Ousman Sonko’s Trial: All The Things You Need To Know From March 7 2024

 

7 March 2024 – Day 17: Ousman Sonko addresses the Court

In accordance with the procedural code, Ousman Sonko was given the opportunity to address the Court before it began its deliberations.

In particular, he stated in English that he regretted that the Court did not provide simultaneous interpretation of the closing arguments of the other parties, as he was not able to understand what had was argued.

For this reason, he could not comment on the conclusions presented by the parties.

The lack of translation was a problem for him throughout the course of the trial, since 8 January 2024, for him but, above all, for the people interested in the proceedings: The Gambians.

He also stated that he was the subject of violations of his rights throughout the proceedings, in particular by not receiving the transcripts of his testimony in a timely manner.

He further stated that some plaintiffs have adapted their statements during the trial to make them fit the charges brought against him and that he regretted that they have discredited themselves in this way by lying. However, he did not blame them and understood how important this trial was for them.

Torture was unacceptable to him.

In the responsibilities that he had exercised, he had always taken care to prevent this as far as the forces under his control and authority were concerned, and this was the reason why the NIA had kept the police at bay, and denied them access to the persons whose transfer to the NIA had been ordered in April 2016.

There was never any attack on the plaintiffs as political opponents, journalists or for any other reason. Some plaintiffs or victims were involved in attempted coups and it was legitimate to investigate these events. However, he had not been part of the investigation panel in 2006, even though he has visited it once, twice, perhaps more times, to see if any information was useful for his mission as IGP.

The use of torture by people now known as the Junglers was clearly unacceptable, but the police – forces under his control – had not been involved. He would not have accepted their involvement.

He was not involved in the killing that took place in October 2011 by the hands of the Junglers and there was nothing serious in the case file to support the contrary.

The demonstration of 14 April 2016 was illegal and it would have been sufficient for the organizers to apply for the authorization required by law in order to avoid the police intervention. The police intervened in a professional, proportionate and legal manner. However, he was not present at the PIU at the time of the arrests.

The crimes that followed at the NIA left a lasting mark of shame on The Gambia which he strongly condemned.

He has been detained for seven years without trial and in degrading conditions, including almost two years in solitary confinement, which has affected his physical and mental health.

“You seem to be interested in what has happened in my country, the conditions in its prisons, the actions of its police and its authorities. You take a condescending view of the resources available to us in government to try to ensure its development. Naturally, and probably without really thinking about it, you are part of a history of colonialism and racism. You have to understand that we can’t work miracles under these conditions. If a country as rich and developed as yours is unable to provide its prisoners with dignified conditions of detention, how do you expect us to be able to do so?” (…)

“You have let me express myself to you more than at any time in the last 7 years, but I don’t know if you have heard me”. (…)

My country does not need expiatory victims immolated before foreign judges. I hope that through my testimony I have been able to contribute to the work of reconciliation that the TRRC has begun, and I hope that all of us Gambians will be able to build the future of our country with respect for everyone, by honoring the memory of those who have disappeared and by assuring all those who have suffered of our compassion and our desire that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated”.

Ousman Sonko’s final words to the FCC, 7 March 2024

Final: The court informed the parties that the verdict date would be communicated at a later stage.

7 March 2024 – Day 17: Rebuttal of the defense

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.

7 March 2024 – Day 17: Round of rebuttals: The Prosecutor and the plaintiffs’ counsels

In accordance with the code of criminal procedure, the parties were allowed to provide rebuttal arguments.

“Ousman Sonko, the second most influential person from the reign of Yahya Jammeh, is on trial. There is no question that Yahya Jammeh and all his supporters should be prosecuted and brought to justice for the crimes they have committed against the Gambian civilian population. This is a clear outcome of Gambia’s long-standing efforts to come to terms with the past. In accordance with the principle of universality, Switzerland has the competence and the obligation to investigate crimes against humanity if the perpetrators are suspected and present on its territory. This is precisely the case with Ousman Sonko. His flight to Switzerland and his stay here triggered Switzerland’s responsibility to prosecute.” (Extract of the Prosecutor’s rebuttal of 7 March 2024)Crimes against humanity

It was again demonstrated – and supported in particular by Swiss case law – that there are no obstacles to the prosecution and judgement of the crimes in question, including those that took place before 2011.

The prohibition of crimes against humanity is considered customary international law and the arguments of the defense that the legal elements were not fulfilled in this case could not be followed.

In the case of Ousman Sonko, the attack, its systematic and widespread character – as sufficiently described in the indictment – and the civilian nature of the targeted population were all proven elements. With regard to the latter, it was emphasized that the defense implying that some victims were criminals in the first place – or putschists with regard to the 2006 events – was irrelevant and not in line with case law.

Bai L.’s conviction in Germany was, in fact, further evidence that the contextual elements of the crime were met in The Gambia.

The persecution of journalists in the Gambia has been sufficiently proven and the Bai L. case in Germany was another example in support of this fact.

With regard to the defendant’s participation, it was recalled that he had been one of the strategists, planners and organizers and that he had always had an influential position in the overall structure of the cooperating authorities within the State.

Individual actsMurder of a member of the State Guard in 2000 and subsequent sexual violence against the victim’s widow from 2000 onwards.

With regard to the murder, it was pointed out that the defense has ignored the results of the investigation as well as the findings of the TRRC in its closing arguments. Both actually proved that the victim was murdered, that the defendant was involved, and that the official government version to cover up this crime was a lie.

It was then recalled that the plaintiff’s credible statement regarding the sexual crimes she suffered was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had committed the crimes. The allegation that she has accused him in revenge for the elimination of her husband was simply not plausible.

Acts of torture and deprivation of liberty in 2006

It was argued that the defense alibi that he was not in the country was not proven in the case file.  

Further, it was further emphasized that the TRRC’s findings, as well as the results of the investigation, were evidence that Ousman Sonko had been part of the panel, had discussed and made important decisions together with other members. The defense’s argument that the police had been placed under the control of the NIA – where tortured was described by the UN Special Rapporteur as “routine” and “regular” – was entirely new and not supported by any evidence in the case file. Moreover, the victims who were subsequently detained were under the control of the Panel. As a result, it was argued that Ousman Sonko shares a criminal responsibility for the fate of the detainees.

Contrary to the defense’s argument, the said subsequent detention of the plaintiffs was unlawful, in particular because they were kept in custody without an arrest warrant – which was contrary to the Gambian law – and because they were not brought before a judge within the 72-hour period required by the Gambian constitution.

As for the sexual offenses that occurred during these events, and during torture, they should be tried on their own merits, in addition to the torture charges.

Killing of a politician in October 2011

It was reiterated that the victim status was fully included within the notion of “civilian population” and that there was a clear nexus between this individual offense and the attack that took place. Even if this was disputed, there was no doubt – in the view of the Prosecutor – that the accused has given instructions for the Junglers to have access to the victim when he was hospitalized. It was also proven that Ousman Sonko knew of the ins and outs of the Mile 2 detainees and that he was always aware of the President’s fear of this political opponent.

Acts of torture, murder and deprivation of liberty in 2016

The lack of evidence was argued in relation to the defense argument that the 14 April 2016 demonstration was violent. In fact, the accused written notes – together with the witnesses’ statements and material evidence – showed that it was peaceful. Likewise, it had to be concluded from the accused’s statement, that it was controlled “without any problem or resistance”. In any case, this argument could not justify the subsequent acts of torture.

It was again notably emphasized that the accused had shared the responsibility forwhat had happened to the detainees at the NIA after his police officers had handed them over to the agency, knowing what would happen to them there.

It was wrong to read from the so-called NIA-9 verdict that the accused was not present at the PIU on 14 April 2016. In fact, these proceedings did not investigate Ousman Sonko’s individual responsibility, but rather the NIA’s involvement in torture. Nevertheless, the judgment was indeed useful to understand the factual development of the events that took place on 14 and 15 April 2016 and what had happened to the victims at that time.

Irrespective of the presence of the accused at the PIU on the day of the arrests, it was clear that Ousman Sonko gave orders to take the detainees to be the NIA. Furthermore, it was never alleged that the accused himself committed acts of torture at that time, but rather that his criminal responsibility stemmed either from his active or passive co-participation in the crimes or, subsidiarily, from his hierarchical position over the acts committed by his subordinates at that time.

The case file also clearly demonstrated the accused’s responsibility for the conditions of detention imposed on the plaintiffs following their arrest and torture.