The General Court-Martial, presided over by Justice Omar Cham, has rejected a defence application seeking to strike out the desertion charge against Sanna Manjang. The charge was preferred against Manjang under Section 53(1)(a) of the Gambia Armed Forces Act. The defence argued that the particulars of the offence failed to establish the essential ingredients of desertion.
The defence maintained that the allegations, as presented, disclosed no more than Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and did not sufficiently establish the offence of desertion. However, the prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) AM Yusuph, opposed the application, arguing that the relevant provisions of the Armed Forces Act must be read together.
The prosecution contended that Manjang remained subject to military law when he allegedly left his duty post and that his prolonged absence did not terminate his military status. The court examined the particulars of the charge, the submissions of both parties, and the applicable statutory provisions. The court acknowledged the distinction between desertion and AWOL.
The court noted that prolonged unauthorized absence alone does not necessarily establish desertion, where the law requires an intention not to return or to remain permanently absent. The court stated that such intention must be proved by the prosecution at trial. The defence had argued that the requirement of active service was an essential condition of the offence.
The prosecution maintained that the Act must be interpreted as a whole, relying on the qualification contained in Section 2 and the relevant provisions governing desertion. The court agreed that the legislation must be read as a whole but observed that the qualification in Section 2 did not, by itself, eliminate a condition expressly imposed by Section 53.
The court declined to accept that the charge must automatically fail merely because the existence of active service was disputed, leaving the issue for further analysis. The court also rejected the prosecution’s argument that the application constituted an abuse of process. The court held that the dismissal of an earlier jurisdiction challenge did not automatically prevent the defence from bringing a subsequent application.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the defence motion and its prayers, leaving the desertion charge in place. The prosecution was represented by Mr Yusuph, assisted by several other lawyers, while the defence was led by counsel SK Jobe. The case will continue with the desertion charge against Sanna Manjang.
Key points
- The Gambia Court-Martial has upheld the desertion charge against Sanna Manjang, a member of the Gambia Armed Forces.
- The defence had argued that the charge did not establish the essential ingredients of desertion.
- The court has allowed the case to proceed with the desertion charge against Manjang.
