Switzerland’s verdict on Gambia’s ex-Minister: Justice or overreach?

Switzerland’s highest criminal court has convicted Gambia’s former interior minister, Ousman Sonko, of crimes against humanity. The Gambia’s former most influential state official was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his role in murder, torture, and other acts of repression performed by the country’s security services during President Yahya Jammeh’s regime.

The facts

The Swiss court has found Gambia’s former interior minister, Sonko, guilty of multiple counts of intentional homicide, torture, and false imprisonment, all classified as crimes against humanity.

The verdict, praised by human rights groups, could set a precedent for holding government officials accountable for such crimes.

Sonko’s defense plans to appeal the conviction, arguing the evidence doesn’t support the crimes he was convicted of. Advocacy groups welcomed the trial as a significant application of universal jurisdiction, but the court didn’t find Sonko’s crimes “aggravated” enough for a life sentence.

Defendant’s background

Sonko, who sought asylum in Switzerland in 2016, has been in detention since January 2017. The indictment comprised 16 years of crimes, including the murder and torture of political opponents and protestors.

Family and legal opinions

Olimatou Sonko, the defendant’s daughter, expressed concern over the absence of translation during the trial. Philip Grant of TRIAL International emphasised Sonko’s status as the highest-level official tried in Europe under universal jurisdiction.

Context of Jammeh’s regime

Jammeh, who ruled Gambia from 1994 to 2016, fled the country after losing an election and refusing to concede. Some Gambians consider the verdict against Sonko as a step towards justice, although there are fears about the impact on national unity.

The arguments

The conviction is widely regarded as long overdue justice for those who were harmed by the Jammeh regime’s cruel tactics. According to activists like Reed Brody, it “is a major step” towards more widespread responsibility for individuals found guilty of serious violations of human rights.

On the other hand, legal experts contend that the ruling upholds the idea of universal jurisdiction by showing that major crimes will always be prosecuted, regardless of where they take place.

Symbolic victory

The trial is lauded as a critical step in the direction of sending a message to other tyrants and human rights violators around the world, ending the impunity of high-ranking officials who commit atrocities.

Sonko’s defence team contends that the trial was tainted, possibly going against his right to a fair trial, because of poor translation services, among other things.

Not enough proof

Critics such as defence attorney Philippe Currat assert that Sonko was found guilty based more on his position than any specific conduct, arguing that the prosecution failed to provide evidence connecting him to the crimes.

Impact of reconciliation

Some Gambians argue that the focus should be on healing and moving forward rather than revenge and are concerned that such high-profile trials would undermine efforts at national reconciliation.

Significant concerns concerning the harmony between justice and fairness, the effect on national reconciliation, and the function of international law in the prosecution of crimes against humanity are brought up by the verdict against Ousman Sonko.