The Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) shooting victim, Stanislas Gomez, who was shot in the early hours of 26th August 2024 has raised concerns to appear before a Military Board of Inquiry after the GAF released statements making numerous allegations against him.

Just last week, our inquiry with the Gambia’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed that the GAF has refused to cooperate with the NHRC’s request to interview members of the State Guard Battalion involved in the shooting incident.

The shooting incident occurred at Bijilo along the Bertil Harding Highway near 2Ray’s Restaurant, close to Kerr Serign Junction. A statement issued by the GAF on 27th August highlights that “one Issak Sambou approached the Vehicular Check-Point at high speed and knocked down two cones that were placed a few meters before the VCP. The driver continued to speed towards the soldiers manning the VCP and refused to stop when signaled and nearly ran over one of the soldiers who dived away to avoid a fatal collision”.

The presser signed by the GAF Spokesperson, made numerous allegations refuted by occupants of the vehicle such as being involved in a car chase with the Army, arresting the driver, providing first aid to Stanislas Gomez whom they said suffered a minor injury and that all the occupants of the vehicle were under the influence of alcohol. These allegations have been refuted by two of the passengers in an article and a video interview with Stanislas Gomez. In addition, GAF Spokesperson Colonel Lamin K Sanyang appeared on QTV and repeated his allegations while comparing the shooting incident to the Kartong Attack by armed personnel.

GAF Shooting Victim Stanislas Gomez Speaks One Month Later (Wollof)

Having issued statements blaming the occupants of the vehicle and absolving members of the State Guard Battalion from any blame, the GAF has now decided to conduct an investigation summoning occupants of the vehicle. The letter dated 26th September 2024 signed by Lieutenant Colonel Kuluteh Manneh, requested “for the appearance of all witnesses in providing the necessary information in order to do justice to both parties”.

The letter requested for the witnesses of the vehicle and a newly named person “to appear before the Board of Inquiry on 1st October 2024 at the Defense Headquarters in Banjul at 9 am. However, in the event you cannot appear on the mentioned date, you are requested to inform this headquarters (BOI) in writing on or before 3rd October 2024”.

In response to the request, the witnesses responded in writing today, 30th September 2024, noting that they would only appear before the Military Panel with their lawyers and the NHRC. The letter highlighted that another person mentioned in the letter as a witness was not involved in the incident and that his inclusion was beyond their comprehension.

The letter from Stanislas Gomez noted that GAF Spokesperson Colonel Sanyang went “on QTV where he made and repeated false and malicious allegations against us, seemingly to tarnish our image and cover up for the unprofessional and life-threatening actions of your personnel, which resulted in [Stanislas Gomez] being shot”.

“Colonel Sanyang is fully aware that the allegations he made were and remain false. Contrary to his claims, our vehicle was not speeding at the time of the shooting. In fact, it was stationary when we were shot at, not in motion after a high-speed chase, as he alleged. Additionally, the cone placed on the road lacked reflectors, making it difficult to detect, especially as it was drizzling, and no GAF personnel were visible on the road”, noted the letter.

Going further Mr Gomez is adamant that “the subsequent accusation that [they] were intoxicated, as mentioned in the press release and repeated during the QTV interview, was both malicious and an afterthought, possibly influenced by the fact that [they] all carry Christian names. No alcohol bottles or cans were found in our vehicle, nor were [they] subjected to any breathalyzer tests to support such allegations”.

In conclusion, the five witnesses in the vehicle, including Stanislas Gomez highlighted that they “are not comfortable appearing before [the] Military] Board of Inquiry, nor do [they] trust its composition. [They] would only consider doing so if representatives from the National Human Rights Commission and our legal counsel are present during the proceedings”.

When our reporter contacted the NHRC Chairperson he informed this medium that the GAF was not cooperating with their request to interview members of the State Guards Battalion involved in the shooting incident. According to NHRC Chairperson Emmanuel Daniel Joof, “as part of NHRC’s mandate to promote and protect human rights and to investigate and monitor alleged violation of human rights, the NHRC following the shooting incident contacted the GAF Joint Headquarters in Banjul to obtain and gather information surrounding the shooting”.

“Regrettably, our investigators were not granted access to interview members of the patrol team involved in the incident. We were also contacted by the victim of the shooting and witnesses to the shooting incident who gave a detailed report to the NHRC of what allegedly transpired,” revealed the NHRC Chair.

Worryingly, “the NHRC [noted that they are] deeply concerned about this incident given the recent history of the GAF relationship with the general public during the 22 years of [former President] Jammeh as revealed by the TRRC findings. The NHRC has since written to the Chief of Defence Staff regarding the incident requesting that an immediate, transparent and thorough investigation be conducted. Other recommendations were also made to the GAF. We await the response of the CDS”.

It now appears that the GAF is attempting to block the NHRC’s investigation in their attempt to conclude their investigation which they can use to respond to the NHRC’s letter. However, now that five witnesses have decided to appear before the Military Panel together with the NHRC and their lawyers, it remains to be seen how the GAF will proceed with their investigation.

Similarly, it can be recalled that a similar incident occurred after former Anti-Crime Unit Commander Gorgui Mboob, was accused of assaulting a detainee under his custody. The Gambia Police Force High Command initiated a panel to investigate the matter themselves. However, this proposal was eventually set aside and the NHRC was given the lead to investigate the incident which resulted in compensating the victim and disciplining the former Anti-Crime Unit Commissioner.

It is left to be seen if the Army will be allowed to investigate themselves via the Chief of Defense Staff or if another independent body such as the NHRC will be allowed to take the lead in the investigation to give confidence that the investigation was done fairly and impartially.