Yankuba Touray in court
The Supreme Court of The Gambia is set to deliver its judgment in the next term on the criminal appeal filed by Yankuba Touray, a former Minister of Lands, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. Touray, a prominent figure during the AFPRC and APRC regimes, held various ministerial roles, including Minister of Local Government, Youth and Sports, and Tourism.
The conviction stems from allegations that, in June 1995, at Kololi in the West Coast Region, Touray, with malice aforethought, caused the death of Ousman Koro Ceesay. He was accused of beating Ceesay with a pestle-like object and other dangerous weapons. Despite pleading not guilty, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh found him guilty of the charge.
The case has since progressed to the Supreme Court, where lawyers recently presented their final arguments. Counsel for Yankuba Touray, Abdoulie Sisohor, contended that the High Court’s decision was based on unreliable, inconsistent, and uncorroborated statements provided by Alagie Kanyi, the prosecution’s key witness.
Sisohor highlighted discrepancies between Kanyi’s various accounts, pointing to Exhibit D6, a certified copy of Kanyi’s witness statement dated March 7, 2019, which contradicted his oral testimony under cross-examination. Similarly, Exhibit D8, an official transcript of Kanyi’s testimony before the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) dated February 28, 2019, was inconsistent with his statements during the trial.
Lawyer Abdoulie Sisohor submitted that Exhibit D5 is a certified copy of the records of proceedings in case KC/184/19/CR/O25/A0, between The State vs. Yankuba Touray and Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay, in which Alagie Kanyi admitted to making false allegations against Yankuba Touray.
He argued that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal failed to properly evaluate and address the evidence obtained during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses Ensa Mendy (prosecution witness 2), Lamin Ndure (prosecution witness 4), and Amat Jangum (prosecution witness 3).
Lawyer Sisohor pointed out that all three of these witnesses testified that they were at Yankuba Touray’s house between 8 pm and 10 pm, which contradicted the testimony of Alagie Kanyi, who claimed to have been at Yankuba Touray’s home from 8 pm onwards.
Representing Yankuba Touray, Lawyer Sisohor highlighted that 9 witnesses were called by the prosecution, while 2 witnesses testified in favor of the defense. He emphasized that the appeal was against the decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
In his submission, Lawyer Sisohor argued that none of the prosecution’s witnesses or the documentary evidence presented by them established that Yankuba Touray was responsible for the death of Ousman Koro Ceesay. According to Lawyer Sisohor, the only person who spoke about the incident was Alagie Kanyi, the 6th prosecution witness.
“My lord, Mr Touray should be free,” Lawyer Sisohor said.
He argued that Justice Jaiteh and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses corroborated Alagie Kanyi’s evidence. He further contended that the findings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were not supported by the evidence presented.
He asserted that the High Court and the Court of Appeal mistakenly categorized Alagie Kanyi as an accomplice. Sisohor emphasized that Alagie Kanyi was not charged alongside Yankuba Touray for the murder of Ousman Koro Ceesay.
Additionally, he pointed out that Edward Singhateh, Peter Singhateh, BK Jatta, Tumbul Tamba, Pa Alieu Gomez, Yankuba Touray, and Alagie Kanyi were neither charged nor tried together for conspiracy to murder or as accessories before or after the fact.
He further highlighted that Alagie Kanyi did not plead guilty to any charge related to the death of Ousman Koro Ceesay. Sisohor maintained that Kanyi’s testimony—that Yankuba Touray, himself (Pw6), and others killed Ousman Koro Ceesay—was not corroborated by any prosecution evidence during the trial.
Sisohor stressed that Kanyi’s oral testimony about being at Yankuba Touray’s residence from 8 p.m. onwards was inconsistent with the accounts of prosecution witnesses 2, 3, and 4, as well as defence witnesses 1 and 2. He noted that prosecution witnesses 2, 3, and 4 all confirmed that Kanyi was not at Touray’s residence during the stated time.
Lawyer Abdoulie Sisohor, representing Yankuba Touray, argued that the sentence handed down by the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal was incorrect. He contended that the High Court did not have the authority to impose such a sentence.
Counsel Sisohor pointed out that the death penalty was initially abolished by the Death Penalty (Abolition) Act, but was reinstated by the Death Penalty (Restoration) Act, which was Decree number 52 of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) on 10 August 1995.
He further explained that the death of Ousman Koro Ceesay occurred in June 1995. Therefore, he submitted that both the Death Penalty (Restoration) Act (Decree number 52 of 1995) and the Constitution of The Gambia do not have retroactive effect.
“The Death Penalty (Restoration) Act commenced on the 10 days of August 1995, and the crime, which the Appellant (Yankuba Touray) is convicted and sentenced for, occurred in June 1995,” Sisohor said.Sisohor called on the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction and sentence of Yankuba Touray.