State drops murder charges against Sanna Manjang, substitutes with assault

Dougan requested that Sanna Manjang be arraigned and made to take a fresh plea on the new assault charges.

However, Sanna Manjang’s Lawyer Counsel S.K. Jobe objected to the amendment, arguing that the State should not be allowed to change the charges in the middle of the trial.

Counsel Jobe submitted that the state initially filed a two-count indictment for murder in January 2026. He said in March 2026, the charges were expanded to six counts before later being reduced to four counts.

With the further amended information dated 16 July 2026, the Prosecution now sought to replace the remaining murder charges with two assault charges.

Counsel Jobe argued that the successive amendments did not amount to legitimate prosecutorial corrections but rather reflected “a calculated strategy” after the Prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the murder charges. He advanced two principal arguments against the amendment.

Counsel Jobe further submitted that since the Prosecution closed its case on the existing indictment without seeking an amendment, a no-case-to-answer submission on the murder charges would likely have succeeded, potentially resulting in the accused’s acquittal on those counts.

Counsel Jobe argued that by allowing the amendment at such a late stage - after the Defence had prepared to contest the murder allegations and several witnesses had already testified - the Court would effectively deprive the accused of the opportunity to seek dismissal of the murder charges for lack of sufficient evidence.

Counsel Jobe told the court that Sanna Manjang spent nearly seven months in detention largely because of the seriousness of the murder charges.

Allowing those charges to be withdrawn at the close of the Prosecution’s case would, Counsel Jobe believes, would undermine Sanna Manjang’s legitimate expectations and amount to an injustice.

Counsel Jobe cited Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, which he submitted governs amendments to charges in criminal proceedings.

It is Counsel Jobe’s submission that amendments are permissible only where the statutory conditions are met and where they do not prejudice the accused. He then urged the Court to reject the State’s application and proceed with the existing indictment.

Counsel Jobe also submitted that it was improper for the Prosecution to continue making amendments at this stage of the proceedings and urged the court to reject the further amended charges.

In response, Dougan cited Section 85 of the Constitution, arguing that it empowers the Director of Public Prosecution to institute and undertake criminal proceedings, including amending charges where necessary based on the available evidence.

Dougan asserted that the amendment was made “in the interest of justice” and that the Defence would still have the opportunity to recall witnesses for further cross-examination, if necessary.

Dougan also argued that the Defence’s reliance on Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act was misplaced because the amendment was initiated by the Prosecution and not directed by the Court. She submitted that the Prosecution’s constitutional powers under Section 85 governed the amendment.

In reply, Counsel Jobe argued that the prosecutorial powers granted under the Constitution are not absolute and remain subject to judicial oversight to ensure fairness to an accused person. He reiterated that Section 218 is the applicable provision governing amendments to charges in criminal proceedings and urged the Court to refuse the Prosecution’s application.

In her ruling, Hon. Justice Sidi .K. Jobarteh held that the Prosecution has the legal right to amend charges at any stage of the trial, as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025.

Hon. Justice Jobarteh further ruled that the conditions set out under Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act had been satisfied and that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the accused.

Hon. Justice Jobarteh held that the further amended information had been properly filed and served on the Defence, adding that the Court could not disregard a document that was regularly before it merely because no separate formal application for amendment had been made.

Hon. Justice Jobarteh consequently overruled the Defence’s objection and directed that the accused take his plea on the amended charges.

Sanna Manjang then pleaded not guilty to the assault charges.

Dougan then informed the Court that the Prosecution was closing its case against Sanna Manjang. Counsel Jobe then told the court that he was not informed by the state that they intended to close their case.

Counsel Jobe then made an oral application for bail, arguing that following the amendment, the accused now faced only two counts of assault causing bodily harm, which are bailable offences.

However, Dougan requested that the bail application be made formally in writing rather than orally. Justice Jobarteh granted the request.

Counsel Jobe also informed the Court that the Defence intended to file a no-case-to-answer submission and would not be opening its defence.

The matter was adjourned till 28 July 2026.