When the State Refuses to Lose: The Appeal That Tests Our Democracy
By Ndey Jobarteh
According to Kexx Sanneh of Kexxs News the appeal filed on 13 February 2026, the State is asking the Court of Appeal to:
1. Overturn the Acquittal
Set aside the High Court judgment in its entirety. Replace it with a conviction and sentence.
2. Rely on Alleged “Admissions”
The State argues that: Abdoulie Sanyang made “glaring admissions” in: His cautionary statement.
A radio interview with West Coast.
The trial judge failed to give those admissions proper weight. They specifically reference the alleged statement: “When we burnt down the APRC Bureau… I am part of it, I can never deny it.”
3. Challenge the Judge’s Requirement for Corroboration
The State claims: Justice Jaiteh wrongly required “independent evidence” or “heightened proof.” By doing so, he introduced “a legal standard unknown to the law.” Once something is admitted, it does not need further proof. They argue the judge misapplied Section 75 of the Evidence Act.
4. Dispute the Ruling on Judicial Interference
On the second charge, the State argues: The law does not require proof of actual influence. It only requires that speech be capable of prejudicing proceedings. There was no need to call a Judge to testify about being influenced.
5. Raise Procedural Concerns
The State also argues: The Judge erred by allowing defence counsel to appear without formal notification.
Court protocol and dignity were not properly observed. Reports @Lewx
What this means?
The appeal is not about new evidence. It is about whether:
The trial Judge misapplied the law.
The Judge demanded too much proof.
The Judge interpreted the Criminal Offences Act too narrowly.
This is not about legal technicalities anymore. It is about whether the State accepts judicial restraint, or responds to defeat with escalation
A man is acquitted after months in jail.
The Court says the evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
No financial trail.
No eyewitness identification.
No independent corroboration.
Now the State says requiring independent evidence for a retracted political statement is “a legal standard unknown to the law.”
That should alarm every Gambian.
If demanding solid proof becomes controversial, if judicial caution is reframed as error, then what protects the rest of us?
This is how civic space narrows, not overnight, but step by step.
First, rhetoric is treated as evidence.
Then doubt is treated as weakness.
Then conviction becomes the objective,not justice.
As 2026 approaches,we must be honest: A democracy is not measured by how it treats loyalists.
It is measured by how it treats dissenters.
If prosecution begins to feel like pressure.
If appeals feel like punishment for acquittal, then we are no longer debating law, we are debating power.
The line must be drawn clearly:
No citizen should lose liberty because the State prefers conviction over proof.
2026 is not only about who governs.
It is about whether the rule of law governs.
Source: @Kexx Sanneh of KexxsNews
