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

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. Their internal coherence 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.

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:

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.

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.

Coming next: Closing arguments on the 14 April 2016 events