The decision was delivered during proceedings held on 7 April in Bellinzona and signals that the appeal will place particular emphasis on how allegations of sexual violence are addressed within the broader case.

The ruling comes just days after the court affirmed its jurisdiction to examine rape allegations that had previously been excluded during the 2024 trial. The move marks a significant development in the proceedings, potentially expanding the scope of issues under consideration during the appeal.

Following its decision on the admissibility of evidence, the court proceeded to hear testimony from Sonko, focusing on his role during the rule of former President Yahya Jammeh and on specific allegations linked to the case.

During his testimony, Sonko denied all accusations against him.

He told the court that units frequently associated with human rights abuses, including the Junglers and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), were never under his command at any time. Instead, he placed primary responsibility on Jammeh.

The hearing also addressed specific incidents cited in the case, including allegations of sexual violence and the 2011 killing of Baba Jobe, a former senior figure in Jammeh’s administration.

Proceedings in the appeal are expected to continue in the coming days as the court carries out further examination of the case.

The court confirmed this week that it has jurisdiction to hear all aspects of the case, including allegations of sexual violence that were previously excluded during Sonko’s 2024 trial.

Reacting on behalf of victim-led groups, Fatou Baldeh, founder of Women in Liberation and Leadership (WILL) and a member of AVLO, said the ruling could represent a turning point for survivors seeking recognition and accountability.

“The Swiss Appeal Court’s decision to assert jurisdiction over rape allegations against Ousman Sonko is a breakthrough for Jammeh-era survivors, opening the door to real accountability and justice,” she said.

During the initial proceedings, the court declined to examine certain rape allegations, ruling that they did not fall within its jurisdiction as crimes against humanity. However, the appeal judges have now agreed to assess whether such acts can be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

For many victims, advocates say, the shift carries significance beyond the legal technicalities of the case.

“Beyond the courtroom, the ruling signals to Gambian society and the international community that sexual violence is a central crime of authoritarian rule, deserving equal weight as torture or extrajudicial killings,” Baldeh added.

She also expressed hope that the decision would encourage more survivors to come forward.

“I truly hope that this also encourages victims who may have been hesitant to come forward to feel empowered, seeing that courts abroad are willing to hear their cases seriously,” she said.

The development has also been welcomed by international justice advocates. Didier Gbery, head of office in The Gambia for the International Center for Transitional Justice, said the earlier exclusion of sexual violence charges had raised concern among accountability groups.

“When the sentence was pronounced, while we welcomed the 20-year sentence, we were also disappointed that sexual violence cases were not taken into consideration. That sent a concerning message about addressing such violations,” he said.

Gbery described the appellate court’s latest decision as an important shift in the pursuit of justice.

“This is great news. It sends a strong message about how important it is to consider gender-based violations alongside other human rights crimes, and that these violations must be addressed equally,” he added.

He further noted that the development could have implications beyond the Swiss proceedings, particularly for The Gambia’s own transitional justice process.

“This should also serve as a learning process for the Gambian justice system, especially as the future hybrid court will need to address sexual violence. These violations must be properly documented and prosecuted,” he said.

Gbery also urged victims to come forward and support accountability efforts.

“It is also an opportunity to encourage victims to be strong and contribute to the process so that these violations are not left unaddressed.”

The appeal proceedings, currently underway in Bellinzona, are expected to move into their next phase in the coming weeks, when witnesses will be heard and the court begins examining the substance of the case against Sonko.

The decision was delivered after three days of hearings at the court in Bellinzona, where Sonko’s legal team challenged Switzerland’s authority to prosecute alleged crimes committed between 2000 and 2006 during the rule of former Gambian president Yahya Jammeh.

Defense lawyers had argued that Swiss courts lacked jurisdiction over the alleged acts and requested the dismissal of certain appeals filed by victims. They also asked the court to order a rereading of the more than 100-page indictment.

Prosecutors and lawyers representing victims opposed those requests, insisting the case should proceed in full. The appeal court sided with that position, rejecting all preliminary motions and confirming its authority to examine the case.

Appeal Court Reopens Question of Rape as Crimes Against Humanity

In a significant development, the Court of Appeal also declared itself competent to review rape allegations that had been dismissed during the 2024 trial.

During the initial proceedings, the lower court ruled that alleged rapes committed against two women did not constitute crimes against humanity and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction under universal jurisdiction rules.

Both women appealed the decision, arguing that the alleged acts formed part of a broader pattern of abuses against civilians.

The appeal court has now agreed to examine the issue on its merits, meaning judges will assess whether the alleged rapes can legally be classified as crimes against humanity and therefore prosecuted in Switzerland under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

During the first-instance trial, one of the plaintiffs, Binta Jamba, testified that she had been raped and tortured repeatedly over several years. However, the court at the time ruled that the alleged acts were individual crimes not sufficiently linked to a widespread or systematic attack against civilians.

With all preliminary objections dismissed, the appeal proceedings will now move into the next phase, during which the court is expected to hear witnesses and examine the substance of the charges against Sonko.

Sonko was convicted in 2024 by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court for crimes against humanity related to acts of torture and unlawful detention committed during the Jammeh era. Both the prosecution and several victims later filed appeals, leading to the current proceedings before the court’s appeals chamber.

In a Notice of Withdrawal filed before the High Court’s Criminal Division in Banjul, State Counsel A. Drammeh, acting for the Director of Public Prosecutions, formally withdrew two applications filed on March 31, 2026.

The applications included a motion ex-parte seeking an interim stay of execution of the bail order and a motion on notice seeking to stay the execution of the bail order pending the hearing of the state’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment acquitting the siblings.

The withdrawal applies to both Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang.

Protest Pressure

The government’s decision came hours after tensions erupted in Brufut, the hometown of Ousainou Bojang, where young demonstrators clashed sporadically with detachments of the Police Intervention Unit.

The gathering had been called by the civil society group Gambians Against Looted Assets (GALA), which urged supporters to stage a peaceful protest over the continued detention of the siblings despite their acquittal by the High Court.

Critics had sharply condemned the state’s earlier move to block the implementation of the court order, arguing that refusing to immediately comply with a judicial ruling raised troubling questions about respect for the rule of law and echoed controversial practices associated with the Jammeh era, when court decisions were at times ignored or circumvented.

The withdrawal is widely viewed as a U-turn by the authorities following public backlash and unrest surrounding the decision.

Appeal Against Acquittal

Earlier on Wednesday, the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Justice confirmed that the state has filed an appeal against the High Court judgment delivered on March 30, 2026, which acquitted and discharged the two defendants.

According to the government, the appeal was lodged after a review of the judgment revealed dissatisfaction with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence.

“Having carefully reviewed the judgment, the Attorney General’s Chambers is dissatisfied with the judgment, particularly in the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and the conclusion reached,” the ministry said in a statement.

The appeal was filed at the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025. The state is seeking to overturn the acquittal and substitute it with a conviction and an appropriate sentence.

Authorities insisted the decision to appeal is part of the legal process and does not undermine the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial.

The Sukuta–Jabang Shooting Case

The case stems from the fatal shooting of two police officers and the injury of a third at the Sukuta–Jabang traffic lights on September 12, 2023.

Ousainou Bojang had faced multiple charges, including the murder of police constables Sang J. Gomez and Pateh M. Jallow, acts of terrorism, attempted murder, and grievous bodily harm.

Amie Bojang was charged as an accessory after the fact to murder.

Both were acquitted and discharged by the High Court after the trial.

The Attorney General’s Chambers also extended condolences to the families of the slain officers and expressed solidarity with the surviving officer, Police Constable Ansey Jawo, while urging the public to allow the appellate process to proceed without interference.

The anticipated ruling comes after Sonko’s lawyers challenged Switzerland’s jurisdiction over parts of the case, particularly allegations linked to crimes said to have been committed between 2000 and 2006.

The defense also asked the court to dismiss certain appeals filed by victims involved in the proceedings.

On Tuesday, the second day of hearings, prosecutors from the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland maintained that Sonko can be prosecuted in Switzerland for all the alleged acts outlined in the case.

Their position directly counters the defense argument presented earlier that Swiss courts lack authority to examine some of the alleged crimes.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs also rejected the defense’s objections, urging the court to dismiss the requests and allow the appeal process to proceed without limitation.

On Monday, Sonko’s legal team had spent several hours contesting the competence of Swiss authorities to pursue certain charges.

Both prosecutors and representatives of the complainants cited customary international law and the ruling issued during the original trial, when judges determined that Swiss courts had jurisdiction to hear the case.

They also referred to a previous prosecution before the same court involving Alieu Kosiah, which addressed crimes against humanity.

Disputes Echo 2024 Trial

The legal exchanges reflect disputes raised during the 2024 trial, when the Swiss court convicted Sonko and sentenced him to 20 years in prison for crimes against humanity committed during the rule of former Gambian leader Yahya Jammeh.

Judges found that Sonko had taken part in systematic attacks against civilians and held him responsible for acts including torture, unlawful detention, and killings.

The court’s decision on the preliminary issues will determine the scope of the appeal proceedings and whether all aspects of the case will be reconsidered when the chamber proceeds to hear witnesses and examine the substance of the allegations.

Key Issues Under Appeal

The appeal involves challenges from multiple parties. While Sonko is contesting his conviction in its entirety, prosecutors and some plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration of specific legal interpretations made in the original ruling.

Among the disputed matters are how certain acts of sexual violence were legally characterized by the trial court. In one instance, the first-instance judges concluded that a plaintiff’s experience was privately motivated rather than part of a broader systematic attack on civilians.

In another case, acts that caused pain to the genitals were recognized as torture but not classified as sexual violence.

Those interpretations are now being challenged on appeal, with plaintiffs arguing that the legal classifications should be revised.

The appeal trial allows the Higher Appeals Chamber of the Swiss court to conduct a comprehensive review of both the factual findings and legal interpretations from the original proceedings. Judges have the authority to hear new witnesses, reassess evidence, and adjust the sentence if deemed necessary.

After the appeal stage, the parties may still bring the matter before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which primarily reviews questions of law.

Jurisdiction at the Heart of the Case

A central issue raised by the defense concerns the time frame of the alleged crimes. Although the indictment covers acts committed between 2006 and 2016, lawyers argue that Swiss legislation allowing the prosecution of crimes against humanity only entered into force in 2011.

They therefore contend that the court lacks competence to examine allegations predating that provision.

Sonko’s prosecution has drawn significant international attention because he is the highest-ranking Gambian official to be tried abroad for alleged crimes committed under Jammeh’s rule.

The case is widely regarded as a major test of international accountability efforts tied to abuses during that period, alongside other prosecutions in Europe and the United States linked to crimes committed in The Gambia.

Sonko, who previously served as commander of the State Guard and later as Inspector General of Police, was prosecuted in Switzerland under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows national courts to try individuals suspected of serious international crimes regardless of where the offenses were committed.

The siblings were on Monday acquitted and discharged by Justice Jaiteh in the high-profile case linked to the fatal shooting of two police officers at the Sukuta–Jabang traffic lights in September 2023. Shortly after the ruling, state prosecutors informed the court of their intention to appeal the decision and sought an order to keep the two in detention.

However, defense counsel Lamin J. Darboe objected, arguing that since the court had acquitted and discharged his clients, they could not be remanded in custody.

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh agreed with the defense and granted bail to the two in the sum of D50,000 each, with conditions.

After meeting the bail requirements, a release order was sent to Mile 2 Central Prison to facilitate their freedom.

Re-Arrest After Release as State Cites Security Risks

Upon their release from the prison facility, Ousainou and Amie Bojang were immediately re-arrested and taken to the Banjul Police Headquarters. After spending several hours in police custody, they were later transported back to Mile 2 Central Prison.

On Tuesday, the State, through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), formally moved to prevent their release by filing an urgent ex parte motion seeking a stay of the court’s bail order.

In the affidavit supporting the motion, prosecutors argued that releasing the siblings poses what they described as an “extreme and imminent risk.”

The State requested an immediate stay of the High Court’s order granting bail to the two accused persons, contending that the bail conditions, a D50,000 bond and the deposit of an identity card, were “grossly inadequate” given the circumstances of the case.

Prosecutors cited what they described as Ousainou Bojang’s “proven propensity for flight,” noting that he allegedly traveled to Senegal less than 24 hours after the September 2023 shooting incident.

The affidavit also stated that Amie Bojang had previously admitted to facilitating her brother’s journey to the border by arranging hired transport.

The State further argued that the seriousness of the case, which involved the deaths of Police Constables Sang J. Gomez and Pateh Jallow, requires that the siblings remain in custody while the appeal against their acquittal is pursued.

“Public interest and national security dictate that persons accused of terrorism and the murder of security personnel should remain in custody until the legal challenge to their acquittal is addressed,” the affidavit stated.

Prosecutors are now seeking a court order to keep the two detained at Mile 2 Central Prison until a formal Motion on Notice regarding the stay of the bail order is heard.

On the first day of hearings, Sonko’s lawyers argued that Swiss authorities should not prosecute alleged crimes committed between 2000 and 2006, raising procedural concerns similar to those presented during the initial trial that led to his conviction.

Sonko was sentenced in May 2024 by Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court to 20 years in prison for crimes against humanity linked to abuses committed during the rule of former Gambian president Yahya Jammeh.

Defense Challenges Retroactive Jurisdiction

During preliminary arguments, Sonko’s lawyer, Philippe Curat, contested what he described as an unlawful modification of the indictment during the first-instance trial and questioned the retroactive application of Swiss universal jurisdiction.

Curat argued that Switzerland’s legal framework allowing prosecution for crimes against humanity only came into force in 2011, the same year such crimes were formally incorporated into Swiss law.

According to the defence, the principle that crimes against humanity are not subject to statutes of limitation cannot be applied retroactively to acts committed before the relevant legal provisions entered into force.

“There is no legal provision that applies before January 1, 2011,” Curat told the court. “For what happened after that date, I have no problem. But for what happened before, we face a problem of retroactivity.”

He also argued that customary international law does not provide a sufficient legal basis for Swiss courts to prosecute alleged offenses committed prior to 2011, saying there is no long-standing and established legal practice supporting such jurisdiction.

The defence further requested that appeals lodged by the plaintiffs be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Victims’ Lawyers Stress Importance of Case

Lawyers representing the victims pushed back against the defense’s arguments, emphasizing the significance of the proceedings for those who claim to have suffered abuses under Jammeh’s regime.

“It is important that the judges realize that there are people concerned who are here, that they see directly the people for whom this procedure is very important,” said Fanny de Weck, who represents two plaintiffs in the case.

“These are opposition figures who were arrested and tortured,” she added at the opening of the appeal hearing.

Court to Decide Scope of Proceedings

The prosecution and lawyers for the victims are expected to respond to the defence’s procedural objections on Tuesday.

After hearing those submissions, the court will decide whether the case will proceed in its current form or whether certain elements, particularly those related to acts allegedly committed before 2011, should be excluded from the proceedings.

In its 2024 ruling, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court concluded that the crimes attributed to Sonko, including killings, unlawful ddetention,and torture, were part of a systematic attack against the Gambian civilian population.

The judges found that during his tenure as Interior Minister, Sonko was part of a coordinated system that silenced political opponents and journalists while intimidating the broader population.

Following his dismissal in September 2016 by Jammeh, Sonko fled to Switzerland, where he applied for asylum and lived in an asylum seekers’ center until his arrest.

The siblings were cleared after the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond a reasonable doubt. Immediately following the acquittal, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) informed the Court of the State’s intention to appeal pursuant to Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, and sought that the siblings be remanded in custody pending the appeal.

In response, Defence lawyers L. J. Darboe and L. K. Mboge argued that their clients, having been acquitted, should be admitted to bail, noting that no exceptional circumstances were presented to justify continued detention.

Justice Jaiteh emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence, highlighting that the acquittal restores the liberty of the Bojangs and that any restriction on their freedom must be supported by compelling reasons.

Considering the submissions, the Court found no justification for remand and instead exercised its discretion to grant bail.

The Bojangs were admitted to bail on the conditions that each must enter into a D50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dalasis) bail bond, each must provide one Gambian surety, and sureties are required to deposit a valid National Identity Card with the High Court and swear an affidavit of means confirming the ability to cover the bail sum. The bail will lapse if the State does not file a competent appeal within 30 days.

The case, which drew national attention, stems from a violent incident at the Sukuta–Jabang traffic lights in September 2023. The High Court’s decision underscores the Court’s adherence to due process and constitutional protections, even as the legal process continues through the appeals system.

Police Constables Sang J. Gomez and Pateh Jallow were shot dead on September 12, 2023, while on duty at the Sukuta–Jabang junction. A third officer, Ansey Jawo, sustained serious injuries in the attack, which shocked the nation and triggered a major criminal investigation.

Ousainou Bojang, the first accused, had been facing five counts, including murder, attempted murder, and acts of terrorism in connection with the incident. His sister, Amie Bojang, was charged with one count of being an accessory after the fact to murder, accused of helping him flee to Senegal following the shooting.

Delivering judgment from a detailed 130-page verdict, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh reviewed the bill of indictment, the testimonies of prosecution and defence witnesses, and the legal submissions presented by both sides before announcing the court’s findings.

In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasized that under Gambian criminal law the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. He framed the central question before the court as whether the state had proven its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge raised concerns about statements attributed to Ousainou Bojang, noting that the accused denied making them. He observed that under the Anti-Terrorism Act, any extrajudicial confession must be video recorded, a safeguard the prosecution failed to meet. According to the court, the absence of such recording cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the statements and rendered them unreliable.

Justice Jaiteh also highlighted several contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the identification of the alleged shooter. He pointed to inconsistencies in the accounts given by three soldiers who claimed to have witnessed the incident, as well as discrepancies over the number of shots fired during the attack.

The court further questioned the credibility of a recording presented by prosecution witness Mama Jabbie, noting that the witness claimed there had been an audio loss in the recording that allegedly indicated Ousainou Bojang’s presence in Diouloulou, Casamance.

In addition, the judge observed that the surviving victim, police officer Ansey Jawo, testified that she did not recognize Ousainou Bojang at the scene and only later saw his image on social media. Justice Jaiteh held that her inability to identify the accused as the attacker created reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s identification evidence.

The court also criticized the investigators for failing to examine the alibi presented by the defence. Justice Jaiteh described the investigation as “incomplete, unbalanced, and unverified,” stating that once an alibi is raised, it is the duty of the prosecution to investigate it.

Rather than seeking the truth, he said, the authorities appeared to focus on intimidation, harassment, and detention.

The judge further noted a key flaw in the prosecution’s evidence: a shoe allegedly worn by Ousainou Bojang during the shooting did not fit him, a discrepancy the court said further undermined the state’s case.

Citing these evidentiary weaknesses, Justice Jaiteh concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and ordered that both Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang be acquitted and discharged.

The State has expressed intention to appeal.

Justice Jaiteh is reading the decision in a packed courtroom as the trial of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, reaches its decisive moment after nearly two years of proceedings.

Police Constables Sang J. Gomez and Pateh Jallow were fatally shot on September 12, 2023, while on duty at the Sukuta–Jabang junction. A third officer sustained serious injuries during the attack, which shocked the nation and prompted a major criminal investigation.

Ousainou Bojang, the first accused, is facing five charges, including murder, attempted murder, and acts of terrorism, in connection with the incident.

His sister, Amie Bojang, is charged with one count of being an accessory after the fact to murder, accused of helping him flee to Senegal following the shooting.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Jaiteh is methodically reviewing the bill of indictment and the testimonies of prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as the legal briefs submitted by both sides before presenting the court’s findings and final decision.

The ruling, expected to take several hours to read in full, will determine the fate of the two siblings.

Security around the High Court premises has been significantly reinforced ahead of the judgment, reflecting the intense public interest surrounding the case. Numerous police officers have been deployed in and around the court complex as proceedings unfold.

Inside the courtroom, seats were filled to capacity with family members, lawyers, and journalists from various media outlets closely following the developments.

Due to the level of public attention, the proceedings were moved to Courtroom Number One, the Supreme Court chamber, which previously hosted the high-profile Auditor General case.

Relatives and friends of Ousainou Bojang say they remain hopeful that the court will clear him of the charges after nearly two years in custody. Some family members expressed their desire to reunite with him and celebrate with a meal if he regains his freedom.

The case, widely referred to as the “Sukuta–Jabang shooting,” has been closely followed across the country. The court’s decision is expected to mark a major turning point in one of the most closely watched criminal trials in recent Gambian history.

This is a developing story.