Sedition charges were brought against Mr. Ebrima Dibba, an Eexecutive Member of the main opposition United Democratic Party (UDP), before the Banjul Magistrate’s Court by Principal Magistrate Muhammad Krubally. His defence team called the accusation “incompetent.”
Section 51(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Volume One, Laws of The Gambia 2009, punishes seditious intent, and the Inspector General of Police (IGP) charged Mr. Dibba with seditious intent under sections 52(1)(b) and (c). According to the IGP, Dibba produced and released a WhatsApp audio in May 2024 in which he called the President “greedy, immature, rude, and foolish,” with the intention of inciting disdain for the government or the President.
Before a plea was taken, Dibba’s lead attorney, Counsel Borry S. Touray, declared that the company will contest the charge. Touray contended that the offence specified in section 52 is an actual offence, not the charge under section 51(1), which is only a definition. He asked the court to drop the accusation since it gave the court no authority to impose any kind of criminal penalty.
“We plan to contest the accusations made against the defendant, Embrima Dibba.” We are contesting the offence for which the defendant is charged prior to entering a plea. Only the definition of the section applies to the offence for which the accused (Ebrima Dibba) is charged under section 51, subsection 1. The provision makes it quite evident that it is merely a definitional part or provision.
Section 52 is the actual law that creates the offence and provides a means of prosecution. Here, it is evident that the appropriate section for making sedition illegal is Section 52. As a result, we suggested that the court dismiss the charge since it is incompetent. because it denies the court the authority to inflict any kind of criminal penalty. Attorney Touray made a submission.
In response, Commissioner Sanneh, speaking on behalf of the IGP, maintained that the accusation was legitimate and cited sections 51 and 52 to back up their claim. He asked the court to accept Dibba’s plea and reject Counsel Touray’s submission.
We point the court to both section 51, which charges the accused, and section 52, which imposes the same punishment. We accuse Ebrima Dibba of violating section 51 and its associated punishment section for this reason, and we assert that section 52 sub 1 B and C corresponds with section 51 sub 1 A. Commissioner Sanneh stated, “We request that the accused enter his plea and that the Counsel’s application be dismissed as misconceived.
Counsel Borry S. Touray responded to the legal argument by arguing that the case in front of the court is “incompetent” and ought to be dropped, despite Commissioner Sanneh’s claim that section 51 is the portion being charged and section 52 is the punishment section.
After hearing arguments from the IGP and Ebrima Dibba’s legal counsel, Principal Magistrate Krubally declared that the case will be postponed until Thursday in order to receive a decision.
Application for Bail for Ebrima Dibba
Counsel Touray requested bail for Mr. Dibba shortly after Principal Magistrate Krubally told the court that he would make a decision on Thursday. He noted that Mr. Dibba is a family man, that he was on police bail, and that the offence was one for which bail was allowed.
“In the meanwhile, we notify the court that the accused is being held on police bail. Since the offence is subject to bail, we request court bail on the grounds that the accused is a married father of three. We use an application based on his recognition of himself. Counsel Touray stated, “The accused act is one that is subject to bail.
Principal Magistrate Krubally awarded D100,000 Dalasis bail, needing a responsible Gambian surety with appropriate identification and contact details. Commissioner Sanneh did not object.
“The court is aware that the accused person is being held on bail for the alleged offence. The prosecution did not raise any objections to the accused being granted bail, according to the court. Given these circumstances and the fact that the court has the ability to grant bail in a judicially and sensibly manner, I hereby grant accused Ebrima Dibba bail in the amount of D100,000 Dalasis.
By making this admission, the accused is required to provide a responsible Gambian surety who must be working or conducting business. The surety must also give the court their correct contact information, valid address, and original ID card or passport, as well as swear an affidavit of means promising to ensure the accused’s appearance in any future court proceedings.
Principal Magistrate Krubally commanded. “Dates and times when required and further swear therein that he or she will forfeit the bail bond to the state in the event that fails to appear thereto.”
Counsel Borry S. Touray filed a second request after Principal Magistrate Krubally denied the bail plea. In this request, he requested that the Prosecution furnish the audio recording that Ebrima Dibba is purported to have made against the President.
“Your worship, we are asking that the defence be given access to the full-text translation of the audio recording and the purported WhatsApp publishing. I notice that there are snippets contained in the details of the offence. Counsel Touray said the court, “We want the state to make it available to us with the full-text translation.”
Commissioner Sanneh responded by telling the court that they do not currently have the aforementioned audio.
Commissioner Sanneh went on to say that the accused, Ebrima Dibba, was the one who created the audio. She recommended that Counsel Touray speak with the accused directly about the audio.
The accused (Ebrima Dibba) is the one who made the aforementioned recording that the attorney is referring to. Let Counsel ask his client for it. There is no audio with us at the moment; perhaps before the next adjournment, Commissioner Sanneh informed the court.
Then, Attorney Borry S. Touray stood up and informed the court that Commissioner Sanneh was not authorised to testify on behalf of the Bar.
“The learned prosecutor is not permitted to provide Bar testimony. Without using the phrase “allegedly,” he is unable to state that the accused (Ebrima Dibba) made the tape. Without the statement “much more Commissioner Sanneh,” even the media is reportedly unable to say much, Attorney Touray argued.
Subsequently, Principal Magistrate Krubally directed the prosecution to provide the defence with all papers scheduled for use as evidence during the trial. Principal Magistrate Krubally granted this request and postponed the case until Thursday so that the parties may discuss the application that was still pending.