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.