Ousman Sonko

In accordance with the procedural code, Ousman Sonko was given the opportunity to address the Court before it began its deliberations.

In particular, he stated in English that he regretted that the Court did not provide simultaneous interpretation of the closing arguments of the other parties, as he was not able to understand what had was argued.

For this reason, he could not comment on the conclusions presented by the parties.

The lack of translation was a problem for him throughout the course of the trial, since 8 January 2024, for him but, above all, for the people interested in the proceedings: The Gambians.

He also stated that he was the subject of violations of his rights throughout the proceedings, in particular by not receiving the transcripts of his testimony in a timely manner.

He further stated that some plaintiffs have adapted their statements during the trial to make them fit the charges brought against him and that he regretted that they have discredited themselves in this way by lying. However, he did not blame them and understood how important this trial was for them.

Torture was unacceptable to him.

In the responsibilities that he had exercised, he had always taken care to prevent this as far as the forces under his control and authority were concerned, and this was the reason why the NIA had kept the police at bay, and denied them access to the persons whose transfer to the NIA had been ordered in April 2016.

There was never any attack on the plaintiffs as political opponents, journalists or for any other reason. Some plaintiffs or victims were involved in attempted coups and it was legitimate to investigate these events. However, he had not been part of the investigation panel in 2006, even though he has visited it once, twice, perhaps more times, to see if any information was useful for his mission as IGP.

The use of torture by people now known as the Junglers was clearly unacceptable, but the police – forces under his control – had not been involved. He would not have accepted their involvement.

He was not involved in the killing that took place in October 2011 by the hands of the Junglers and there was nothing serious in the case file to support the contrary.

The demonstration of 14 April 2016 was illegal and it would have been sufficient for the organizers to apply for the authorization required by law in order to avoid the police intervention. The police intervened in a professional, proportionate and legal manner. However, he was not present at the PIU at the time of the arrests.

The crimes that followed at the NIA left a lasting mark of shame on The Gambia which he strongly condemned.

He has been detained for seven years without trial and in degrading conditions, including almost two years in solitary confinement, which has affected his physical and mental health.

“You seem to be interested in what has happened in my country, the conditions in its prisons, the actions of its police and its authorities. You take a condescending view of the resources available to us in government to try to ensure its development. Naturally, and probably without really thinking about it, you are part of a history of colonialism and racism. You have to understand that we can’t work miracles under these conditions. If a country as rich and developed as yours is unable to provide its prisoners with dignified conditions of detention, how do you expect us to be able to do so?” (…) “You have let me express myself to you more than at any time in the last 7 years, but I don’t know if you have heard me”. (…) My country does not need expiatory victims immolated before foreign judges. I hope that through my testimony I have been able to contribute to the work of reconciliation that the TRRC has begun, and I hope that all of us Gambians will be able to build the future of our country with respect for everyone, by honoring the memory of those who have disappeared and by assuring all those who have suffered of our compassion and our desire that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated”. Ousman Sonko’s final words to the FCC, 7 March 2024

Final: The court informed the parties that the verdict date would be communicated at a later stage.

The defense argued that the Prosecutor had failed to make a distinction that was, however, quite clear from the record, but also from the work of the TRRC: on the one hand, there were the powers that were the sole responsibility of the President, namely the Gambian Armed Forces and consequently the Junglers that emerged from them, as well as the NIA. On the other hand, there was the government, its ministries and its administration. As IGP and later as Minister of Interior, Ousman Sonko had been part of the latter.

The rule of law prevailed in The Gambia and the abuses were limited to the actions of an informal group, the so-called Junglers, on the one hand, and a certain unit of the NIA on the other.

Ousman Sonko had to flee The Gambia to save his life and the threats that he received from the Junglers were part of the case file.

For the defense, it was still not clear what kind of organization or what plan the Prosecutor was referring to.

Since the beginning of the investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor has tried to create confusion in particular by deliberately and indiscriminately mixing all the security services, not informing the accused of the charges pending against him, limiting his right of access to the file and keeping him in degrading conditions of detention. Numerous violations of the accused’s procedural rights have been observed during the investigations.

The Prosecutor wanted the Court to believe that Ousman Sonko was the strategist, the organizer, the planer, etc. but there was no evidence to support these allegations. On the contrary, it had been proven that some of the plaintiffs or victims were criminals, coup plotters or non-law-abiding citizens. They were not targeted because they were part of the civilian population, but were they targeted individually in response to their actions.

It was then recalled how one of the plaintiffs, allegedly victim of rapes from 2000 onwards, lacked credibility. In addition, the Junglers and the NIA were the direct perpetrators of the abuses described in the indictment, without the involvement of Ousman Sonko. Furthermore, since the functions of the NIA – like those of the military – fell within the reserved powers of the President and were not discussed within the government. As a result, it could not be concluded there was any form of co-perpetration with respect to the facts described in the indictment. Again, Ousman Sonko – neither as IGP nor as Minister – had never exercised any control or authority over the NIA.

For all the reasons presented to the Court, Ousman Sonko stood by all his conclusions.

Coming next: Ousman Sonko’s final words.

In accordance with the code of criminal procedure, the parties were allowed to provide rebuttal arguments.

“Ousman Sonko, the second most influential person from the reign of Yahya Jammeh, is on trial. There is no question that Yahya Jammeh and all his supporters should be prosecuted and brought to justice for the crimes they have committed against the Gambian civilian population. This is a clear outcome of Gambia’s long-standing efforts to come to terms with the past. In accordance with the principle of universality, Switzerland has the competence and the obligation to investigate crimes against humanity if the perpetrators are suspected and present on its territory. This is precisely the case with Ousman Sonko. His flight to Switzerland and his stay here triggered Switzerland’s responsibility to prosecute.” (Extract of the Prosecutor’s rebuttal of 7 March 2024)

Crimes against humanity

It was again demonstrated – and supported in particular by Swiss case law – that there are no obstacles to the prosecution and judgement of the crimes in question, including those that took place before 2011.

The prohibition of crimes against humanity is considered customary international law and the arguments of the defense that the legal elements were not fulfilled in this case could not be followed.

In the case of Ousman Sonko, the attack, its systematic and widespread character – as sufficiently described in the indictment – and the civilian nature of the targeted population were all proven elements. With regard to the latter, it was emphasized that the defense implying that some victims were criminals in the first place – or putschists with regard to the 2006 events – was irrelevant and not in line with case law.

Bai L.’s conviction in Germany was, in fact, further evidence that the contextual elements of the crime were met in The Gambia.

The persecution of journalists in the Gambia has been sufficiently proven and the Bai L. case in Germany was another example in support of this fact.

With regard to the defendant’s participation, it was recalled that he had been one of the strategists, planners and organizers and that he had always had an influential position in the overall structure of the cooperating authorities within the State.

Individual acts

Murder of a member of the State Guard in 2000 and subsequent sexual violence against the victim’s widow from 2000 onwards.

With regard to the murder, it was pointed out that the defense has ignored the results of the investigation as well as the findings of the TRRC in its closing arguments. Both actually proved that the victim was murdered, that the defendant was involved, and that the official government version to cover up this crime was a lie.

It was then recalled that the plaintiff’s credible statement regarding the sexual crimes she suffered was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had committed the crimes. The allegation that she has accused him in revenge for the elimination of her husband was simply not plausible.

Acts of torture and deprivation of liberty in 2006

It was argued that the defense alibi that he was not in the country was not proven in the case file.  

Further, it was further emphasized that the TRRC’s findings, as well as the results of the investigation, were evidence that Ousman Sonko had been part of the panel, had discussed and made important decisions together with other members. The defense’s argument that the police had been placed under the control of the NIA – where tortured was described by the UN Special Rapporteur as “routine” and “regular” – was entirely new and not supported by any evidence in the case file. Moreover, the victims who were subsequently detained were under the control of the Panel. As a result, it was argued that Ousman Sonko shares a criminal responsibility for the fate of the detainees.

Contrary to the defense’s argument, the said subsequent detention of the plaintiffs was unlawful, in particular because they were kept in custody without an arrest warrant – which was contrary to the Gambian law – and because they were not brought before a judge within the 72-hour period required by the Gambian constitution.

As for the sexual offenses that occurred during these events, and during torture, they should be tried on their own merits, in addition to the torture charges.

Killing of a politician in October 2011

It was reiterated that the victim status was fully included within the notion of “civilian population” and that there was a clear nexus between this individual offense and the attack that took place. Even if this was disputed, there was no doubt – in the view of the Prosecutor – that the accused has given instructions for the Junglers to have access to the victim when he was hospitalized. It was also proven that Ousman Sonko knew of the ins and outs of the Mile 2 detainees and that he was always aware of the President’s fear of this political opponent.

Acts of torture, murder and deprivation of liberty in 2016

The lack of evidence was argued in relation to the defense argument that the 14 April 2016 demonstration was violent. In fact, the accused written notes – together with the witnesses’ statements and material evidence – showed that it was peaceful. Likewise, it had to be concluded from the accused’s statement, that it was controlled “without any problem or resistance”. In any case, this argument could not justify the subsequent acts of torture.

It was again notably emphasized that the accused had shared the responsibility forwhat had happened to the detainees at the NIA after his police officers had handed them over to the agency, knowing what would happen to them there.

It was wrong to read from the so-called NIA-9 verdict that the accused was not present at the PIU on 14 April 2016. In fact, these proceedings did not investigate Ousman Sonko’s individual responsibility, but rather the NIA’s involvement in torture. Nevertheless, the judgment was indeed useful to understand the factual development of the events that took place on 14 and 15 April 2016 and what had happened to the victims at that time.

Irrespective of the presence of the accused at the PIU on the day of the arrests, it was clear that Ousman Sonko gave orders to take the detainees to be the NIA. Furthermore, it was never alleged that the accused himself committed acts of torture at that time, but rather that his criminal responsibility stemmed either from his active or passive co-participation in the crimes or, subsidiarily, from his hierarchical position over the acts committed by his subordinates at that time.

The case file also clearly demonstrated the accused’s responsibility for the conditions of detention imposed on the plaintiffs following their arrest and torture.

Coming next: Rebuttal of the defense.

Disclaimer: The following highlight aims to objectively report the main arguments presented by the defense of Ousman Sonko in its closing arguments. TRIAL International does not endorse the following statements. The organization recalls that it does its best to summarize as accurately as possible what was said during the trial and cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions.

In particular, the defense concluded that Ousman Sonko should be acquitted of all charges. All civil claims of the private plaintiffs should be dismissed. It also requested that compensation be granted for his deprivation of liberty, including for the illegal detention time and food deprivation to which he was allegedly subjected.

These conclusions were supported by the following reasoning:

“In the context of the present proceedings, there are essentially two categories of people who have told us about the personality of Ousman Sonko. On the one hand, there are those who are very negative towards him, these are people who tell us that they did not know him, never worked with him or the government of the time and are generally illiterate without any education. And then there are the others, the people who met Ousman Sonko on a daily basis, who worked with him and therefore know who they are talking about.”

Arguments on crimes against humanity

After recalling the genesis of the concept of crimes against humanity in history and under international law, the defense noted that the definition of the crime in Swiss law differs from that adopted in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it does not require that such an offense be committed in application or continuation of a policy of a state or organization.

Nevertheless, in order to interpret the Swiss provision, it was necessary to examine in particular the international case law, since there was no existing – definitive – legal precedent in this country regarding this crime. (N.B. The first conviction for crimes against humanity in Switzerland is referred to as the Kosiah case. The written motivation on the conviction and sentencing of Alieu Kosiah was notified on 1 March 2024 to the defense, who is also Ousman Sonko’s council. The 30-days period for filing an appeal with the FCC is currently running.)

In light of the above – and as already argued at the opening of the Sonko trial in January 2024 – the defense argued that the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity of the law should lead the Court to conclude that, since the Swiss provision on crimes against humanity (Art. 264a of the Swiss criminal code – SCC) entered into force in January 2011, it could not be applied to acts that took place before that date. (N.B. The defense was referring to the 2000 and 2006 events, which should therefore not be prosecuted or judged.)

It was further argued that most of the charges in question should also be considered time-barred, which could not lead to a conviction.

Furthermore, it could not be concluded in the present case that the so-called attack against the population described in the indictment between 1994 and 2017 constituted a continuous offense. It was argued that the nature of the charges in question was not such that it could be concluded that there was a unity of action between each of them. As a result, it was not possible to apply the Swiss jurisprudence according to which the new law (Art. 264a SCC) would apply in the case of continuous offenses.

With regard to the contextual elements of the crime, it was denied that a systematic or generalized attack took place in The Gambia during the presidency of Yahya Jammeh (1994-2017) and it was further argued that the indictment did not describe any other acts that could be taken into account in the examination of the existence – or not – of the said attack. As a result, such an examination should only be based on the specific crimes described (N.B. mostly those denounced by plaintiffs) which – according to the defense – were not of the same nature and consequently could not support the existence of a systematic and widespread attack.

As a counter-argument, the defense claimed that the Swiss administrative authorities and courts, when called upon to decide on the return of Gambian nationals seeking asylum in the country, had always judged that there had been no situation of generalized violence in The Gambia.

In conclusion, the defense stated that the indictment did not describe the generalized or systematic nature of the attack as alleged by the Prosecutor.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the plaintiffs did not meet the characteristics of a “civilian population”, in particular because some of them were soldiers (see reference to the 2000 events), some others were civilians involved in a coup d’état or journalists who had published false information (see reference to the 2006 events) or civilians who had organized an illegal demonstration (see reference to the April 2016 events).

The analysis of the contextual elements in the Sonko case had to be distinguished from the analysis carried out by the German judiciary in the case of Bai L., a former member of the Junglers convicted of crimes against humanity in 2023. While in the latter case there was a systematic repetition of identical crimes committed by a group of persons formed for this purpose, in a short timeframe and a limited geographical area, was applicable, the situation in the Ousman Sonko case was quite different, in particular because it covered a much longer period of time and because there was no link between each of the crimes within which the accused was charged.

“This German judgment decides only on the qualification of the acts described in the indictment against Bai L. and is not intended to establish once and for all that there was a situation of generalized attack against the civilian population in The Gambia, regardless of the time, place, acts or persons involved.”

Given that there was no “attack”, Ousman Sonko had no knowledge of its occurrence and was therefore lacking the awareness and will to participate.

The defense also criticized the plaintiffs’ attempts to construct a form of persecution of the Mandinka population by the Gambian regime of Jammeh, who belongs to the Diola ethnic group. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs were sowing some discord and working against the desired reconciliation of the Gambian people in all its parts.

Arguments on the individual acts

In view of the absence of the contextual element of crimes against humanity alleged by the defense, it was concluded in particular that Switzerland had no jurisdiction to prosecute or try Ousman Sonko for the murder of a State Guard member in 2000, and that the offense was in any case time-barred.

For the same reasons, Ousman Sonko had to be acquitted of the charges of rapes against the widow of the aforementioned individual. In addition, the facts were not sufficiently proven, since they were based only on the plaintiff’s statements, in which numerous inconsistencies and lies were found. In any case, Ousman Sonko was not present in The Gambia at the end of 2001/beginning of 2002 and therefore had an alibi.

The defense acknowledged the veracity of the acts of torture suffered by the plaintiffs in March 2006 but denied Ousman Sonko’s responsibility. First, they stressed that the Government was responding to a coup attempt. Secondly, it was argued that – although a form of complicity could be identified between the investigation panel and the Junglers, and that it could be maintained that Ousman Sonko was present at the first day of the Panel, possibly at other times– it was not proven that the accused had been there after the plaintiffs had been tortured, nor that he had actually been part of the panel or that he had had any kind of power there. It was the NIA that was in control of the events – including of the police at the time – and the Junglers were only responding to the President. Furthermore, Ousman Sonko had never exercised any kind of control or effective authority over the NIA or the Junglers and therefore could not be found guilty of the charges of torture in question.

With regard to the detention of the plaintiffs, Ousman Sonko, as IGP in 2006, did not have the power to order the detention – or release – of individuals and did not have control over prisons. Therefore, he could not be found guilty of these charges.

In any case, Switzerland had no jurisdiction over these facts, which were also timed-barred. Furthermore, the UN Convention against Torture could not be applied, because of the lack of a specific provision prohibiting torture in the Swiss criminal code, where it is criminalised in the context of crimes against humanity.

It was then reiterated that the murder of the politician in 2011 could not be part of any broader attack, adding that Ousman Sonko had not played any role in the commission of this crime. The TRRC’s findings on this event were not relevant.

Finally, it was argued that the events of 14 April 2016 could not be considered as part of crimes against humanity and that Ousman Sonko did not participate in the torture of the plaintiffs, nor did the forces under his command. The defense also argued that the demonstration of 14 April 2016 was not peaceful, that the presence of Ousman Sonko at the PIU on the day of the arrests had not been proven, that he had never facilitated the NIA to commit torture (and that there had been no plan to do so), that it had not been proven – taking into account the so-called “NIA 9 trial “, which is a Gambian domestic criminal case that established the responsibility of the NIA for these facts – that he had been present at the NIA headquarters during the events.

In view of the conclusions of the defense in favor of the total acquittal of the accused, it was requested that Ousman Sonko be compensated for the time spent in prison in Switzerland, in conditions which, according to the defense, were not always compatible with the fundamental guarantees provided by international conventions.

Coming next: Replies of the parties to the closing arguments.

Arguments on the parties’ credibility

The plaintiffs’ legal representatives started their closing arguments by supporting the Prosecutor’s case for the conviction of Ousman Sonko for crimes against humanity.

In general, it was argued and illustrated that Ousman Sonko had repeatedly and deliberately misled the Swiss prosecuting authorities from the beginning of the investigation. He was also selective with the evidence collected – including of the TRRC findings – and only used it when they were suiting him. He also regularly shifted the responsibility to others.

“It is of course the right of every accused person to remain silent, or to give vague or contradictory answers whenever and wherever it suits him. However, it is also the case that evasive and vague statements as well as inconsistencies in the description of the facts of the case seriously undermine the credibility of a person and the credibility of their statements according to Swiss case law.”

On the 14 April 2016, the defendant’ testimony was inconsistent in many respects. For example, he stated that he had to flee the country because he had refused orders of the President – the orders that corresponded to the written notes found with his personal belongings to hand over the detainees to the NIA – then, he explained that he could remember the deployment of the PIU as riot control where the demonstration had taken place. He later decided not to comment further. He was also unwilling to provide information about his telephone contacts on 14, 16 and 19 April 2016, while on the latter date, his phone analysis showed that a call had been transferred to “DG NIA”. His memory also remained selective with regard to other details, in particular, his whereabouts on the date of the events. Indeed, while he explained that he was not present at the PIU on 14 April, he explained that he was there on 16 April – on a Saturday – to do “absolutely nothing”. During another hearing, he stated that he was there “because of this unauthorized demonstration”.

Other examples were given to highlight the defendant’s lack of credibility regarding these events, throughout the trial. In particular, in light of the available evidence, it was not credible that he only learned of the death of one of the detainees on 16 April 2016, as the rumor of his death had spread rapidly among the public and the UDP. Similarly, it is absurd and contradictory to claim that he only learned of the torture of other plaintiffs during the course of the Swiss investigation, particularly considering the numerous reports published on the subject as early as April 2016.

Ousman Sonko’s claims that his subordinates – the then Director of Prison and the former IGP – acted on their own authority or without his consent were unrealistic and clearly contradicted by the evidence gathered. Moreover, both testified before the TRRC that there were serious and systematic police failures in relation to the crimes committed under the Jammeh regime.

“It speaks volumes that the accused denies serious and systematic police and prison misconduct that even his subordinates have admitted.”

Despite the accused’s attempts to absolve himself of responsibility, the available evidence in the case also clearly showed that it was the Minister of the Interior who coordinated the cooperation between the NIA and the police, including the cover-up of the torture.

“The denial of the fact that the private plaintiffs were severely tortured on 14 April 2016, which was obviously known to him and the general public, shows once again how unbelievable the defendant’s statements about his role are. In May 2016, no one in The Gambia – except Sonko – would claim not to have witnessed the disappearance and torture of our clients.”

Contrary to the statement of the accused, the plaintiffs provided the prosecuting authorities with accurate and detailed accounts of the events they experienced. This was also the case with the plaintiff who died in 2023.

“We would like to emphasize that the private plaintiffs are extremely strong personalities of integrity who are not afraid to stand up for democratic rights even under a state of torture. They have no need to falsely accuse Ousman Sonko, which speaks for the credibility of their statements. For all the victims who know the Jammeh regime well, there is not a shred of doubt that the defendant was partly responsible for the events alleged in 2016. Accordingly, it was partly an ordeal for the plaintiffs to have to listen to the defendant, who acted as if he had nothing to do with the events.”

Arguments on the contextual elements and on the specific crimes in question

After recalling the legal criteria for qualifying an “attack against the civilian population” (see previous highlights), it was argued that it was not legally required that such an attack would have been part of an explicit formal policy. Indeed, as had already been argued, the existence of such a policy could well be implicit.

From the case file, it was concluded that attacks against the population began at the latest in 2000 and continued until 2016, spreading to all regions of The Gambia and affecting a large number of people, both civilians and military (considered civilians in peacetime). As recently as 14 April 2026, 26 to 29 people were arrested, and on 16 April 2016, 19 people were arrested. Thus, the attack had to be considered widespread.

It should also be noted that the attack became more sophisticated over the years, with the Gambian police – particularly the PIU – playing an essential and indispensable role in the well-oiled machinery of repression.

Indeed, it was central to the repression of the Jammeh regime that both the police and the special forces of the PIU, as well as the prisons, cooperated with the NIA. It was also notorious that people detained at the NIA were tortured, and it was an integral part of the repression that opposition activists, journalists, and others perceived as opponents of the regime disappeared for months at a time, particularly at Mile 2, where they were largely or completely isolated from the outside world and held incommunicado in inhumane conditions. The judiciary was also part of the system, which was particularly highlighted in the findings of the TRRC. Thus, the attack had to be considered systematic.

Arguments on the individual offenses

Although the accused denied his criminal responsibility for all the crimes that took place on 14 April 2016, he did not deny that the plaintiffs were victims of torture and that one of them died as a result of these acts. Nevertheless, he believed that he could evade his responsibility by arguing that the arrests were lawful because the demonstration was not authorized and because the responsibility for the torture rested solely with the NIA. But these arguments were weak, especially since the prohibition of torture also applies when persons detained with the accused are handed over to torturers (so-called outsourcing of torture to third parties), which was the case on 14 April 2016 with the involvement of Ousman Sonko.

The deprivation of liberty suffered by the plaintiffs after their arrest, both at the NIA and at Mile 2, violated the most basic rules of international law, as well as Gambian procedural rules. Moreover, the plaintiffs were not brought before a court until May 2016, well beyond the three days allowed by law, were severely injured, and the court hearing clearly violated fundamental rules of international law, as the plaintiffs’ statements used by the court were taken at NIA in the context of or under the impression of torture – an element confirmed by the TRRC investigations – which is prohibited under international law.

“The verdict of this “detention trial” does not exist. Despite repeated requests for legal assistance from the Gambian authorities, the verdict has never been obtained. This alone casts doubt on the rule of law of the proceedings at the time.”

Regarding the inhumane conditions in which the plaintiffs were kept during their detention – amounting to torture as crime against humanity – it was recalled that they were all detained as political prisoners, with no access to their families or lawyers, no serious medical treatment and difficulties to access food. These custodial conditions massively prolonged their suffering caused by torture and exacerbated by the lack of essential treatment and the plaintiffs had only been released months after their arrest, only once Yahya Jammeh had lost the elections.

“The particular conditions of detention experienced by our clients in Mile 2 and Janjahbureh prisons must be seen as an integral part of the torture regime. In particular, the conditions of isolation without access to relatives – which, as we have heard from the accused himself, would have been essential for the food supply in prison – without legal access to lawyers, without much-needed access to medical care, were part of a system designed to cover up torture and to intimidate government critics.”

The accused could not evade his responsibility in this regard by saying that he had done what he could to improve the conditions of detention, as the plaintiffs were simply not held in normal prison conditions but were treated particularly badly especially because of their status: they were critics of the government and dared to speak out against Yahya Jammeh and his dictatorship.

Ousman Sonko had clear knowledge of the context in which the crimes were committed in April 2016 and it was also proven that he had the requisite intent to commit torture, murder, to deprive the plaintiffs of their liberty and subject them to harsh conditions.

“The sheer weight of the reports of torture and serious human rights violations over the years in The Gambia speaks volumes. The accused would literally have to live behind the moon not to know that under Yahya Jammeh there was a repressive regime in The Gambia. It is simply absurd for the former Interior minister of thar country, who, mind you, held this position for around 10 years – something he seems to be proud of to this day – and who before that was also a high-ranking official in the police and the State Guard before that, to claim that he was unaware of the systematic and widespread repression in his own country. He, who was in charge of central services such as the police and prisons, which have been criticized from many sides over the years.”

These crimes must be qualified as aggravated in view of the brutality of the acts of torture committed – sometimes combined with sexual violence and the use of various objects to beat the victims – which led to the death of one person, which causes were concealed, and in view of the ruthless character of the Jammeh’s repressive regime.

Arguments on the modes of liability

The role of the accused as co-perpetrator in the commission of the offenses in question was discussed.

In particular, it was recalled that Ousman Sonko had held a high position for many years and was very influential in 2016. He had been in charge of the police, the PIU and the prison services, whose heads reported directly to him and were bound by his instructions. The accused was a close associate and confidant of Yayha Jammeh as well as a loyal servant of the system. He had committed atrocities himself– at least at the beginning of his career, and later had delegated or facilitated them, even helping to cover up the crimes. It was further pointed out that the torture under the Jammeh had always been carried out in close cooperation and coordination between the police, prisons and the Junglers or the NIA. Ousman Sonko himself had been in close contact with the NIA, as if he had been a central actor of the cooperation between the various forces. Indeed, as highlighted by the investigation, the accused made a decisive contribution to the establishment, development and survival of the Gambian repressive regime.

The above contradicted with Ousman Sonko’s claims that he had only a decorative role at the head of the Ministry of the Interior, which were not credible and once again pointed out to the inconsistencies coming out of his testimony regarding his operational role as Minister.

With regard to the 14 April 2016, the available evidence established that Ousman Sonko had been present at the PIU on the exact day of the events but more importantly that he had given specific – or at least blanket – instructions for the plaintiffs to be taken to the NIA headquarters, respectively to Mile 2 Prison and from there to the NIA headquarters. He had done so in the knowledge that persons apprehended by the NIA were regularly subjected to severe violence and torture. However, it is not decisive whether the accused had authority over the NIA or not, the only relevant point is that it was his subordinate officers from the PIU and Mile 2 who had handed over the plaintiffs to the NIA, where they were subsequently tortured and killed, or kept in detention.

Legally, such conduct was consistent with the case law and literature applicable to the co-perpetrator.

Furthermore, it was argued that if the accused’s version – according to which he did not know anything on the day of the events, but had been informed that a violent demonstration was taking place and had done nothing at the time, while two days later he had rushed to the PIU office because he was worried about another demonstration taking place – was accepted by the court, such passive behavior should also lead to his criminal responsibility, since he was the one responsible.

Subsidiarily – and finally – it was argued that his criminal responsibility could be derived from his position of hierarchical superior.

In support of this argument, it was explained that, as Minister of the Interior, he had to be regarded as a “manager within the administration”, that the transfer of the detainees to the NIA had been carried out by his “subordinates”, and that there was a direct legal and factual superior-subordinate relationship between the police/prison officers and the accused. It was further argued that his subordinates handed over the detainees to the NIA in the full knowledge that brutal torture was regularly taking place. Similarly, the subsequent illegal detention was ensured by the defendant’s subordinate prison staff, both at Mile 2 and Janjahbureh, over whom he had effective control. In this sense, it is clear from the case file that Ousman Sonko did not intervene to stop the illegal acts committed by his subordinates (prevention – a priori of the crime), nor did he take any measure to punish those involved (prosecution or administrative sanction – a posteriori), while he himself knew not only of the attack against the civilian population, but also that the NIA was a torture agency and that the applicants were being deprived of their liberty.

The final words were addressed to the plaintiffs, who were described by their lawyer as incredibly courageous and resilient individuals – both at the time when they suffered these horrific crimes and throughout the proceedings in Switzerland.

The plaintiffs’ representatives concluded that Ousman Sonko must be found guilty as charged, appropriately punished, pay reparations to the plaintiffs, as compensation for the harm suffered.

Coming next: The closing arguments of the Defense.

The legal representative generally supported the Prosecutor’s closing arguments in favor of the conviction of Ousman Sonko for crimes against humanity.

Arguments on the contextual elements of crimes against humanity

The counsel for the plaintiffs reiterated that the policy of violent suppression of any opposition by the Jammeh regime was implemented by all security forces, that coordination between them was agreed at the highest level of the State, and that the establishment of panels to “investigate” coup attempts was a common system to attack, intimidate and silence the civilian population in the broadest sense.

Assessment of the evidence

First, it was noted that the plaintiffs’ testimony was characterized by its consistency, clarity and lack of contradiction. Second, their free statements before the Court were eloquent and convincing. The internal coherence of the statements showed that there was an identical and well-rehearsed modus operandi that was carried out several times. Their testimony was further corroborated by other material evidence in the case file.

With regard to the three witnesses interviewed in the course of the investigation – who were part of the panel representing the NIA and the State Guard, and some of whom were high-ranking members – it had to be taken into account in assessing their credibility that they may have feared incriminating themselves. Indeed, one of the witnesses remained very evasive, another incriminated himself – and thus largely confirmed the plaintiffs’ statements – and should therefore be given more credibility. Finally, the third witness remained ambivalent, giving many details but remaining evasive on some other aspects, especially when it came to his own role.

In any case, the three confirmed that the panel was composed of all the security forces and that Ousman Sonko, as IGP, was repeatedly present at the panel’s meetings.

As for the work of the TRRC – which the defense only used when it was to its advantage – it was useful evidence for the Court to form its internal conviction, especially since the entire proceedings were conducted in public.

It was also argued that the defendant continued to evade, contradict, and make manifestly false statements, as well as selective use of his rights.

“Ousman Sonko is obviously a very smart man, an excellent politician who can answer questions without giving answers. But one is always left somewhat unsatisfied when listening to him. He does not present a coherent and understandable alternative set of facts that would allow the judge to evaluate the evidence differently.”

Overall, the information provided by the accused was neither coherent nor consistent in itself, nor consistent with the other files, the interrogations, the Gambian legal assistance file, nor the TRRC proceedings. Finally, it was not consistent with common life experience or with any kind of logic.

Argument on each charge

In essence, the evidence in the case file showed – and thus proved – that on 21, 24, 28 March 2006, three applicants were arrested for their alleged involvement in an attempted coup on 21 March 2006.

They were all taken to Mile 2 and the NIA headquarters without a warrant and without having seen a judge. Their detention lasted until 19 April 2006 for two of them and 4 weeks for the third victim, who was arrested and detained again for several weeks in October of the same year. These detentions were illegal under Gambian law and therefore arbitrary and contrary to international law. They were held in appalling conditions.

In addition, all three were victims of various forms of torture, which, according to the Prosecutor, should be judged in the light of the aggravated offense of crimes against humanity.

Modes of liability

It was argued that Ousman Sonko should be recognized as an accomplice in the commission of the crimes in question because he played a decisive role in the joint decision to commit the offense, as well as in the joint coordinated execution of the crimes and because he jointly contributed to their commission.

Indeed, the accused had been a powerful man within the repressive system in place, as IGP. He had actually supported the implementation of Jammeh’s regime policy of attacks against the civilian population and occupied three of the most important positions in the apparatus, where President Jammeh only appointed people he fully trusted. Several witness testimonies – as well as material evidence available – confirmed this particularly close relationship that existed between the accused and the former President. In addition, it was noted that the accused was appointed as Minister of Interior shortly after having dealt with the March coup attempt for the President.

Furthermore, as IGP, Ousman Sonko was at the center of the Gambian security forces – which collaborated at all levels – and, thus, at the center repression apparatus:

“All the security forces worked together to keep the Jammeh regime in power by suppressing all dissenting voices. This was done through the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of critics of the regime. The accused made a significant contribution to the establishment of the repressive Gambian regime directed against the civilian population, with the aim of maintaining this regime in power.”

It was further argued that the accused could not evade his responsibilities deriving by claiming he had no de jure or de facto control over the NIA or the Junglers, especially since the strategic and operational cooperation of all the security forces was aimed at keeping Yahya Jammeh in power.

With regard to the specific events of March 2006, it was recalled that Ousman Sonko was immediately informed by the army chief of the coup attempt and, considering his official position as well as his status as Jammeh’s closest confident, he was the one responsible for the State’s response to the serious threat of a coup d’état.

It has been established– in particular through the statements of the plaintiffs’ statements as well as through several witnesses’ statements – that Ousman Sonko was indeed part of the panel set up to investigate the coup and that it included all Gambian security forces, including the State Guard and the Junglers. He actually confirmed that he had to appoint the police members of the panel. As for the panel’s supervision, it was proven that, as IGP, he was amongst the three responsible ones and that decisions were taken in collaboration between them. In addition, it was established from the statements in the case file that the defendant was present when the plaintiffs were released.

In light of the above, Ousman Sonko’s statement that he knew almost no one on the Panel was completely implausible and had to be rejected an attempt on his part to evade his responsibility. Likewise, the accused’s statements – which varied considerably during the course of the investigation – that he had only been present for one hour on the first evening of the Panel’s interrogation, that he had not witnessed any acts of violence and that he had not seen any armed men, in particular no Junglers, must be considered as completely untrustworthy. Moreover, it was contradicted by all plaintiffs and witnesses heard in the course of these proceedings.

Overall, the defendant also failed to make an alternative story – in which his criminal responsibility would not be at stake – credible.

“Without the police authority and its powers, the panel could not have functioned, the civilian population would not have been attacked and the crimes would not have been committed. As head of the Panel, Ousman Sonko decided on arrests, detentions, interrogations, torture and even rape and the release of suspects. This was done in cooperation and collaboration with all security forces. By virtue of his position of power as IGP, as a close confidant of the President, as supervisor of the panel and as superior of the police officers who were part of the Panel, he had the kind of control over the entire process that only an accomplice can have.”

It was then argued that Ousman Sonko acted with the knowledge and intent to commit all the crimes he is with which he is charged. In particular, he knew that torture, including sexual violence, was illegal under the Gambian and international law, as well as how the regime dealt with critics. He also knew the Junglers involved in the events (both their existence as a group and the individuals within that group and the exactions for which they were known).

Any statement to the contrary made by the accused could not be believed, as they were obviously made in order to evade any responsibility.

The plaintiffs’ legal representative concluded that Ousman Sonko should be found guilty as charged, punished appropriately and that reparations should be allocated to the three plaintiffs, as compensation for the damage they suffered.

Coming next: Closing arguments on the 14 April 2016 events.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel began her closing arguments by generally supporting the Prosecutor’s case for the conviction of Ousman Sonko for crimes against humanity, particularly in support of her clients who were victims of atrocities in 2000 and 2006.

Pleading on the contextual elements of the crimes against humanity

The argumentation started with a reminder of the Gambian context with a particular focus on the years 2000 to 2006.

“Between 1994 and the end of 2016, anyone who opposed, wanted to oppose, or was even suspected of opposing the regime risked being arbitrarily arrested, tortured, or otherwise ill-treated. Risked being subjected to sexualized violence. Risked being disappeared. Risked being extrajudicially executed or murdered. Under Jammeh, a construct of interlocking security agencies was established, resulting in a system of ‘joint exercise of power’.”

There was no doubt that the security agencies of the Gambian state apparatus were working together in a well-coordinated manner and that Yahya Jammeh was not acting alone. During the investigation, Ousman Sonko even stated that there were weekly meetings of the National Security Council to discuss national security issues and that he had participated in these meetings both as Inspector General of Police (IGP) and as Minister of the Interior. The brutal crimes committed in the name of the state took place in a climate of absolute impunity, and the perpetrators were not held accountable, but rather were being rewarded with promotions and favors: the defendant benefited from the system and was promoted.

It was also emphasized that the regime has committed many violations over the years, leading to the conclusion that the civilian population is under attack. The violent suppression of a student rally in April 2000, the attempted assassination of a lawyer critical of the regime in December 2003, the murder of the editor of The Point in December 2004, and the killing of more than 50 West African migrants in July 2005 were cited as examples.

In this case, both the general and the systematic nature of the above-mentioned attack were well established. However, in order to reinforce the general character of the attack, it was emphasized that the Gambian society is highly interconnected due to the small size of the country, but also due to the extended family system and, beyond that, the Gambian social environment. This leads to the conclusion that, in addition to the number of victims, the temporal and geographical elements that support the general character of the attack, each individual crime resulted in a higher number of people affected because of the Gambian social structure.

With regard to the systematic nature of the attacks, it was also emphasized – in addition to the arguments of the prosecutor – that the cooperation between the different services was embedded in the structure of the dictatorship from the very beginning: already in 1997, the PIU and the NIA were involved in the violent repression of UDP members, which led to arrests and acts of torture.

The attacks also targeted certain categories of people, such as journalists and, more generally, the media, from the early years of the regime, which was also highlighted in the findings of the TRRC. It was also important to note that journalists from government-owned newspapers were not spared: persecution of journalists from the Daily Observer was evident throughout the years, for example in 2001 and 2006.

It was therefore clear that the journalists arrested and tortured in March 2006 had been targeted by the regime in connection with their work and their coverage of the coup attempt.

“In reviewing this testimony and studying the file in general, it became clear that, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the suppression of the press through the targeted persecution of critical journalists and media outlets was an integral part of the regime’s logic from the very beginning. (…). As a result, the defendant’s attempts to portray the press in The Gambia as supposedly free fall flat.”

With regard to Ousman Sonko’s knowledge of the aforementioned systematic and generalized attacks against the Gambian civilian population, it was emphasized that, although he claimed to have learned of the crimes of the Jammeh regime only through the TRRC or the present proceedings, it was clear from the record and from the testimony heard before the Court that the accused was part of the inner circle of power around the former President from the beginning to almost the end. As highlighted by the Prosecutor, the accused participated in Jammeh’s coup in 1994 and joined the State Guard in 1995. He then gradually rose within the apparatus, becoming IGP without any police training or experience, and eventually reaching the position of Minister of Interior.

“In court, the accused showed himself to be a man who – despite the knowledge that he can no longer deny after the TRRC and the present proceedings – still supports the repressive policies of the state’s collective of perpetrators today. If the accused today, knowing the extent of the brutality of the regime, still justifies its policies, then I conclude that he was also in agreement with them at the time of the alleged offenses.”

Given the military and central office positions he held from 1995 to 2016, the accused cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the gross human rights violations and numerous crimes that took place. The accused could not have occupied key positions of power for years without knowing about such attacks.

Indeed, there is no doubt that the accused was aware of the policy of systematic persecution of real or perceived critics of the regime in the context of his respective position, whether in the military, as IGP or as Minister of the Interior. In September 2016, he left the country as soon as possible after falling out of favor with Jammeh, knowing full well what awaited him in that situation: arbitrary detention, torture, disappearance and/or death.

Arguments on the individual charges

With regard to the murder of a member of the State Guard in January 2000, the representative returned to the testimony of the various witnesses, as well as the testimony of the widow of the deceased – who is a plaintiff in the case – and compared it with the testimony of the accused on these events.

In essence, it was argued that the witnesses – a former member of the State House Battalion and a former Jungler – provided credible information about the planning as well as the operation that led to the killing and in which the defendant was involved. The plaintiff, for her part, provided credible information that was also consistent with the testimony of the witnesses. It was added that the plaintiff commented in great detail, in a coherent and consistent manner, on the events she remembered on the day her husband was lured into an ambush.

Ousman Sonko, for his part, selectively exercised his right to remain silent on these charges, which was not to his advantage. While he told the court that he could not comment due to a duty of confidentiality, he made some isolated statements during the investigation. In particular, he said that the plaintiff was wrong when she stated that he had taken the victim’s position after his death.

It was also emphasized that Ousman Sonko had been identified by the TRRC as part of a collective of perpetrators responsible for this murder.

At the time of the crime, the accused had already been in the army for 12 years and had served in the State Guard since 1995. He was in the same unit as the victim. He knew what he had to do to take his place at the president’s side, and any means were acceptable to him. The killing was part of a list of systematic violations that already existed at the time of the offense, which means that the crime was committed as part of the attack against the civilian population that took place, and no grounds for justification or exclusion of guilt are apparent or have been raised to date.

As requested by the Prosecutor, it was concluded that Ousman Sonko should be convicted of aggravated murder as a crime against humanity, given the atrocity of the acts in question.

With regard to the charges of sexual violence, which Ousman Sonko is accused of having committed on several occasions against the widow of the deceased, the course of events was reconstructed on the basis of credible and consistent statements made by the plaintiff. According to her statements, very soon after the murder of her husband, she lost her job, her children were no longer allowed to enroll in school by order of the Minister of Education, and the defendant began to “search for her”, even during the period of mourning. This was followed by an “intensive phase” of sexual abuse and threats over many months. The sexual assaults continued from mid/end 2000 until late 2001/early 2002, when they increased again. Severe violence occurred again in January 2005 when the plaintiff returned to The Gambia for a short stay.

“I wouldn’t be here if my client didn’t care about one thing: justice. Justice after all these years. For the murder of her husband. For what was done to her. For what her family, especially her children, have had to go through as a result of the defendant’s actions.”

Although he never responded in detail to these charges, Ousman Sonko stated that he had not been in the country at the time of the crimes. However, the evidence in the case file showed that he had only been absent twice, each time for one week, making these absences insignificant and of negligible duration, and therefore not convincing.

The events suffered by the plaintiff should lead the Court to find Ousman Sonko guilty of aggravated deprivation of liberty, aggravated torture and aggravated violation of sexual self-determination through rape as crimes against humanity, emphasizing that he acted with the specific intention of punishing or possessing her as the widow of his eliminated opponent. Consequently, the sexualized violence perpetrated by the accused can also be included in the concept of torture.

“He wanted to intimidate her and forbid her to talk to anyone about what was happening. He wanted information, asking her if she had talked to anyone, if she had applied for asylum in the United States. He wanted to humiliate her. He wanted to dominate her. He wanted to destroy her. In this case, Ousman Sonko undoubtedly had a specific purpose for his actions.”

According to the available evidence in the case file, Ousman Sonko had a reputation as a “womanizer”, which should be understood as “a man who takes what he wants”, and it was clear from the file that he acted in the exercise of his function or at least by using his power or the resources available to him by virtue of his position. It was also clear that the plaintiff was not an accidental victim, but had been specifically targeted.

For these reasons, the acts in question should not be considered as personal or isolated acts, but as having taken place in the context of the widespread sexualized violence against women during the Jammeh regime.

“Sexualized violence was used in The Gambia as a targeted means of political repression against dissidents or people accused of having links to a dissident stance. This explicitly affected people of all genders. Sexualized violence targets the innermost core of a person and has the potential – often deliberately used in dictatorships or wars – to destroy individuals and entire communities, perhaps not physically, but psychologically. The systematic use of sexualized violence was part of the assault on civilians in The Gambia from 1994 to the end of 2016.”

With regard to the allegations of torture and deprivation of liberty made against two journalists – private plaintiffs – in March 2006, it was recalled that both of them had given credible accounts of the events they had experienced, with relevant and accurate details. Their testimony was further corroborated by several pieces of evidence and newspaper articles.

While the accused did not dispute the testimony of the two victims, he denied any knowledge or involvement in these events. In particular, he claimed that his deputy – in coordination with other high-ranking individuals – had been responsible for the deployment of the police after the coup attempt in March 2006. He also denied any responsibility as a member of the Investigation Committee before the prosecutor, although his statements in this regard became vaguer before the court.

“The defendant’s statements to the court regarding the charges against my clients were characterized by his usual evasiveness and constant elusions: Ousman Sonko had either not seen any violations of the law, could not remember them, or the services under his control were not involved and therefore he was not responsible.”

The events that the plaintiffs experienced as journalists in March 2006 should lead the Court to find Ousman Sonko guilty of aggravated deprivation of liberty and aggravated torture, as well as aggravated violation of sexual self-determination, as crimes against humanity.

It was emphasized that the electric shocks inflicted on the genitals of one of the plaintiffs should be recognized as a form of torture through sexualized violence. In order to fully reflect the injustice of this gendered aspect of torture, the facts of the case had to be explicitly assessed from this perspective. At the time the plaintiff was subjected to gender-based violence, he was in a state of absolute defenselessness. He was incarcerated and therefore completely restricted in his freedom of movement and at the mercy of his torturers.

The plaintiffs’ legal representative concluded that Ousman Sonko should be found guilty as charged, should be appropriately punished, and that reparations should be awarded to the three plaintiffs as compensation for the harm suffered.

Coming next: The closing arguments of the legal representative of the other victims of the 2006 events.

Part 3: The sentencing

After pleading Ousman Sonko’s responsibility for each and every charge, the prosecutor went on to discuss sentencing.

According to Swiss law: The sentence is to be assessed according to the culpability of the offender, which is to be determined on the basis of the severity of the violation or the endangerment of the legal interest concerned, the reprehensibility of the offender’s actions, the motives and aims of the offender, and the extent to which the offender was in a position to avoid the seriousness of the endangerment or damage, taking into account the internal and external circumstances. In addition, the offender’s previous life, personal circumstances and the impact of the sentence on the offender’s life must be taken into account. (Art. 47 al. 2 SCC)

The Prosecutor requested life imprisonment in view of the serious culpability of Ousman Sonko, who, according to the findings of the investigation, had participated in multiple serious counts of crimes against humanity.

In considering the aggravating circumstances applicable to the accused, the Prosecutor stated that, although some of them could have been applied (see box below), they did not de facto increase the statutory maximum sentence.

Examples of aggravating circumstances mentioned by the Prosecutor: Behavior during the investigation “The accused’s conduct in the present proceedings was only superficially cooperative. While at the beginning of the proceedings he was willing to provide detailed information on general questions about the system and on questions about his career and performance, as the proceedings progressed he evaded specific questions, described them as hypothetical, made vague statements or refused to testify – as is his right. (…) His deliberately disruptive conduct during the investigation can no longer be assessed neutrally due to its scope, duration and intensity, but must be considered in a somewhat different light.” Confession, insight, remorse “The accused continues to deny all charges and has not confessed. Furthermore, he has shown neither understanding nor remorse. Therefore, a reduction of the sentence is out of the question. The non-cooperation, the lack of remorse, the lack of understanding and the lack of confession therefore have a neutral effect on the sentence.”

As for the mitigating circumstance related to the length of the trial, it should be rejected.

It follows from the above that, taking into account the defendant’s culpability for the crimes committed, life imprisonment is considered an appropriate overall sentence.

According to the Prosecutor, such a sentence should also be considered as justified in terms of international jurisprudence. Indeed, in December 2023, Bai L., who was involved as a driver in various crimes against humanity, was sentenced to life imprisonment in Germany. Ousman Sonko’s participation in the crimes and his culpability must be weighed much more heavily in this case.

Finally, the OAG requested in particular that Ousman Sonko be expelled from Swiss territory for a maximum period of 15 years, that the Court decide on the distribution of the confiscated assets, that various objects seized in the course of the investigation be returned to Ousman Sonko or to the persons to whom they belong, and that the Court decide on the civil claims to be formulated by the plaintiffs.

Coming next: The closing arguments of the legal representative of the victims of the 2000 events.

Part 2: The charges

After describing the Gambian context and Ousman Sonko’s knowledge of the generalized and systematic attacks against the civilian population since the early years of Yahya Jammeh’s presidency, the Prosecutor addressed the Court on the accused’s criminal responsibility for the various specific crimes with which he is charged.

Murder of a former member of the State guard in January 2000

In mid-January 2000, as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, Ousman Sonko, then a captain in the State Guard, allegedly lured a former member of the State Guard into an ambush on the Bund Road and, with a group of soldiers under his command, and treacherously killed him.

Despite his denial of the facts, the Prosecutor argued that there was no reasonable doubt that Ousman Sonko was present at the time of the crime and that he and the group of soldiers he led shot the victim while he was fleeing.

Indeed, after a thorough comparison and evaluation of the various testimonies gathered during the investigation, it became clear that Ousman Sonko had participated in the planning of the crime by secretly recording a conversation between him and the victim on 13 January 2000, in which the latter discussed how he and others were allegedly planning a coup. The recording was then given to Jammeh, who then ordered the victim’s arrest. The case file and the TRRC’s findings showed that Ousman Sonko was subsequently promoted directly to the head of the National Guard. Further evidence showed that he personally participated in the arrest of the victim on the Bund Road, after having called his target to meet him there. Although the facts of the case differ in the light of the various testimonies collected, the Prosecutor’s position is that the accused and his men deliberately shot the victim, who was unarmed, from behind while he was trying to escape from the ambush in which he had been placed.

“Ousman Sonko gained the victim’s trust, lured him into an ambush under a pretext, and used his ‘death squad’ to liquidate a soldier who was then considered an enemy of the state.”

The Prosecutor added that the defendant’s motives for acting as he did were evident from the various testimonies collected: he was willing to use any means to achieve his goal of making a career out of his loyalty to the President, and the victim was an obstacle to this.

As a result of the above, the Prosecutor concluded that the accused, as commander of the State Guard, led the group of five to six soldiers who acted under his command and orders. Ousman Sonko acted as part of this group and actively participated in the killing by shooting at the fleeing victim with his own weapon.

It was then added that the above-mentioned killing took place within the framework of crimes against humanity, as it falls within a “known” catalog of repressive measures used by the government and is directly linked to the planning of a coup against Jammeh. The victim was therefore part of the civilian population under attack by the government.

Considering the circumstances of the killing, and in particular the cruelty with which the accused acted, the crime should be considered aggravated.

Multiple rapes and sexual violence committed on the widow of the killed State guard member between 2000 and 2002 as well as in 2005

As part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, the defendant is alleged to have regularly tortured, between 2000 and 2002, the widow of the soldier killed in January 2000. He is also alleged to have held her captive for several days in January 2005 and to have repeatedly tortured and raped her.

While the accused denied these allegations, stating in particular that he was not in The Gambia at the time of the events, the Prosecutor argued that his alibis did not stand up to the analysis of the information contained in the case file and that he was in The Gambia during most of the time when the events took place.

On the contrary, the victim’s testimony should be considered credible on the whole, taking into account the time that has passed since the crimes were committed, the trauma she has suffered and the medical report assessing the physical consequences of the violence she has suffered. On the other hand, the statements of the accused cannot be considered convincing:

“It is obvious that the defendant – as in the entire trial – is in no way willing to take responsibility for his misconduct. Instead, he tries to evade responsibility and goes on the offensive by accusing the victim of being a liar. Such behavior speaks volumes.”

In light of the foregoing, the Prosecutor has concluded that the charges are sufficiently substantiated and that there is no reasonable doubt that Ousman Sonko committed the crimes charged.

He did not commit these crimes for his own gratification, but in the context of the attack against the civilian population. In fact, the rapes and other crimes were committed in order to protect the State apparatus, especially since Ousman Sonko appeared to the victim as a representative of the State, in his uniform and with his service weapon, and not as a private individual. Another element leading to this conclusion is that, during the crimes, the accused aimed to control the victim and to suppress any behavior on her part that might be directed against the regime or related to the alleged coup attempt by her late husband and the subsequent State intervention. The victim and her family, who were mourning the death of an enemy of the state, were themselves considered enemies of the state.

“The TRRC also found in its report that President Jammeh and high-ranking state officials victimized women and girls by, among other things, raping, violating, and molesting them without being held accountable as perpetrators. Thus, it has been sufficiently established that the victim was part of the targeted civilian population and that the accused committed the crimes on the explicit or at least implicit orders and in accordance with the repressive policy of the perpetrator collective”.

The prosecutor further argued that Ousman Sonko raped the victim several times in 2005 while she was deprived of her liberty without legal basis or fair trial, without contact with the outside world, with little food or water, and without sanitary facilities. The crime of torture should also be confirmed, as the defendant threatened to kill his victim with a pistol as well as with a knife, and used brutal force.

Considering the circumstances of the crimes – and in particular the massive physical and psychological violence used during the rapes – the crimes should be considered as aggravated.

Acts of torture, deprivation of liberty and sexual violence committed in 2006

In the context of the widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, the accused, as the then IGP, is alleged to have held an important position in the Panel in connection with a coup attempt in March 2006. He is alleged to have been responsible for the fact that the security authorities and the prison authorities, in cooperation with the NIA and the Junglers, arrested several persons suspected of being involved in a coup at the instigation of the Panel, tortured them, committed sexual violence against them and held them illegally for an excessive period of time.

It was undisputed that five of the plaintiffs were tortured during an investigation at the NIA in March 2006 and that sexual violence was used against some of them. All of the torture victims had also been detained by the security and prison authorities for an unreasonably long period of time before being brought before a court for the first time.

The accused denied being responsible for these events, claiming that he was not a member of the investigation panel, that he had no authority and did not give any orders, and that he did not see or know anything about the torture and injuries suffered by the tortured persons.

However, it was noted that Ousman Sonko kept changing his statements regarding his presence at the Panel. While he initially stated that he had been at the NIA headquarters only once, on 21 March 2006, he then remained vague, stating that he had gaps in his memory, or that he could not remember anything specific, or that the applicants were lying. In court, however, he admitted that it was possible that he had been there.

“This back and forth by the accused clearly shows how he is trying to evade responsibility. According to the motto: ‘I didn’t do it. I wasn’t there. I had nothing to do with it’. However, this calculated testimonial behavior of the defendant can be contrasted with various credible testimonies of those involved and the results of the investigation.”

All of the 2006 applicants unanimously testified that Ousman Sonko was present at their hearings before the NIA and that he was perceived as a senior member of the panel. They all further stated that the Panel was composed of a mixture of security forces (NIA, army and police) – which was also confirmed by the TRRC findings – while the Junglers or members of the State Guard were responsible for the arrest, guarding, transportation and torture and took orders from the Panel. Both groups collaborated.

Comparing the testimonies of the complainants, it could be concluded that Ousman Sonko was present at the NIA headquarters for a total of nine days between the end of March and November 2006 and that some of the detainees showed signs of torture. Other witnesses made similar statements. The TRRC also found that the panel members were aware that suspects had been tortured by the junta and that Ousman Sonko, in particular, as part of the panel, was responsible for the torture of those arrested in connection with the 2006 coup.

“All torture carried out by the Junglers as part of the Panel’s investigation was carried out on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Panel.”

The accused’s statement – according to which he only heard about the torture that took place before the Panel in 2006, while he had already arrived in Switzerland and first heard about the Junglers in September 2016 – was implausible and contradicted by numerous pieces of evidence in the case file. In fact, various testimonies proved that Ousman Sonko knew about the Junglers early on and knew them very well, including their specialty: torture and killings. 

The journalists who were tortured in 2006 were not random victims but were specifically included in the panel’s investigation because of their publications related to the coup attempt. The pattern of their arrest, detention and interrogation, as well as the division of tasks among the security forces, is the same as that of the other coup suspects. Therefore, it should be concluded that they were also considered enemies of the state. In fact, the TRRC came to the same conclusion.

Looking at the case file, there was no significant or reasonable doubt that the defendant was part of the Panel and made key decisions together with others, or at least that he implicitly agreed with the Panel’s actions due to his role and status as IGP. Indeed, his role was far from passive, but rather active, and his participation in the Panel as the highest-ranking police officer meant that he was not only primarily responsible from a hierarchical point of view, but also operationally, and that he acted perceptibly as part of the Panel and was clearly part of the Gambian state apparatus, given the police uniform he wore.

“The organized and coordinated cooperation of the Panel with the military, the police, the NIA and the Junglers is consistent with the collective of perpetrators mentioned in the systematic nature of the attack. The same is true of the crimes committed. The crimes committed against sexual integrity, torture and deprivation of liberty correspond to the catalogue of crimes planned and recognized by the perpetrator collective.“

Considering the circumstances of the torture – and especially the fact that the Junglers attacked defenseless victims as a group, using whips, belts, sticks, ropes and electric prods – the crimes should be considered aggravated.

Murder of a politician in October 2011

As part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, Ousman Sonko is allegedly responsible for the death of a politician in October 2011. As Minister of Home Affairs at the time, he allegedly gave specific instructions to the prison service under his command to cooperate with the Junglers, and the prison staff allowed a group of Junglers to freely access the detainee, who was in hospital, in order to murder him.

At the time of his murder in 2011, the victim was a prominent figure in Gambian society and politics. He was known as a former associate of Yahya Jammeh and later as a convicted businessman. He was a member of the president’s party from 1994 to 2003. He was removed from his position within the party in March of that year, arrested in November 2003 on fraud charges, and released on bail. He was arrested again in December 2003 and sentenced to 9 years and 8 months imprisonment at Mile 2 in March 2004. The TRRC described the case as politically motivated.

According to the Prosecutor, it is undisputed that the victim was hospitalized in October 2011 after suffering an injury in prison, and that a team of seven Junglers entered his room while he was asleep and suffocated him with his blanket.

Ousman Sonko denied being responsible for his death and claimed that he knew nothing about the murder plan. However, the prosecutor’s investigation shows that the Minister of the Interior, through the prison service, played an essential role in the plan that led to this killing and deliberately acted as a kind of “gatekeeper” for the Junglers.

Indeed, it is clear from the evidence in the case file that Ousman Sonko was informed by telephone of the accident of the victim at Mile 2, that he organized the leader of the Junglers to visit the victim in the hospital, that he ordered the change of the guard of the victim in the hospital and that the new guard was to let in the military personnel who wanted to visit the victim. When a group of seven Junglers arrived at the hospital in the middle of the night, they were let in by the guard.

The victim was then suffocated and the group left. Suspicions of a cover-up arose, especially among the victim’s family, but they decided not to have an autopsy because of the risks to their safety. Ousman Sonko confirmed during the trial that he had been informed of this and ordered to release the body to the family.

“The prison authorities functioned well under the leadership and instructions of Ousman Sonko and worked hand in hand with the Junglers and the hospital in carrying out the murder plan.”

In light of the foregoing, there is no significant or reasonable doubt that the accused, as Minister of the Interior and leading member of the State’s collective of perpetrators, was significantly involved in the murder in question. In his function, he was not only hierarchically responsible for the murder, but rather a leading part of this collective. His role fits seamlessly into the overall structure of the previously described attack by the Gambian state apparatus against the civilian population. The defendant acted as a link between the president – who had an interest in eliminating a political opponent – and the state security services that carried out the offense. The indispensable contribution of his prison service was to act as a “gatekeeper”, allowing access to the victim’s room. Without this contribution, the Junglers would not have been able to murder the victim. In addition, the defendant actively participated in the cover-up of the murder. Although he was aware of the plans and knew that the police under his command were required to investigate unsolved deaths, he released the body without any further investigation or action.

“The systematic cooperation of the state collective of perpetrators in this case is another example of the pattern of suppression of political opponents that has been described several times and repeated over the years: an order came from the president and was passed on to the defendant in charge of internal security, who was responsible for the care and security of prison inmates and the police”.

Considering the circumstances of the murder – and in particular the fact that the victim was in the custody of the prison services – the crimes should be considered as aggravated.

Acts of torture and deprivation of liberty committed in 2016

In the context of the widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, the accused, as Minister of the Interior, is alleged to have participated in the repression of a demonstration in April 2016, during which the police and prison authorities under his command, in cooperation with the NIA and the Junglers, committed various crimes against the participants of the demonstration. The leader of the demonstration was arrested and tortured to death. Other participants in the rally were arrested and tortured, including with sexual violence, and illegally detained in prisons under inhumane conditions for excessive periods of time.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs involved were all arrested during a political demonstration and taken to the PIU. Their subsequent transfer to the NIA is also undisputed, as it has been established that some of them were first taken to Mile 2. All of the detainees were eventually taken to Mile 2. Osman Sonko does not deny that the six plaintiffs were tortured by the Junglers at the NIA and that one of them died as a result of the torture. It is also clear that the plaintiffs were subsequently deprived of their liberty.

It should also be noted that the complainants gave consistent and coherent statements and did not try to incriminate the defendants unnecessarily.

Nevertheless, Ousman Sonko strongly denies that he bears any responsibility for the crimes committed and, in particular, that he participated in the process that led to the transfer of the complainants to the NIA or that he was present there, without being able to give clear answers about his specific role on that day and contradicting himself in various ways.

“Political rallies, such as the demonstration on 16 April 2016, were treated by the state as ‘coup attempts’ and therefore with the highest priority. This explains why not only the police, but also the NIA, Junglers and the prison service were involved in the special treatment of those arrested during the demonstration on 14 April 2016.“

Among all the evidence collected and the contradictions found, the written notes in which it is stated that he gave instructions for the detainees to be transferred to the NIA and for people to be tortured there, actually prove that he gave instructions and that he knew that the detainees were being tortured at the NIA by the Junglers.

The result of the investigation allows to conclude that the rally that took place on 14 April 2016 was peaceful and that the police – or the PIU – was the authority that intervened violently. It can also be concluded that the defendant was present at the PIU on 14 April 2016, that he gave instructions on how to proceed with the detainees, and that he was also present at the NIA – at least when some of the plaintiffs were there for interrogation – and that he knew what happened to them there, as well as knowing that one of the detainees had been killed.

With regard to the charge of deprivation of liberty, the Prosecutor considers it proven that the applicants were unlawfully detained for an excessive period of time after their arrest by the PIU at the police station, at the NIA and at Mile 2, and that Ousman Sonko had knowledge of this fact.

In this regard, the Prosecutor emphasized that the conditions of detention for political prisoners at both Mile 2 and Janjanbureh Prison were particularly – and deliberately – poor, as was also found by the TRRC. It was also argued that Ousman Sonko could not evade responsibility by claiming that he had no operational role.

On the basis of the evidence collected, the Prosecutor argued that Ousman Sonko’s involvement – within a collective of perpetrators – in these facts had been sufficiently proven, and that he was hierarchically responsible for these facts as Minister of the Interior, and that he had also actively participated in this collective in a leading role.

“From the arrest at Westfield Junction, through the PIU, the NIA and the prisons, those arrested became victims of the tried and tested system of repression of the state perpetrator collective, which has been described many times before. This pattern was perfected over a period of 20 years up to 2016, which can be seen, among other things, in how efficiently and naturally the victims were channeled through the various crime scenes.”

In this regard, it has also been emphasized that Ousman Sonko, as Minister of the Interior, was aware of the crimes committed by the services under his command, together with the other agencies involved, and that he deliberately and intentionally did not prevent them. Furthermore, he could have instructed the said services and prevented them from collaborating with the perpetrators and committing crimes.

Considering the circumstances of the crimes in question, they should be considered as serious crimes against humanity.

Coming next: The Prosecutor’s closing arguments on the sentencing.

Part 1: The context

After having formally opened the session, the Court rejected the defense’s request to postpone the closing arguments to April 2024 in order for him to get more time to prepare his arguments and review the case in light of very recent case law.

The Court then gave the floor to the Prosecutor

“A system that must take life must first give justice” – this is with this quote from the West African Bar Association and after having recalled the historical dimension of the trial, that the Prosecutor started her pleadings.

Since the opening of the investigation, Ousman Sonko has denied the charges he is accused of as well as the criminal offenses and state repression committed by the government of Yahya Jammeh. He kept this line of defense until today and claims he is not responsible for any human rights violations that could have taken place in the country. He also distanced himself from the Junglers, the NIA and the armed forces by shifting the responsibility onto others.

The brutal 22 years of Yahya Jammeh’s Presidency – from the 1994 coup to his fall in 2016 – contrasted with the state of human rights in the Country under former President Dawda Kaibara Jawara. The investigation and the TRRC reports – that were useful to refer to historical and country-specific findings as well as to understand the Gambian legal system and compare the facts investigated in Switzerland with the domestic findings – showed how Yahya Jammeh, together with members of the security forces, ruled with violence from the very early years, pillorying high-ranking state employees of the former government, arresting and sometimes torturing them as well as suppressing and punishing any form of opposition and civil protests. These were the first steps of the systematic repression of the Gambian population that continued and increased over the years.

“The government made no secret of the fact that it subordinated everything to maintain its power and was willing to commit crimes to do so: all those who were categorized as critical of the Government were branded enemies of the State, publicly intimidated, threatened and dehumanized.”

Within this context, the Prosecutor noted that Ousman Sonko’s career rose exponentially until he acceded the position of Minister of Interior. Until he escaped the country in 2016, this shows that he clearly remained part of the inner circle of Yahya Jammeh.

Contextual elements of crimes against humanity

According to the Prosecutor, overarching contextual elements tend to demonstrate that an attack was directed against the civilian population during the reign of Yahya Jammeh between July 1994 and the end of 2016. Thus, the crimes committed under his presidency were crimes against humanity.

With regards to the extent of the attack against the civilian population, the prosecutor highlighted that the means used ranged from arbitrary arrests, unlawful imprisonments, torture and inhumane treatments as well as rapes and other forms of sexual violence. Referring to the TRRC findings, it was recalled that at least 214 to 250 people were extrajudicially executed during the Jammeh Presidency and hundred more had been victims of other crimes against humanity. Such attack expanded to all the Gambian regions as well as to at least 67 non-Gambian nationals.

“The crimes committed during Yahya Jammeh’s government were part of a repressive policy that disenfranchised the civilian population attacked on Gambian territory.”

The Prosecutor considered the systematic nature of the attack to be demonstrated based on the following elements deriving from the casefile:

Firstly, it was proven that a state collective of perpetrators acted together in an organized and coordinated manner to commit crimes. On the one hand, the Gambian army, including the State guard, the NIA and the Junglers were under the orders of the President and on the other hand, the police – including the PIU – and the prison services were subordinated to the Ministry of Interior. Secondly, the prison conditions imposed on political enemies with the consent and under the responsibility of the Minister of Interior served the purpose of suppressing the political enemies of the State and deterring the public as well as breaking the resistance of political opponents. Thirdly, through the adoption of unilateral decrees, the government restricted or deprived the detainees of their rights. The Government also prevented the civilian population from successfully defending itself against the repressive state through the implementation of reforms of the justice sector as well as with targeted legal reforms. The judicial system in place also prevented perpetrators of human rights violations from being prosecuted and punished.

Within this context, Ousman Sonko occupied a leadership position. First, within the State Guard from the year 2000, he contributed to the repressive policy of the state apparatus in close coordination with the President and the NIA. From 2005, he then worked as Inspector General of Police (IGP) – the highest-ranking police officer in the country – and hence had command, overall supervision and leadership over the police force, responsibility to decide over the strategy, as well as overall operational, administrative and personal activities. From 2006, as Minister of Interior, his responsibilities and powers increased even more. He notably had the total control over the police authorities and services.

For these reasons, the Prosecutor argued that, given his far-reaching operational, coordinative and supervisory competences as Minister of the Interior, it should be ruled out that the accused had no knowledge that the state apparatus was securing its hold on power by violently repressing the civilian population.

“The accused played an important role in this [criminal] system from the very beginning. He was neither an unwilling nor an unsuspecting tool of an all-powerful president, as he would have us believe[…]. Rather, as a close confidant of the president, he was fully aware that he was actively committed to realizing his “vision” – and thus the extensive and systematic attack against the civilian population – which secured him a long and highly successful career in the Gambia’s inner circle of power. The minimum requirement that he acted with knowledge of the overall attack must therefore be considered more than fulfilled.”

Coming next: Prosecutor’s closing arguments with regards to Ousman Sonko’s responsibility over specific charges brought against him between 2000 and 2016.

Between 8 and 26 January 2024, the first phase of the trial of Ousman Sonko for crimes against humanity took place in Bellinzona, Switzerland.

During these three weeks, the Court heard eight plaintiffs who made the trip to Switzerland to tell their stories as well as three witnesses. Ousman Sonko was also heard on the charges he is accused of: a murder and multiple sexual offenses in 2000 onwards, acts of torture and deprivation of liberty in 2006, a murder in 2011 and acts of torture and deprivation of liberty in 2016, as well as on the general context during the Jammeh regime.

On 26 January 2024, the Court suspended the trial as the parties’ cases were presented.

During this second phase of the trial starting today – and that could last until 8 March 2024 (possibly until 11 March) – the Prosecutor, the plaintiffs’ legal representatives as well as the defense will make their closing arguments.

The trial schedule is available on the Federal criminal Court’s website (top right) in French, German and Italian.

Coming next: the Prosecutor’s closing arguments.

The trial of former Interior Minister of The Gambia, Ousman Sonko, for crimes against humanity allegedly committed under the regime of former dictator Yahya Jammeh, has been ongoing for almost 3 weeks. TRIAL International kept posting daily and weekly summaries from the proceedings.

The 23^rd of January 2024 marked the termination of all the parties’ hearings. In accordance with the procedural code, the parties were then given the opportunity to request additional evidence.

The Prosecutor and the plaintiffs recalled that several persons could still be heard in order to support the existence of a system set up to repress the civilian population in the frame of the 2006 events and that the complete casefile that led to the recent conviction of Bai Lowe in Germany be added as evidence material, as well as the asylum claim made by the accused in Sweden.

On the legal aspects, it was stressed that the facts at stake could constitute the aggravated offense of crimes against humanity (art. 264a al. 2 of the Swiss Criminal Code – SCC) and that the criminal responsibility of Ousman Sonko should not only be looked at as an active behavior but also as an omission (passive behavior), through the lens of the responsibility of the superior with regards to the 2016 events.

The defense criticized TRIAL International’s support provided to the plaintiffs in the course of the proceedings as well as during the trial. It questioned the financing of the plaintiffs’ travels to Switzerland to attend the trial and addressed direct criticisms to some of the plaintiffs’ legal representatives, arguing that they were not independent vis-a-vis TRIAL International. It also posited that the evidence’s requests by the other parties should be rejected.

On 24 January 2024, the parties were invited to reply.

The Prosecutor supported some of the plaintiffs’ requests, respectively, deferred to Justice for some others. It furthermore highlighted that the defense’s requests were unsubstantiated.

The defense’s arguments expressed against TRIAL International were considered by the legal representatives to be irrelevant and diversionary tactics. The request was subsequently withdrawn by the defense.

The Court ruled orally in German by accepting various evidence material into the casefile, notably the one useful to assess the damages suffered by some plaintiffs. However, the hearings of additional witnesses were rejected. Likewise, the Court refused to include the German proceedings against Bai Lowe into the Swiss casefile as well as the accused’ Swedish asylum file.

It also rejected all the requests formulated by the defense.

The Court then stated that the indictment contained enough elements for it to be able to judge on the aggravated circumstances of crimes against humanity and therefore invited the defense to include this aspect in its closing arguments.

Following the oral reading of the decision, the Court informed the parties that the closing arguments will take place in the reserved week of 4- 8 March 2024.

The Court finally informed the parties that the phase of the presentation of the evidence is closed. As a result, no new evidence will be accepted and the verdict will be based on the casefile as is.

The defense consecutively informed the Court that a request for the release of the accused would be filed. No further details were provided.

Coming next: Resumption of the trial with the parties’ closing arguments on 4 March 2024 (subject to change).

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul, The Gambia.

Ousman Sonko was called to testify and confronted with the outcome of the investigation as well as with the plaintiffs’ additional statements made before the Court, with regards to the above-mentioned charges.

The accused explained that the Gambian police was one of the most respected forces. He then repeated that he only had non-operational duties as Inspector General of Police (IGP) and that the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) has never been under his control. All investigative panels were set under the NIA and upon Yahya Jammeh’s orders. He contested the TRRC’s conclusions stating that he was responsible, as IGP, for the torture of people allegedly involved in the coup attempt.

Amongst other statements, he affirmed the following:

To the plaintiffs who stated having seen him in police uniform as part of the investigative panel, the accused answered either that it could have been possible, or that he had no recollection of this. It was however not correct to say that he was the highest-level in the hierarchy within the panel. He was only requested by the Chief of Defense Staff to select police officers to take part to the panel.

Regarding the press articles of March 2006 stating that journalists arrested by the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) were presented to the accused, he questioned their sources.

Ousman Sonko then explained that, on 21 March 2006, he was a member of the panel for the first time only as an observer and the interrogations had already started. He visited the panel once or twice. His presence was required – along with other officials – to release people and to apologize for their arrest and subsequent detention. The accused had no knowledge of any acts of torture perpetrated by police officers during the detention of these persons.

As opposed to some plaintiffs’ testimonies, Ousman Sonko denied having witnessed violence taking place or injuries having been inflicted on victims by the panel members or before the panel. It was not within his power to prevent the actions of the perpetrators.

Confronted to WikiLeaks cables from the US Embassy in The Gambia according to which the PIU closed the office of The Independent, the accused argued that the PIU had been enforcing a Court order.

To the question whether he would have ordered or played a role in, as IGP or later as Minister of Interior, the detention of people for longer than 72 hours without charges, Ousman Sonko explained that the services under his control would not have done it, were it the case, it could only be an isolated incident.

Coming next: Evidence requests and procedural updates.

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul, The Gambia.

The plaintiff called to testify is a Gambian journalist since the 1990s. In 2006, he was occupying a senior position at the national renowned newspaper “The Independent” as well as within the Gambia Press Union (GPU). He was arrested at the end of March 2006, after the newspaper published several critical articles, discussing the coup attempt against Yahya Jammeh. In 2017 and 2022, he was elected as a parliamentarian for the UDP Party.

The plaintiff recalled the Court that, late March 2006, as he was entering his office at The Independent, some police officers – dressed as civilians – who were waiting for him there informed him that he was under arrest. He was driven to the Police Intervention Unit (PIU)’s headquarters. It was expected as a colleague has been arrested the previous day. Upon arrival at the PIU, he saw many of his colleagues, some of whom were released quickly afterwards.

He was himself brought by the police to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) in Banjul. There, he saw a fellow journalist and both were taken to the police where they were put in a very narrow, dirty and smelly cell. He was interrogated about the articles he wrote on the coup attempt. After some time, they were both taken back to the NIA where he was confronted to similar questions.

One night, he was taken out of his cell by masked men and beaten while being questioned in relation to his work. He suffered many injuries on his hands, arms and back as he was trying to protect his face from the violent beatings. He was also insulted violented again on several occasions.

At some point, he was taken before a panel composed of about ten to twenty people, including Ousman Sonko, who was Inspector General of Police (IGP) at the time. He was clearly explained that he was targeted as journalist, especially as he was working for this newspaper.

He was detained for several weeks. The police remained present at the newspaper’s vicinity during about two years – upon orders from the IGP – thereby preventing him from doing his work.

He suffered physical injuries and psychological trauma from the violence he went through.

At the time, the political situation was terrible. According to the plaintiff, The Gambia was hell between 1994 and 2016. Yahya Jammeh was a tyrant. With his Cabinet, they created a network that terrorized the population. Politicians and religious figures were arrested. Justice was selective and unfair. Media buildings were victims of arsons, medias were muzzled and journalists “endangered species”. After the downfall of the former president, the Gambians gained their freedom.

The Gambia is a small country where everyone is interrelated. The majority of Gambians are Muslims but there is religious tolerance today. Tribalism was unknown until Jammeh came to power. The latter was a Diolla – which is a small tribe – and perceived the other ethnic groups as a threat. The Parliament was free under the first Republic, it was a reflection of the people which was then lost under Jammeh.

Procedural highlight Upon hearing’s resumption on 23 January 2024, the defense filed a written affidavit from Ousman Sonko’s former wife dated 22 January 2024. According to the defense, this document highlights the accused’s personality especially in private. The Prosecutor argued that the document was irrelevant for the defense but would not oppose to include it in the casefile if it was important to the accused. The plaintiffs deferred to the court as to the admission of this document in the proceedings, however stressed that it had no significance in Swiss legal practice and that hearing her as witness was neither necessary nor recommended given her proximity to the accused and defense team and her attending of the trial. The Court accepted the document in the casefile.

Coming next: Ousman Sonko’s hearing on the 2006 charges.

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul, The Gambia.

The plaintiff called to testify has been a Gambian journalist since the 1990s. In the 2000s, he occupied a senior position at national renowned newspaper “The Independent”. In March 2006, The Independent published several articles to report on the attempted coup against Yahya Jammeh’s government. The plaintiff was arrested late the same month.

The plaintiff recalled having been arrested at the end of March 2006 by police and military personnel and taken to the police station in Kanifing and then to the Police Intervention Unit (PIU)’s headquarters. Without having been explained the reason of his arrest, he was then brought to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA)’s headquarters. There he was put in a cell with a detainee accused of having participated to the coup who has visibly been tortured and claimed to have been.

He was detained at the NIA until April 2006 and severely beaten by the Junglers, some of whom had been recruited by the PIU as he later learned. He had to endure terrible acts of torture until he fainted and was left to die. He suffered serious physical injuries, in particular his hands and mouth as a symbol of his journalist activities.

On one occasion at the NIA, he met Ousman Sonko and some NIA staff.

Upon his release on bail near the end of April 2006, he had to go to several hospitals. Since it was clear to doctors that he had been tortured, they did not want to provide him medical treatment because they were afraid.

He consequently fled the country with his pregnant wife to Senegal.

He suffered physical and psychological trauma from the violent events he went through. In particular, he was almost half blind, he had scars on his back and still had nightmares to this day. His whole family was also traumatized, in particular his son after seeing his scars.

At The Independent, everyone has been persecuted in a way or another. Sadly, the question was not to know if anyone was going to be arrested but when. According to the plaintiff, torture and tyranny started with the Jammeh regime.

Confronted to an extract from the casefile in which Ousman Sonko said that he did not know what had happened to him, the plaintiff explained that he did not believe this statement as the police was involved in his arrest and transfer to the NIA’s headquarters.

Coming next: Continuation of the plaintiffs’ interrogation about the March 2006 events in relation to the persecution of journalists.

(15-19 January 2024, Federal Criminal Court, Bellinzona, Switzerland)

The trial of Ousman Sonko opened on 8 January 2024 before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC). A panel of three judges is 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, under the regime of former President Yahya Jammeh.

During the three-weeks trial, Ousman Sonko is represented by a defense team of four. Nine plaintiffs are heard over two weeks. They are represented by their lawyers and supported by TRIAL International, who filed the criminal denunciation against Ousman Sonko in 2017.

After the hearing of Ousman Sonko on 18 January 2024, a plaintiff was called to provide a statement on his arrest and subsequent torture in 2006. 

His hearing was interrupted at the end of the day and scheduled to continue on 19 January 2024.

The defense informed the Court and the parties in the evening that it would be unable to represent his client on the following day. 

Because the trial cannot continue without the presence of the defense, the Court, in accordance with the procedural criminal code, suspended the proceedings and informed the parties they would resume on Monday 22 January 2024, 08:30 (CET).

As a result, the remaining plaintiffs will have to be questioned next week, therefore the Court agreed that their stay be extended.  

The other plaintiffs who were supposed to leave Switzerland on 20 January 2024 – as they already testified – would not have been able to hear the accused’s further questioning next week without finding additional means to extend their stay. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the Court will eventually refund them, entirely or even at all. 

With regards to victims’ access to justice, TRIAL International strongly believes that the plaintiffs’ attendance of Ousman Sonko’s hearing and confrontation with the facts at stake can contribute to their healing process as well as provide each and everyone with the closure they have been awaiting for years now.   TRIAL International reiterates that the plaintiffs should have been invited, and their costs covered, to attend the full length of the trial in the first place, as victims’ participation to these trials is of utmost importance and aligns with the principle of universal jurisdiction which allows victims to be heard before foreign jurisdictions on the serious crimes they have suffered.

Ousman Sonko is being accused, in complicity with a group of perpetrators, of having tortured several political opponents and illegally depriving them of their liberty in the context of a political demonstration organized in April 2016 in Banjul. Within this context, Ousman Sonko is in particular suspected of having tortured and then killed one of the organizers of the demonstration.

Procedural highlight: The Court accepted the Gambian newspaper articles regarding the execution of nine inmates in 2012 as evidence to be added to the casefile.

©TRIAL International / plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ lawyers and TRIAL representatives before the FCC in Bellinzona during the second week of the trial.

Ousman Sonko was called to testify on the 14 April 2016 events.

The accused denied having been present at the Police Intervention Unit’s headquarters (PIU HQ) recalling that some people stated that they did not see him there. While he was not on site on the 14^th, he was indeed there on 16 April 2016. For this reason, some people might have been confused. Additionally, he did not take part in the investigation panel at the NIA.

Ousman Sonko then reiterated that the command and the structure of the Junglers were not under his supervision.

He was then confronted with written notes – found by the police – in a suitcase seized where he had been arrested in 2017. The notes, among other things, say the following: “(…) during the Apr 14 & 16 incident he gave me instructions for the police to shoot and kill the opposition (…) ®  took over the PIU”. The accused contested having had any document in the suitcase but confirmed it was his handwriting. He explained that the first part of the events mentioned in this note never happened and that the second part took place, however at a later time.

The second note said: “Directive to harass (…) and even to assassinate and not to issue permit for (…) I refused. (…) did not go well with him (…); Ordered me to instruct the police to shoot and kill the Apr. 14 & 16 demonstrators, I refused; Give directive for those arrested by the police to be handed over to the NIA, which I did. They were handed over to the NIA, that report directly to him. At the NIA, these people would be (were) tortured by the president spec paramitiliary forces called the black black or Junglers. The Junglers respond directly to the president. Those supporters of the UDP were severely tortured [resulting to the death of Solo SANDENG and others were severely wounded]” Ousman Sonko explained that it was not what it transpired, he wrote this note to support his asylum request.

Further, Ousman Sonko stated that it was not true to say that protesters were arrested in April 2016 because of their political opposition but the demonstration had taken place illegally. The arrests had hence nothing to do with a breach of their political rights or their freedom of association but were a security matter.

With regards to detention conditions in Mile 2, while he recognized that they were not the best, he repeated that he did everything in his power to improve them during his term at the Ministry. According to the law, it was not his role to visit detention places, but it was the prisons’ directors. As Minister, he had no operational duty and it was not his role to control David Colley (former Director General of prisons, DGP). Likewise, the decision to transfer detainees from a place of detention to another was under the DGP’s responsibility.

Procedural highlight: At the hearing’s resumption on 18 January 2024, the filing, by the plaintiffs, of additional material related to the March 2006 events (archived Gambian newspaper articles), a video of June 2016 showing Ousman Sonko addressing publicly to a crowd as well as, inter alia, an Amnesty International letter confirming the list of reports that were released about the Gambian human rights situation under Yahya Jammeh and the numerous calls for “urgent actions” released by the Organization – where Ousman Sonko was suggested as a recipient as Minister of Interior, was discussed. The federal Prosecutor supported the requests to include this additional material into the casefile, arguing that it demonstrates the elements of an attack against the civilian population and particularly the attack against journalists. The defense deferred to the Court’s decision as to whether or not to accept these documents. After a short break, the Court accepted the material and other complementary reports as evidence to be added to the file, confirming that, prima facie, they are likely to provide additional information for the judges to decide on the existence of an attack against the population which is an element of the crime against humanity.

The accused’s hearing then resumed. The Prosecutor confronted Ousman Sonko to the fact that he – for the first time in the proceedings – had just admitted that he had been the one writing the notes. He answered that the documents in question were not in his suitcase, that he was not present when the documentation was seized and that the police was best placed to answer where these documents had been found.

He did not admit that it was his handwriting during the investigation because he was exercising his right to remain silent and because he wanted to tell it to the Court. He refused to answer the question as to why, according to his recent statement, these notes were only partially reflecting the truth. He was then confronted to the fact that the only part where he said the notes were not true corresponded with the findings of the TRRC, with the declarations of the plaintiffs, as well as with the results of the Prosecutor’s investigation. He answered that there was nothing concrete and that everything was vague.

The Truth Reconciliation and Reconciliation Commission (TRRC) process was not a criminal proceeding where the witnesses’ testimonies would have been cross-examined. As a result, it could not be concluded that the final report of the TRRC reflects the reality.

Ousman Sonko repeated that the arrests in April 2016 were lawful and that there had been no offense perpetrated at the PIU. He was particularly not aware of any sexual assault that would have taken place there. He apologized for any inconvenience that might have been caused to the plaintiffs with regards to their detention conditions. It was not the result of a deliberate policy and it was nothing personal. He tried his best to improve the prison conditions. The DGP had the operational and administrative control over detention places. He then asked where it was written anywhere that the Minister of Interior must control the DGP.

Confronted to art. 92 of the Gambian prison Act – allowing the Minister of Interior to make rules with regards to prison management – he explained that this power to make rules was fundamentally different than operational and administrative tasks. He had no recollection of any report informing him that an inmate was not medically fit for prison (in reference to rule 13 of the subsidiary legislation of the prisons Act).

Amongst other statements, Ousman Sonko confirmed that the Ministry of Interior was a member of the Prison visiting committee, as file documents were indicating. However, he was not the one representing the Ministry during these visits. He did not see any letter that would have been sent to him within the frame of Amnesty International’s urgent calls.

Confronted to a Foroyaa article published in August 2012 titled “Ministry of Interior Statement on the Executions” which says: “The General Public is hereby warned that the rule of law as regards the peace and stability and the protection of lives, property and liberty will not be compromised for whatever reason”, Ousman Sonko asked what the problem with such a statement was. According to him, the recently filed press releases from February to May 2015 highlighting numerous arrests and illegal detentions were the demonstration that press was free.

He repeated that the NIA were never under his de facto or de jure control and that, as a result, he could not have taken any measure towards the Agency following the death of Solo Sandeng in April 2016. Likewise, it was not up to him to take measures regarding the individuals arrested on 14 April 2016, but to those under whose custody they were.

Questioned about the TRRC findings according to which Yahya Jammeh made public statements against Mandinkas such as: “I will wipe them out and nothing will come out of it” and that he would “kill the Mandinkas one by and place them were even a fly couldn’t find it” and also regarding a statement he had himself made while on a so-called Dialogue with the people Tour with the President in June 2016, stating that: “any demonstration would be banned and that all those who would demonstrate would regret this”, Ousman Sonko argued that this statement needed to be put back in context and that his words were not the cause of what had taken place on 14 April 2016, rather they had been a reaction to what had happened as a result of an unauthorized demonstration in 2000. Because similar protests had led to deaths and damages in the past (reference made to the April 2000’s demonstration), he did not want such events to happen again. By saying this, he wanted to prevent future unauthorized demonstrations.

Upon his lawyer’s questions, Ousman Sonko explained that in the event of protests, where demonstrators would refuse to disperse, arrests could take place. In April 2016, the protest leader knew that it was illegal and the police at Westfield intervened in accordance with the law.

Ousman Sonko further explained that he has always advocated against torture and undertaken efforts so that his subordinates would not resort to it. He heard that torture was used at the NIA when he was Minister of Interior, but he did not receive any details. As Minister, he was not empowered to take disciplinary measures against security forces and the police was not in a position to prevent torture from taking place at the NIA.

Regarding the written note discussed earlier, the accused reiterated that he was never ordered to shoot the protesters and would not have followed such an order. He did not participate to any Cabinet discussion during which an attack against the population would have been discussed. He also repeated that, as Minister, he did everything in his power to improve the prison conditions.

Coming next: Plaintiffs interrogation about the March 2006 events in relation to the persecution of journalists

Ousman Sonko is being accused, in complicity with a group of perpetrators, of having tortured several political opponents and illegally depriving them of their liberty in the context of a political demonstration organized in April 2016 in Banjul. Within this context, Ousman Sonko is in particular suspected of having tortured and then killed one of the organizers of the demonstration.

Two plaintiffs are being called to provide their statements:

Both plaintiffs to be called to testify in relation to the April 2016’s events are former members of the UDP (opposition party under Jammeh), who were strongly engaged in the activities of the party from an early age. They were arrested and subsequently tortured in April 2016 and kept in detention for several months afterwards.

The first plaintiff to testify explained having been arrested in April 2016 and brought to the Police Intervention Unit headquarters (PIU HQ) along with other persons. Yankuba Sonko (Inspector General of Police, IGP, at the time) and Yankuba Colley (Mayor of Kanifing Municipal Council, KMC, at the time) were present. She heard the latter saying that Ousman Sonko was in a room next door. Although she did not see him with her own eyes, she heard the IGP telling Yankuba Colley that Ousman Sonko said the arrestees had to be brought to the NIA/Mile2.

She was herself taken to Mile 2 and then, at night, to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA)’s premises. She described the torture and humiliation she went through.

She was then brought back to Mile 2 along with other plaintiffs where she had been detained for one month before being brought to Janjanbureh’s prison. In Mile 2, she had not received any medical treatment. The cells were very dirty, scruffy and smelling bad. She had to sleep on the floor for a while. She was forbidden to receive family and lawyer visits.

In Janjanbureh, the detention conditions were even worse than in Mile 2. Her cell had no window, and the food was awful. She felt sick several times there and had absolutely no contact with the outside world. She heard that a lawyer tried to visit her but the guards told her/him that she was not detained there. Political opponents who were detained were treated like animals.

Today, she still suffers from severe physical damages.

At the time, a brutal dictatorship was ongoing in The Gambia, and she hopes that this will never happen again anywhere in the world.

The second plaintiff to testify explained that she was arrested on 14 April 2016 and taken to the PIU’s HQ where she was hurt and humiliated. She did not see Ousman Sonko there. Along with other arrestees, she was escorted to a PIU truck and driven to Mile 2 and then to the NIA premises.

There, she was blindfolded, and submitted to torture. She was then presented before a panel who interrogated her, notably about the participation of other persons to the protest. She was subsequently severely beaten again.

During her time in Mile 2, there was no doctor, only a medical assistant. In order to have access to medication, one needed the support from ones’ family– which was her case. Neither did she have access to a lawyer. In the overcrowded narrow cell of the prison, conditions were very poor. Some women had unwanted pregnancies. Detainees had to sleep on the floor.

In Janjanbureh, she was not allowed to have family or lawyer visits. Nobody could have known that she – and other plaintiffs – were detained there. The hygiene conditions were bad.

As a final statement, she asked the Court to understand that The Gambia went through a lot. People died and disappeared. What took place in the country should never happen again. Her prayers were sent to all the victims, some of whom were not here anymore.

A third plaintiff, who endured similar offenses in April 2016 onwards, had been fighting for justice in the proceedings against Ousman Sonko for several years. Indeed, in June 2017, she filed a complaint against him in Switzerland for the acts of torture she endured back then. Sadly, she passed away before having been able to tell her story before the Court. TRIAL International’s thoughts are with her and her family members who could not be present at the Court.

Coming next: interrogation of Ousman Sonko in relation to these events

Ousman Sonko is being accused, in complicity with a group of perpetrators, of having tortured several political opponents and illegally depriving them of their liberty in the context of a political demonstration organized in April 2016 in Banjul. Within this context, Ousman Sonko is in particular suspected of having tortured and then killed one of the organizers of the demonstration.

Ousman Sonko contested all the charges brought against him in relation to the torture, the deprivation of liberty and the cruel detention conditions of protestors in April 2016.

The plaintiffs and the Prosecutor requested witnesses to testify.

The first witness, requested by the plaintiffs, has been a prison guard for nineteen years in Mile 2. He was working under the supervision of former prison director David Colley. In 2016, he was himself imprisoned in Mile 2 for nine months at the same time as some of the plaintiffs. The witness testified before the TRRC on 24 June 2020, stating, among other things, that Ousman Sonko was fully informed about how the prison was run by his subordinate David Colley.

During the hearing, the witness confirmed that he had notably worked in Mile 2 and Janjanbureh jails as a prison officer under Jammeh’s presidency. The detention conditions were globally the same in both places. Mile 2 was not a clean place. Cells varied from big halls to very narrow places where air did not circulate well. The little food detainees received was making them sick. He himself experienced sickness while imprisoned in Mile 2, from January to October 2016. He had not received any medical treatment, although he would have needed it.

Some detainees had access to lawyers, but he did not. Likewise, some inmates were allowed to have family visits, some were not.

In the security wing of Mile 2 – where he had been detained for some time – there were prisoners who had been convicted to life, others to death, some had never been sentenced at all and some other were not even aware of the reasons of their detention. Political detainees were not detained at the same place as other inmates. The witness heard that the Junglers and the NIA had access to detainees. They allegedly came during the night so that no one would know what was going on.

The witness confirmed having seen acts of torture being committed in Mile 2 when he was himself detained. He added that he had never seen Ousman Sonko in prison and that David Colley was a bad person.

The second witness, requested by the Prosecutor, was amongst the protesters during the demonstration that took place on 14 April 2016. He was arrested by the police together with some of the plaintiffs and tortured by NIA staff as well as unlawfully detained for some time. The witness testified before the TRRC on 28 December 2020, within the frame of the so-called NIA9 trial in The Gambia as well as before the Swiss prosecuting authorities in June 2021.

The witness explained that he had joined the 14 April 2016 protest upon request from Solo Sandeng. The protest – which aimed at calling for a proper electoral dialogue and for democratic elections – was not authorized but was planned to be peaceful.

At the moment of his arrest, he was beaten with sticks by the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) and brought to the unit’s headquarters. There, security forces leaders and members of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) were present. Ousman Sonko arrived later together with former NIA Director. The former Inspector General of Police (IGP) was also there as well as the Police commissioner. Along with some of the plaintiffs, he was ordered to hold a sign asking for political reforms and was photographed by a cameraman.

Afterwards, Ousman Sonko and the former IGP ordered to take him and other plaintiffs to the NIA headquarters. The arrestees were photographed, handcuffed, by the medias upon arrival at the NIA.

The witness declared having seen Ousman Sonko at the NIA as well as the NIA Director, the NIA Director of Operations, the IGP and other security officials. There, the arrestees were insulted, strongly beaten and pressured into signing pre-written statements, which he did. He was then imprisoned.

The witness then described in detail the acts of torture and humiliations the arrestees went through, the screams he heard from his cell. He personally also had to endure what the torturers (Junglers and NIA members) called the “VIP treatment” which meant enduring acts of a particular cruelty. He was then brought before a panel within which Ousman Sonko was present, along with the NIA Director, the NIA Director of Operations.

Before this panel, visibly injured, he was again threatened. After that, he was incarcerated in the Bambadinka prison, where he was ill-treated and beaten again, without receiving medical treatment. He was then brought to Mile 2 prison, in the maximum-security wing, where he was not granted the right to see neither his family nor a lawyer.  He was also brought to Janjanbureh prison. In both places, the detention conditions were poor, and the medical facility was either inadequate or inexistent.

On the political and human rights’ context in The Gambia, the witness explained that, under Yahya Jammeh, opposition members would either be imprisoned or forced to leave the country. The judicial power was under the influence of the President and proceedings were partial. Further, the President would keep journalists silent, by killing them, arresting them or forcing them to flee the country.

Procedural highlight At the hearing’s resumption on 17 January 2024, the filing of additional material (archived Gambian newspaper’s articles) related to the illegal execution of nine Mile 2 inmates in 2012 was discussed. In the Prosecutor and the plaintiffs’ views, this material supports the fact that a systematic and planned policy of oppression had been set up by the Gambian authorities, particularly as they refer to an official and public warning addressed to the population from the Ministry of Interior after the execution of the inmates. The material highlights the interaction amongst various state actors – and particularly the role of Ousman Sonko – within Yahya Jammeh’s government to implement the policy. The defense argued that the filing of the material should be rejected as the inmates’ executions at stake were lawful, hence, cannot be the demonstration of a systematic or generalised attack against the civilian population. The Court will decide at a later stage.

Coming next: hearing continues with interrogation of the plaintiffs on these events.

Ousman Sonko is accused of having intentionally killed Baba Jobe – a former member of the National Assembly – in Banjul in October 2011, in complicity with a group of perpetrators.

Ousman Sonko contested all the charges brought against him in relation to this event. A witness was called to testify upon the prosecution’s request.

---

The witness has been a prison guard (assistant to David Colley, General Director of prisons, at Mile 2 prison). He was responsible for guarding prisoner Baba Jobe, who was hospitalized on 28 and 29 October 2011.

According to the Federal prosecutor, upon orders, the witness has granted a group of Junglers access to Baba Jobe’s hospital room so that they could kill him. The witness also has important information about the penitentiary authorities, who at the time were directly under the hierarchy of the accused.

During the investigative phase, the witness was heard by the Swiss prosecuting authorities in March 2021 in The Gambia where he was still working as a prison guard.

According to the Prosecutor, his hearing by the Court is decisive within the frame of the examination of Ousman Sonko’s responsibility over the murder of Baba Jobe.

---

The witness stated that inmates were picked up in the Mile 2 prison, mostly by Junglers, and taken to NIA to be tortured. Asked by the Court to describe the state and appearances of the inmates who were taken back to the prison, the witness replied that it was visible that they had been tortured.

The witness also stated that David Colley, his superior, would provide day-to-day reports to Ousman Sonko every morning over the phone.

In October 2011, the witness was asked by David Colley to guard Baba Jobe, who was hospitalized. David Colley then informed the witness that some men would come and that he should give them access to Baba Jobe. The witness further explained how some Junglers came to Baba Jobe’s hospital room and suffocated him. While he could not confirm that these instructions came directly from Ousman Sonko, the witness maintained that the Minister of Interior had to be aware of any actions or decisions taken by Colley.

Even if the accused confirmed that he had authority over David Colley, he denied having had regular and daily phone calls with him. In addition, he did not admit to having given any order about Baba Jobe’s murder to Colley. Ousman Sonko confirmed that the latter was the one who had informed him of the death of Baba Jobe.

The accused stated that David Colley had a particular relationship with the President. As a result, he would directly talk to him, without passing through the Ministry of Interior. It was in fact the witness who would sometimes come to the accused to inform him about orders he received from the State house.

According to the accused, the victim was not a political prisoner but a criminal who had been convicted for financial crimes.

Coming next: the Court will examine the facts related to the arrest and torture of protesters in April 2016.

(8-12 January 2024, Federal Criminal Court, Bellinzona, Switzerland)

The trial of Ousman Sonko opened on 8 January 2024 before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC). A panel of three judges is 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, under the regime of former President Yahya Jammeh.

During the three-weeks trial, Ousman Sonko will be represented by a defense team of four. Nine plaintiffs are heard over two weeks. They are represented by their lawyers and supported by TRIAL International, who filed the criminal denunciation against Ousman Sonko in 2017.

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul (The Gambia).

The third plaintiff to be called to the stand in relation to the 2006 events is a former Gambian politician and member of the National Assembly. In March 2006, he was arrested within the frame of the investigation related to a suspected coup d’état against de Gambian government. He is currently living in exile.

Ousman Sonko contested all the charges, on the events of 2006, brought against him in relation to this third plaintiff.

After having confirmed the statement he made during the course of the investigation – and according to his own words – the plaintiff explained that he had been kidnapped in March 2006 from the Parliament. Taken to the NIA premises on several occasions, he had been questioned on his suspected role in the alleged coup attempt and answered that he did not know anything about it.

He was submitted on other occasions to acts of torture and pressured into signing a statement. He explained that he had been subjected to heinous crimes and humiliation that he never thought a man could do to another one. He was eventually acquitted.

Despite his acquittal, he suffered from important physical injuries and psychological trauma because of the acts of torture he had endured and remains ever since affected in his daily life.

With regards to the Gambian context, he explained that the political situation in 2006 was disastrous.

Coming next: hearings to resume on Monday 15 January 2024, 08:15 AM (CET).

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul (The Gambia).

---

For reasons related to the dignity of the plaintiff, the identity will not be disclosed as well as details of the plaintiff’s statement.

---

Ousman Sonko contested all the charges, on the events of 2006, brought against him in relation to this second plaintiff.

The latter explained in her statement that she was arrested on 24 March 2006 and detained, then brought to the premises of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). She found herself in a room where many people – amongst whom Ousman Sonko and the former vice-director of the NIA – were sitting. She was interrogated on the attempted coup that was suspected to have taken place. During her presence at the NIA, she was subjected to intense violence, raped, humiliated and tortured. Following these horrific events, she was put in jail.

She was detained several weeks before being brought – along with other people – again to the NIA where she saw Ousman Sonko. Only afterwards had she been released.

In October the same year, she was arrested again at her home and put again in prison, where she stayed in solitary confinement before being brought to the NIA once more. There, she was interrogated about the involvement of other persons in the coup. Eventually, she was released.

The plaintiff mentioned the physical and mental impacts these acts had on her since then.

She recalled the Swiss court how the Gambian judicial system was accomplice to the government, within which judges were answering to the orders of the President.

Coming next: Hearings continue on the March 2006 alleged coup plotters’ torture events.

(acts of torture, false imprisonment and sexual violence committed as crimes against humanity)

As part of an attempted coup d’état in March 2006, Ousman Sonko is being accused, as an accomplice of a group of perpetrators, of having tortured various people, including members of the army, politicians and journalists, of having illegally deprived them of their freedom, as well as of having committed a rape in Banjul (The Gambia).

---

The first plaintiff to be called to the stand is a Gambian citizen who started his career within the Gambian police force before being integrated in the national army. In March 2006, his military superior – Ndure Cham – was accused by the Gambian government to have fomented a coup d’état. The plaintiff was arrested within the frame of the investigation related to this event.

---

Ousman Sonko contested all the charges brought against him in relation to this plaintiff.

The latter was called to provide his statement and recalled having been arrested on 21 March 2006. During his first night of incarceration, he was brought from the Mile 2 prison to the premises of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA). There, members of the Army, of the so-called Junglers, and of the NIA as well as, notably, Ousman Sonko, along with the former Deputy chief of Defense Staff and the head of the police major crime unit were setting up an investigation panel.

The plaintiff further explained that the night of his arrest, he was violently interrogated on his suspected participation in the coup. He was afterwards taken several other times to the NIA and submitted to acts of torture. He was also threatened with death, including with weapons. On several occasions, he was forced to sign statements against his will. He still suffers from serious physical and mental after-effects of the acts of torture he has been submitted to.

He recalled that the panel members – including Ousman Sonko – knew very well that people were being tortured within the frame of this investigation. The accused actually saw the plaintiff’s own wounds.

The plaintiff was only taken before a judge months after his arrest and was convicted – along with other persons – to very long prison sentences. He spent nine years in prison in difficult conditions.

As for the Gambian context at the time, he explained that the country was under extreme dictatorship. People were arrested and imprisoned without being brought before court. Others disappeared. People were living in constant fear.

Coming next: Hearings continue on the March 2006 alleged coup plotters’ torture events.

(murder of Almamo Manneh and multiple rapes as crimes against humanity)

---

Ousman Sonko is being accused, among other charges, of having participated in the murder of Almamo Manneh, former member of the State Guards, in January 2000 and, of having sexually assaulted his widow between the years 2000 to 2002 as well as having tortured, raped and sequestrated her in 2005.

---

The accused explained that he was bound by a professional secrecy that prevented him to talk about Almamo Manneh’s facts and contested all the rape charges, claiming that he was not in the country at the time of the events.

The Court then proceeded with the hearing of Almamo Manneh’s widow. Her lawyer requested Ousman Sonko to be placed in a separate room, for the plaintiff not to be directly confronted to him during her interrogation. Given the sensitive discussions at stake, the female judge led the examination.

Upon the Court’s questioning, the plaintiff confirmed all the declarations she made before the federal Prosecutor in 2019 (during the investigation’s phase). She also stated that she had no knowledge of the alleged coup her husband had been suspected of having fomented against the former President. During the night of the killing, her late husband received a phone call and then left their house. She never saw him again.

The plaintiff explained how the defendant had severely abused her repeatedly within the period of January 2000 to April 2002 as well as in 2005.

She also recalled that from the mid-1990s, it was hell for any Gambian who was opposing the Government. After her testimony before the TRRC, she was contacted by women who had also been sexually assaulted. A lot of Gambian women were scared to report the assaults and when they did so, they were not believed.

The defense lawyer declined to make use of the right to ask additional questions to the plaintiff as regards the rape and torture allegations.

When taken back to the courtroom, the accused explained that he was not aware of the reasons why Almamo Manneh would have planned a coup, nor was he aware of President Jammeh’s reaction about Manneh’s death. However, he repeated that he was bound by a professional secrecy and could not comment further. Confronted with the fact that the TRRC found him responsible for the murder of Almamo Manneh, he replied that he had not seen his name in TRRC compendium volumes A or B.

Ousman Sonko was then confronted with a series of Gambian newspaper articles published after Manneh’s killing, referring notably to an “official release on a coup attempt” from the Department of the Interior. The accused said he did not know about the substance of this so-called release. According to him, these articles about the coup were in fact the demonstration that Gambian press was free.

He explained that he was in Sierra Leone for a UN engagement between 6 January 2001 and 21/22 January 2002 and only came back once to The Gambia during this period of time for a break. The Court informed the parties that mutual legal assistance had been requested to the UN to confirm the breaks taken by the accused and that it was waiting for an answer.

Coming next: Hearings on the March 2006 alleged coup plotters’ torture events.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coming next: Federal prosecutor and plaintiffs’ lawyers to take the stand and answer to the defense arguments.

Gambian Ex-Minister Sonko Faces Crimes Against Humanity Charges

The opening of a Swiss trial on January 8, 2024, for serious crimes committed in The Gambia represents a significant advance for justice for the victims of grave abuses, Gambian and international groups that are part of the Jammeh2Justice campaign said today.

The trial of Ousman Sonko, former Gambian Minister of Interior, will open before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court on 8 January 2024 and last until 30 January. Ousman Sonko is accused of multiple counts of crimes against humanity, allegedly committed under the regime of former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. TRIAL International filed the criminal complaint against Ousman Sonko in January 2017.

The trial of Ousman Sonko, former Gambian Minister of Interior, will open on 8 January 2024 before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC).

Ousman Sonko is accused of multiple counts of crimes against humanity, allegedly committed between 2000 and 2016, during the rule of former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh.

The trial of Ousman Sonko – the former Gambian Interior Minister accused of having committed multiple crimes against humanity – will open on 8 January 2024 before the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona, Switzerland.

This will be the second trial for crimes against humanity in the Swiss judicial history. Moreover, Ousman Sonko will be the highest-ranking state official ever to be tried for international crimes in application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in Europe.

With the dates of the opening of the trial, the victims’ hope of finally seeing their abuser brought to justice becomes a reality. “Some of the victims have fought this battle for more than twenty years, and Swiss justice must live up to their expectations” stresses Vony Rambolamanana, Senior Legal Advisor at TRIAL International.

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) of Switzerland yesterday indicted Ousman Sonko, former Gambian Minister of Interior, for crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the rule of former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh. The upcoming trial is a crucial milestone for the transitional justice process in The Gambia, which has started to deal with the past atrocities committed in the two decades of Jammeh’s dictatorship. This is also a landmark case for Switzerland as it is only the second universal jurisdiction case to be tried by the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). The case is equally important since such a high-ranking individual has never been tried in Europe on the basis of universal jurisdiction.

Ousman Sonko, suspected of having committed crimes against humanity and imprisoned in Switzerland for the past five years, now faces additional charges from the Gambian Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission. These charges relate to his role as the right-hand man of former dictator Yahya Jammeh.

The TRRC was established in 2018 in an effort to shed light on the abuses committed by the Jammeh regime. A total of 393 people, including victims, former government officials and members of various security forces, testified during the 871 days of public hearings. The final report of the TRRC was published on 24 December 2021. It concluded that Jammeh and 69 of his associates, including Ousman Sonko, committed crimes against humanity and called for their prosecution.

The Attorney General of Switzerland has heard two victims in the investigation against Ousman Sonko. The former Gambian Minister of Interior is suspected of crimes against humanity.

It took Destiny (real name withheld) more than ten years to file a complaint against Ousman Sonko. A victim of torture in Gambia, she was finally able to testify before the Attorney General of Switzerland last week in Bern.

Another victim has also travelled from Gambia to testify. He too was tortured when the suspect was at the head of security services.

The Court of Measures of Constraint in Bern has decided to prolong the detention of Ousman Sonko. The former Minister of Internal Affairs and right hand of Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh is suspected of crimes against humanity.  

Ousman Sonko was arrested in Switzerland on 26 January 2017, after TRIAL International filed a criminal complaint against him for torture. Given the suspicions against him, he had been held in pre-trial detention for the last three months.

At the end of this three month-period, the Attorney General of Switzerland was able to extend his detention by 3 months. “We welcome this decision which shows the authorities take the allegations against M. Sonko seriously”, said Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL International. “We hope that the investigation can shed the light on some of the abuses perpetuated by Jammeh’s regime”.

Dictator Yahya Jammeh has reigned for 20 years over Gambia – a reign that saw the widespread use of torture and extrajudiciary executions. The Swiss prosecuting authorities will now have to determine whether one of his closest collaborators, former Minister of Interior, Ousman Sonko, has participated in these crimes.

Since the early 2000s, the international community has repeatedly denounced the brutality of the Gambian regime. The United Nations, NGOs and regional courts have all outlined the numerous exactions committed by the State.

One of the regime’s strongmen, Ousman Sonko, is currently in Switzerland. This former Minister of Interior (2006-2016) was head of the police and of detention centers. Could he really have been unaware of the ongoing human rights violations?