|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kobo |
Posted - 03 Apr 2014 : 23:45:58
 1. Magistrate Fine Prosecution For Wasting Court’s Time; In UDP 14 Trail
Thursday, April 03, 2014
The opposition United Democratic Party’s 14 trails could not progress on 2 April at the Brikama Courts due to the absence of prosecution witness. When the case was called, police prosecutor Jammeh who stood for Inspector Sarr, said Sarr could not come to court due to ill health and that he was standing in for him. Jammeh then asked for an adjournment as his witness cannot be in court because he is sick and admitted at the hospital....Full Story from Daily News
2. Court Fines Prosecution D700 for Delays in U.D.P 14 Case
Published on Thursday, 03 April 2014 | Written by Kebba Jeffang
The trial of the fourteen (14) United Democratic Party (UDP) militants, including two women, before Dayoh M. Small Dago of the Brikama Magistrates’ Court, suffered a setback on Wednesday, 2nd April, 2014 due to the absence of the prosecution witness in court.
When the case was announced, prosecutor Corporal Jammeh appeared for the state, whilst all accused persons were represented by Lawyer Ousainou Darboe.
The prosecutor applied for an adjournment due to the absence of a witness who, he said, was hospitalised and could not make it to court. In reply to the prosecution’s application for an adjournment, Lawyer Darboe submitted that he does not think that a good reason was given by the prosecution, adding that during the last adjourn date; the court asked the prosecution to arrange for more witnesses to come to court.
He said the issue of arranging only one witness is not convincing. He added that the prosecution should have gone to the hospital to get the certificate for the Court to be convinced. He submitted that should the prosecution fail to bring witness in the next sitting, the court should close their case.
In his ruling, the trial magistrate said the reason given by the prosecution is not cogent, based on the fact that during the last sitting they were asked to bring many witnesses to avoid relying on one and which, he said, they failed to do.
Magistrate Small Dago said due to this, the court fines the prosecution D700, to be paid before or on the next adjourn date. He added that the case will also be closed if they fail to bring a witness for the proceeding.
At this juncture, the matter was adjourned to the 7th and 8th of April 2014 respectively.
Foroyaa
3. Related Bantaba topic UDP Youth Secretary Arrested - Ebrima Solo Sandeng |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kobo |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 02:13:30
Court Recalls PW2 in Babylon 14 Case for Further Cross Examination
Published on Monday, 14 April 2014 | Written By Kebba Jeffang
The criminal case involving Mr. Lamin B. Jarju and thirteen residents of Babylon village who are currently facing multiple charges including conspiracy and arson at Brikama Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Dayoh M. Small Dago proceeded on Thursday, 10th April, 2014. When the case was called, Chief Inspector Camara represented the state whilst lawyer Borry S. Touray appeared for all the accused persons.
As the prosecution has closed its case since last sitting, the defence counsel has applied to the court for Mr. Francis Mendy (PW2), who is the complainant, to be recalled by the court so that he can be further cross examined. No objection was raised by the prosecutor and the application was granted accordingly.
The court therefore ordered the said witness to appear in court at the next adjourned date. T
he matter was therefore adjourned to Thursday, April 17, 2014 for cross examination of PW2 from 10:30 to 11am.
Source: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
| kobo |
Posted - 15 Apr 2014 : 02:10:16
Prosecution submits that U.D.P 14 has ‘a case to answer’
Published on Monday, 14 April 2014 | Written By Kebba Jeffang
The prosecuting officer in the trial of the supporters of the opposition United Democratic Party (U.D.P) responding to the ‘no case to answer’ submission of the defence counsel in the trial of fourteen accused persons, including two women, submitted that the 14 accused persons have a case to answer.
He made this claim in a congested room before Principal Magistrate Dayoh M. Small Dago of Brikama Magistrates’ Court.
When the case was called, Sub-Inspector Ebrima Sarr announced his appearance for the state whilst all the accused persons were represented by lawyer Ousainou Darboe.
Prosecutor Sarr replied that the accused persons are charged with two counts of unlawful assembly and prohibition of conduct conducive to a breach of peace. He said in substantiating the charge, they had called six prosecution witnesses to testify briefly as to what they have witnessed.
He added that their witnesses, from PW1 (Alkalo of Madiana) up to PW4, have all told the court corroborative evidences that the accused persons were found in Madiana village under a mango tree having a political meeting.
He said there was no doubt that they were having a political meeting as it was even clearly manifested in the confessional statement of the 11th and 12th accused persons who were the hosts of the other accused persons that are not residents of Madiana.
“During the trial throughout, the defence counsel has never disputed to that in any of the cross examinations of the witnesses. PW1 (Alkalo) told the court that he was never aware of any meeting at his village which is abnormal.
Mr. Bahoum, (PW2), station officer of Tujereng police station, also informed the court that he and his personnel arrested some of the accused persons at the scene and in fact stated that the 3rd accused was making some comment at the time of their arrival at the scene that ‘they are all Gambians and they have their right of showing their political status without fear.”
They even resisted their arrest by making some push and pull with the police,” said prosecutor Sarr. Sub-Inspector Sarr further told the court that even at the police station, some of the accused persons refused to give statements.
He argued the behaviour of the accused persons by holding a meeting without the consent of the Alkalo and the refusal of some accused persons for failing to give statements at the police station has clearly manifested that their meeting was illegal, otherwise they would have told the police their agenda of the meeting or in fact inform the Alkalo about it.
The prosecutor said it is the behaviour of the accused persons at Madiana that frightened the neighborhood until they reported to the Alkalo who later informed the police. “That also shows that the accused persons have intentionally assembled to commit the offence.
The defence lawyer also cited the criminal law in Ghana as to where an unlawful assembly can be committed. This made it clear that unlawful assembly can be committed at anywhere, public or private place,” argued the prosecutor. Sub-Inspector Sarr further told the court that even if they were having a meeting in a private place, it is an offence so long as there was no order given to them to carry out the meeting, adding that it is evident that the accused persons have no authority for the meeting. He said even the defence lawyer who is the flagbearer of U.D.P knew and used to obtain an authority by applying for a permit from the Inspector General of Police much less the ordinary supporters of the party.
According to him, the prosecution has laid down a prima facie against the accused persons and urged the court to allow the accused persons to enter their defence as prescribed in Section 167 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Lawyer Darboe, in responding to the reply of the prosecution, said he is comfortable that it is the court that has to be convinced for making any decision.
He argued that the prosecutor has been buttressing the evidence given, but not on points of law. On the consent of the Alkalo as mentioned by the prosecutor in his reply, the defence counsel said he has not seen any law that states that the Alkalo has to be consulted, adding that if that is a law, then the charge sheet would contain it.
He also told the court that he has never applied for a permit for organising a political meeting from the I.G.P as it is not a law.
He said the only thing they applied for is the public address system and that is what is in the law.
At this juncture, the matter was adjourned to Monday 14th April, 2014 from 11am to 12pm for ruling.
Source: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
| kobo |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 07:26:14
Police Prosecutor Said There Is a Case To Answer: As He Respond to Defense’s No Case to Answer
Friday, April 11, 2014
In the trail of the UDP’s 14; when the court resumed on the 10th April 2014, Inspector Sarr told the court that there is no doubt that there is a case to answer by the accuse persons. He told the court that at the time of their arrest there were more than three of the accuse at the meeting place.
He said is made clear from the first prosecution witness who is the Alikalo that he was never aware of the meeting in his village, which was very abnormal. He went on to say that at the time of the arrest , the 3rd accuse was making a statement at the meeting, saying that they are citizensof this country , and as such they should not fear to show their political status..
Sarr said it was due to the behavior of the accuse persons that frighten the neighborhood which led to the report of their meeting and their subsequent arrests.
The police prosecution said the behavior of the accuse persons holding meeting at Madiana without the consent of the Alikao, and their refusal to give statement at the police station, clearly showed that their meeting was illegal; otherwise they would have told the police the agenda of their meeting or inform the Alikali.
At this point Sarr informed the court that the prosecution is convinced that they have laid a case against the accused persons and are urging the court to call on the accused persons to enter into their defence.
The matter is adjourned to the 14 March for a ruling on the argument of a No case to answer.
Author: Fatou .Y. Sanyang
Source: Daily News |
| kobo |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 00:08:29
1. ‘UDP defendants have no case to answer’ - Lawyer Darboe
Published on Thursday, 10 April 2014 | By Kebba Jeffang
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe on Tuesday, 8 April made ‘a no case to answer’ submission in the trial of fourteen UDP supporters at the Brikama magistrates’ court. The submission made in a congested courtroom of onlookers before Principal Magistrate Dayoh Dago Small comes in the wake of the closure of the case of the prosecution who called six witnesses.
The fourteen defendants, including two women are charged with two counts of unlawful assembly and probation of conduct conducive to a breach of the peace. When the matter was called, Sub-Inspector Ebrima Sarr announced his representation for the state whilst lawyer Ousainou Darboe represented all the fourteen accused persons.
Prosecutor Sarr announced the presence of his final witness (PW6) who was later asked to get into the witness box.
The witness introduced himself as Corporal Saikou Joof attached to Tujereng police station’s C.I.D office. He said he recognised the accused persons and that he could remember the 14th day of February, 2014 between 17hrs and 18hrs when he was on duty at the said station.
He said he learnt that ASP Bahoum, Station Officer went with some police officers to Madiana upon a tip off they received that there was a political meeting being held there. The witness added that he then called his S.O. to find out whether they were at Madiana or not and he said his boss responded that they were there at that present time.
He adduced that he told his senior that he would be following them there as he was about to board a taxi to meet them.
According to PW6, his senior asked him to wait at Tanji main junction since they were already on the way coming to that end. “Upon their arrival, I joined them to go back to the station with four accused persons in the vehicle.
When we reached the station, we learnt that they were on a political meeting.
I invited Mr. Jerreh Fatty (7th accused), Lamin Marong (1st accused) and two others,” said the witness. When asked about the two others, he said he could identify them, but does not know their names.
He pointed at the 2nd accused person and 8th accused person respectively. He added that he told the accused persons that what they learned was that they were holding a political meeting. He said the accused persons told him that they cannot confirm that then till further notice.
“I went back to Madiana where it was found out that there were other people who hosted the accused persons during that meeting such as Lamin Njie, Bakary Dibba and Wandifa Kinteh.
We searched for them but they weren’t seen, but the following day they came to the police station where they were arrested, interrogated and confirmed that they hosted these people though they denied that they were holding a political meeting,” PW6 testified.
The Criminal Investigation Department officer told the court that during the investigation, they also realised that not all of the accused persons are residents of Madiana. “We took their statements,” he said. He adduced that the gathering was taking place at an empty plot of land under a mango tree. He said that during the interview, they did not see any document with the accused persons as permit nor did they tell them the purpose of the gathering.
“I made a statement to that effect,” the C.I.D officer concluded. During cross examination, defence lawyer Darboe asked him to tell the court how long he served the C.I.D unit; and PW6 responded, ‘since 2007.’ “Your mission in Madiana was to confirm that Mr. Wandifa Kinteh, Bakary Dibba hosted the gathering. Is that correct?” Asked Darboe.
“Yes,” replied the witness. “Is there a law that prohibits any person from hosting the people organising a political gathering in this country?”asked the defence lawyer.
“I didn’t say so,” replied the witness. “So why then were you interested in knowing these people who hosted the gathering?” Asked lawyer Darboe.
In reply, the witness said it is because they want to know whether it was a political meeting or not. “As Investigator of crimes, tell the court which law stated that one cannot have political meeting without permit,” asked counsel.
“Any political gathering must have a permit,” answered the witness. “Do you realise that you are putting the name of Gambia in a bad light because this is on the internet for the whole world to see what is happening in the Gambia,?”asked Darboe. “No,” replied the witness.
“Which of the accused persons do you recognise here?” Asked counsel. The witness said he recognises all the accused persons facially at the police station. “Were they all detained at the same station?” Darboe asked. The witness responded that others were taken to Gunjur.
At this point, the prosecution announced the closure of their case after having six witnesses testified on their behalf. Defence Counsel Lawyer Darboe at this juncture, applied to make a ‘no case to answer’ submission which was granted by the court.
“I invite the court to acquit and discharge the accused persons of the two counts which they are charged for, with unlawful assembly and prohibition of conduct conducive to a breach of the peace,” said Mr. Darboe.
He said the prosecution has called six witnesses and has not substantiated a prima facie case. He said there is no evidence in support of the offence. While analysing count two which is prohibition of conduct conducive to a breach of the peace, provided in Section 9 of the Public Order Act, Mr. Darboe said the evidence given and what is provided by the said section are contradictory.
He stated that the said section is referring to a public place and this place where the gathering took place was not a public place. He added that even both the Alkalo of Madiana and S.O Bahoum confirmed that the place is an empty compound. Lawyer Darboe further submitted that none of the witnesses mentioned that the accused persons were conducting themselves in a manner that can breach the peace, but they were exercising their constitutional right. He said the only accused person mentioned by some witnesses was Mr. Foday Gassama who said ‘let no one fear anything as here is our country and we are ready to die as UDP supporters.’
Darboe submitted that it is not even wrong to say so. He said on count one, the charge of unlawful assembly was brought under Section 70 of the Criminal Code (CPC) which he read before the court. “There is no word in the definition of unlawful assembly such as ‘permit’ much more unlawful without a permit.” He said the element is that one must have the intention to commit an offence, adding that it is not a crime to organise a political meeting.
Mr. Darboe submitted that the second element is also not under the said section. He said section 69 or 70 of the Criminal Code has guaranteed freedom of assembly unless the law was changed in that very yesterday.
“This is a misuse of the Criminal Justice System. If these people were criminals they would have been on the run, not to report themselves at the police station. No iota of evidence has been made for the prosecution to prove their case. I therefore submit that the accused persons be acquitted and discharged by the court,” said the defence lawyer.
Prosecutor Sarr however applied for an adjournment in order to reply to the submission made by the defence. There was no objection made by the defence.
The matter was therefore adjourned till Thursday, 10 April, 2014 at 9am for the prosecution to reply to the ‘no case to answer’ submission.
Foroyaa Burning Issues News
2. Related report from The Point News Lawyer Darboe makes no-case submission in UDP 14 trial |
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
