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 March 21, 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 7 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 April 16, 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 April 14, 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