerous crimes against humanity that he is accused of having committed between 2000 and 2016. Read our recap for day one.

Ousman Sonko is present in the Courtroom, seconded by his lawyer and the defense team. Five plaintiffs are also present, while others will join at a later stage of the proceedings. They will be heard over the next two weeks.

In the framework of procedural and organizational questions at the opening of the trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyers notably requested that the electrical chocs imposed on genitals of a victim in March 2006 should not only be considered as torture, but also as independent acts of sexual violence committed within the frame of crimes against humanity. The Court was also requested to examine the charges pressed against Ousman Sonko as aggravated (art. 264a par. 2 of the criminal code), notably given the high number of persons affected and the cruel nature of the acts. The attention of the Court was then raised on the fact that, should the provision repressing crimes against humanity (art. 264a of the criminal code – in force since 1 January 2011) not be applicable retroactively to pre-2011 facts, the International Convention against torture would in any case find application given its ratification in the 1990s by Switzerland.

The defense first criticized the indictment’s extension – where the detention conditions of the plaintiffs in 2016 were added to the charges against Ousman Sonko – and requested that such amendments should not be taken into account by the Tribunal, as a result of procedural violations of the law that allegedly took place during the amendment process.

It was then contested that the Swiss Court has jurisdiction to prosecute Ousman Sonko for the facts that took place before 1 January 2011 and it was claimed that the provisions that entered into force at that time to repress crimes against humanity should not be applied retroactively. Thus, the defense requested the pre-2011 facts to be left out. It was added that most of these charges were time-barred and should be dropped.

In a fourth critique, the defense pleaded for evidence material to be removed from the casefile. In particular, according to the defense, numerous witness hearings as well as filed material had been collected in violation of procedural requirements.

The defense also called for the trial’s full interpretation in English in the interest of Ousman Sonko.

 

---

©TRIAL International / Arrival at the court of several of the plaintiffs with their lawyers.

 

Answers to the defense’s critics of the proceedings

 

After the defense’s oral arguments on preliminary questions, the Federal Prosecutor took the floor and reacted to the critics regarding the indictment’s amendment. He stated that the procedural code in fact allows such modifications and, hence, that there is no ground to attack the indictment. The Prosecutor then recalled that crimes against humanity are not subject to statute of limitations and that, as a result, none of the charges brought against Ousman Sonko should be considered as time-barred.

The Federal Prosecutor further argued that the Court had the jurisdiction over Ousman Sonko’s alleged crimes and that there had been no violation of the procedural law during the investigation.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers consecutively took the stand. They highlighted that the defense had been deploying many efforts to point out procedural errors made by the Federal Prosecutor during the investigative phase, with the sole purpose of having useful evidence removed from the casefile.

Regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to prosecute and the statute of limitations, it was argued that Swiss jurisdiction over the offenses in question derives not only from the new law adopted in January 2011 – claimed to be applicable to facts committed before that date – but also from the ratification of the Convention against Torture. It was notably referred to the Swiss precedent that unequivocally confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed in the 1990s in Liberia (Alieu Kosiah – Decision of the Appeal Court of the Federal Criminal Court CA.2022.8 of 30 May 2023) and insisted on the fact that the offenses were not time-barred in application of recent case law (case BB.2021.141 of 23 September 2021).

Finally, the rightful amendment of the indictment by the Prosecutor was supported by the lawyers of the victims of torture in 2016, who were imprisoned in the worst detention conditions, to the extent that they should be considered as inhumane treatment. They argued that Ousman Sonko’s only hope in challenging the legality of the indictment’s modification is to avoid his criminal responsibility, as Minister of Interior, for having imposed or agreed to such harsh detention conditions.

The Court adjourned the hearing to deliberate on these issues.

The decision from the Court is eagerly awaited, for as it will draw the contours of Ousman Sonko’s trial and, his possible criminal responsibility. It is also expected to stand as an important legal precedent with regards to the prosecution – in Switzerland – of international crimes committed before 01 January 2011.

Coming next: Reading of the Court’s decision at 1PM (CET) 9 January 2024.