|
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 |
| Momodou |
Posted - 18 Apr 2016 : 18:54:33
Lawyer Darboe, Party Executives Arrested amid Protest
By Kebba Jeffang
Foroyaa: April 18, 2016
Photo From right: Momodou Sanneh, Fakebba Colley, Lamin Dibba, Lawyer Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters and Aji Suwareh Bojang
 A detachment of fully armed security forces, comprising personnel of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) and state guards, on Saturday, 16th April, 2016 rounded up some executive members of the United Democratic Party (UDP), including its party leader Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, and party militants while they were marching on Kairaba Avenue to demand for Ebrima Solo Sandeng and others who were arrested.
Solo Sandeng, who was picked up with others by the security forces on Thursday, 14 April, 2016 at Westfield, is alleged to have died while being held by them.
Before the commencement of the procession at Lawyer Darboe’s residence on Kairaba Avenue before midday, the UDP leader told the journalists who were present that they are peacefully going to the PIU headquarters at Kanifing to demand for an explanation on the fate of their party members who were arrested and said to be held by them. He said they have advised all those taking part in the procession not to insult anyone, cause harm to people or destroy vehicles and property on the way.
Mr. Darboe said The Gambia is presently in a state of crisis, and the same applies to democracy and the rule of law. He said this event of 14th April had led to the arrest of several young people who were protesting for electoral reform at Westfield.
“My executive was never informed about what was planned and I understand that the other party leaders were not informed because we were likely to say no to it and they decided to go ahead and do what they wanted to do. Of course peaceful demonstrations are constitutionally guaranteed. They are rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and rights that are guaranteed are exercisable without permission from anybody, otherwise they become privileges. UDP as a party was not involved and was not concerned about what took place,” said the UDP leader.
Mr. Darboe said they later learnt that some of their party members were involved in the protest and as such they will not abandon them simply because it was organised without their consent. He said the APRC regime does not respect the rights of individuals.
“I’ve got impeccable information that these arrested people were taken to Mile 2 prisons; initially at the Police Intervention Unit headquarters in Kanifing and then taken to Mile 2 central prisons where they were picked out in numbers of five and taken to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) where they were subjected to the most brutal torture,” said Darboe.
He added that Solo Sandeng was in a state of comma but was not given any medical attention.
“By 10 pm at night, I got information that he died as a result of the torture. One would have expected that a postmortem would be carried out to determine the cause of the death…,” he said. “And as I talk to you now, I have information which we are watching that Fatoumatta Jawara is in a state of comma, in a very critical condition and she is between life and death, so is Nogoi Njie, the first vice president of the female wing, also in a similar situation,” said an emotionally charged Darboe.
The UDP leader said his party has the right to go about its political activities without hindrance. He said Solo Sandeng is the Steve Biko of the Gambia today. He said the UDP met on Friday and have decided that they will go out on Saturday and demand for Sandeng, either dead or alive. He said they will also demand for the release of other people who were arrested. He said in the process, they have asked all the deputies in the various positions in the executive to stay away as he (Darboe) and the others are prepared to join Sandeng that day.
“We are going to ask for Solo’s body either alive of dead and the rest of them to be released,” said Mr. Darboe.
When they started the procession, the UDP party officials who were in front of marchers included Lawyer Darboe, Modou Sanneh, former Minority Leader, Kemeseng Jammeh, former Minority Leader, Lamin Dibba, former National Assembly Member and Femi Peters among others. They were followed by some of the family members of Solo Sandeng, including his daughter, Fatoumatta Sandeng, among others. The marchers were chanting “Release Solo Sandeng and the rest of the Westfield protestors either dead or alive” and displaying placards and banners with similar inscriptions.
As the procession got near the Elton filling station or FIB building on the same road, a truck load of fully armed PIU personnel and soldiers maneuvered its way through the crowd from behind to be at the front where it stopped to barricade the marchers. Some security personnel were in front of the marchers and trying to stop them as they forged ahead.
However, reinforcements also started coming to the scene at the main Latrikunda-Kairaba Avenue junction with the arrival of more trucks and pick up vehicles carrying security personnel armed with riot gears such as helmets, shields, tear gas canisters, etc. All of a sudden, the situation descended into chaos as the marchers and security engaged in a scuffle which led to beatings with batons, rifle butts and the firing of tear gas by the security and stone throwing by marchers. The security started using force in arresting some of the marchers who were being physically assaulted and thrown into waiting trucks and pick up vehicles while chasing of others who ran into the adjoining side streets. In the process, many old and young men and women were arrested or captured, including by standers, pedestrians and those found selling or at their work places nearby, who were all whisked away.
The UDP executive members who were arrested and taken away included Lawyer Darboe, Momodou Sanneh, Lamin Dibba, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Fakebba Colley, Lamin Jatta, Junkunda Suso, Lamin Ceesay, Tapha Makalo, Fanta Darboe, Amadou Sawo and Kebba Khan. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Momodou |
Posted - 07 Dec 2016 : 12:46:53
Darboe expresses mixed feelings over Jammeh’s acceptance of results
By Kaddijatou Jawo
The Point: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/darboe-expresses-mixed-feelings-over-jammehs-acceptance-of-results
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe has expressed strong and mixed feelings over outgoing President Jammeh’s conceding defeat so easily.
He spoke yesterday in an interview with The Point at his residence on Kairaba Avenue.
Darboe was granted bail along with 18 others following eight months in prison, after they were arrested for “demonstrating peacefully” and asking for electoral reform on April 14.
Darboe and Co where charged with unlawful assembly and holding procession without a permit, riot, among others.
“I have mixed feelings”. Darboe said Jammeh has said he is a democrat and, “of course, you have a constitution that says that the person who is elected president is deemed to be given the responsibility.
“I expect him to abide by the constitution, because he has always been saying that ‘we respect the laws of the constitution’ and I don’t expect it to be otherwise.”
Asked how life was like in prison, Darboe said some of the “facilities are not really good” in Mile 2.
It has given him an idea of what really could be done for the prisoners in the country, he added, because “that place is really a neglected community, and it is a community that also deserves good attention, from the government.”
He said it is a community that could really be a source of instability, unless it is handled properly.
Darboe said he never felt he would be released, and was disappointed by the judge.
He said had the election not been won by the coalition, he would not have been out; and that they were even fighting the case at the ECOWAS court, because that was where they thought they could have justice.
Darboe further said he is part of the new government not because he wants to get a position, but because he wants liberty for his country.
He would not reject any offer from the government, but he would also not look for any position from the government, he added.
“I wish my country will be the best, and I think with this new era will make the country one, where all rights are respected and many other good things that the country was not enjoying lately.”
“With them (the new government) everything will be restored back and in the best of ways for the people of The Gambia and generations to come.”
Darboe described the president-elect, Adama Barrow, as “a righteous man and trustworthy”, and that because he was in his party, Darboe said he is more than excited that a person from his party is leading the coalition.
Darboe added that he is “very proud of president-elect Adama Barrow and the rest of the team.”
“These are great people who have the interest of Gambians at heart, and will give the Gambian people what they want, when they take office.”
Darboe commended the Gambian people “for voting for the coalition, as a result of which they are free today.”
He also thanked his family for the support, especially his daughters, over the last seven months.
He commended members of the press and the electronic media, especially the social media, for their support and immense contribution toward their release.
He also gave special thanks to people in the Diaspora who fought tooth and nail for their release.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 06 Dec 2016 : 13:02:47
Darboe & Co granted bail
By Bruce Asemota
The Point: Tuesday, December 06, 2016
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/darboe-co-granted-bail
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, the jailed leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) and 18 others, were yesterday granted bail by The Gambia Court of Appeal presided over by Justice A.O. Adegoke, Justice Awa Bah and Justice Edrissa Mb’ai.
The appellants were Ousainou Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yaya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Momodou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Lamin Njie, Yaya Jammeh, Momodou L.K. Sanneh, Massanneh Lalo Jawla, Fanta Darboe and Junkuna Suso.
It would be recalled that they were jailed for three years last July by the High Court in Banjul, after they were convicted for unlawful assembly, holding a procession without a permit, conspiracy, riot, among others.
The matter was adjourned by the court, for proof of service and ordering of briefs.
When the matter came up yesterday, defence lawyer Antouman A.B. Gaye, who led the team of appellants, announced the members as A.N.D Bensouda, H.S. Sabally, S.M. Tambadou, Omar M.N. Njie, R.Y. Mendy, Neneh M.C. Cham, Musa Batchilly, Abdoulie Sisoho, Lamin S. Camara, Combeh Gaye, Anna Njie and Yassin Senghore.
He informed the court that it was conspicuous that there was no one representing the state at the court, and he then urged the court to stand down the matter for about 15 minutes to enable the court call the representatives of the state.
Presiding judge Justice A.O. Adegoke said in the interest of justice it was important to hear from the state, adding that it was unusual that the state was not in court.
Soon after, DPP S.H. Barkum appeared for the state along with principal state counsel Amichi Adeyemi, Antony Mendy and K. Mbaye.
The DPP apologised to the court, stating that the state’s absence was not by design, but due to reasons beyond their control.
Lawyer Gaye then said the court had earlier made an order consolidating all the appellants appeal, and the matter was adjourned for Monday 5 December for proof of service and ordering of briefs.
He further informed the court that the DPP had been served with the records.
Lawyer Gaye said the issue regarding the matter of ordering of briefs should be put aside, adding that the appellants have an application to make, and that the appellants counsel has spoken to the DPP over the weekend about the application.
Lawyer Gaye added that the court should take judicial notice, that over the last few days, there have been significant changes of circumstances in the country that has affected the appellants.
The fact is that on 1 December 2016 there was change of government in the country, and the 1st applicant/appellant is the Secretary General of one of the parties that form the coalition, he told the court.
“My lord, I am not speaking on my own, but on instructions, and I wish to make an oral application for our clients to be admitted to bail pending the determination of the appeal, and there should not be any condition attached but on self-recognizance.”
He cited section 12 of the Gambia Court of Appeal Act, noting that the said section allows the court to grant bail to appellants, and further referred the court to section 7 of the Constitution, which lays down what constitutes the common law and principle of equity.
He submitted that now is the time to talk about the formal application, referring the court to the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicants/appellants as bailable.
Lawyer Gaye said it has been 8 months since they were sentenced to imprisonment, adding that there was no time to file any written application comprising of affidavits and other things and waiting for the state to also file their briefs.
“We cannot bury our head in the sand, because this matter is a special circumstance.”
Lawyer Gaye then told the court that when he looked at the panel of judges, he saw the bold spirit in them and not the timorous type, and proceeded to call on lawyer A.N.D. Bensouda to make a formal application for bail on behalf of the 19 applicants/appellants.
DPP S.H. Barkum in response told the court that he does have much to say, but that he received a call from lawyer Bensouda over the weekend, at about 12.47 pm, informing him of their intention to bring an oral application before the court, seeking bail for the applicants.
“I responded by saying that the practice in the court of appeal is always to entertain bail application formally.
“My position is that the bail application should be made formally, as has always been the practice of the court; but if the court is compelled by the applicants that it is a matter of prevailing special circumstances, I would leave it to the discretion of the court.”
The court subsequently ruled that the applicants/appellants counsel make their application.
Lawyer A.N.D. Bensouda submitted that the 19 applicants appeared before the court having being convicted by the High Court on various offences, in particular offences under the public order Act, citing section 5 of the public order Act.
She further submitted that granting bail to the appellants pending the determination of the appeal is a matter that the court has not hesitated to do, when the interest of justice requires.
She drew the court’s attention to some recent cases decided by the court of appeal, in which the court exercised its jurisdiction to grant bail pending appeal.
She cited the case of Lamin Waa Juwara and the state, a miscellaneous application no: 3 of 2004 in which Justice S.B. Janneh granted bail pending appeal based on the fundamental principle, the judge underscored, that special circumstances exist in the bail application.
Lawyer Bensouda also cited the case of Nyima Dibba and the state, a criminal appeal of 2013, where the case was presided over by Justice E.O. Fagbenle, the present Chief Justice of The Gambia.
She informed the court that the record of the appeal showed that the appellants were convicted on 20 July 2016 and, prior to this conviction, they have been in custody since April 2016.
Lawyer Bensouda submitted that special circumstances exist, and that the record showed that all the applicants were tried and convicted as members of the UDP, and that the coalition is sure to form a government which would comprise of various political parties in the country.
She pointed out that the appellants are the leading members of the United Democratic Party (UDP), adding that section 68 of the constitution provides that the swearing in of the incoming president as published in the gazette should be done by 18 January 2017.
She further pointed out that the transition process is a short one, and the leadership of UDP has a crucial role to play in the process, and the stakeholders in the process would not be able to do so unless the court granted the applicants bail.
Lawyer Bensouda added that the record showed that 11 out of the 19 applicants are executive members of the UDP, including Ousainou Darboe, who is the Secretary General of the party.
She submitted that the court could not be oblivious to the momentous decision of the Gambian people, neither could it ignore the possible reactions of the people who by voting in the coalition government have manifested their desire.
Bensouda craved the court’s indulgence to take judicial notice of the 1st applicant, Ousainou Darboe, who has practised in the very court, and to recognize him as an individual and a vibrant practitioner who deserved humble consideration.
She finally urged the court to exercise its discretion, under section 12 of the Gambia Court of Appeal Act, to grant the applicants bail pending the hearing of the appeal.
In her ruling, Justice A.O. Adegoke granted bail to the appellants/applicants, noting that they should deposit their international passport with the court’s registrar and, for those without a passport, should deposit their ID cards with the court registrar.
The court further ruled that Ousainou Darboe is allowed to go on bail on self-recognizance.
The matter was then adjourned until 8 December 2016 for the court to give reasons for taking such decision.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 14 Sep 2016 : 21:45:37
Should another Eid pass without Ousainou Darbo and the UDP leadership and members being released?
Foroyaa: September 14, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/12048#more-12048
Should another Eid pass without Ousainou Darbo and the UDP leadership and members being released?
Human beings are human beings because of their capacity to reason and conceive justice as well as to feel and remedy injustice. One would have expected that Eid prayers would serve as a reminder of what ought to be done to make families breath with ease by having their loved ones back into their homes.
The incident of 14th and 16th April are politically motivated and they require political solutions. The fact that two persons have died in detention should serve as an eye opener to the State. What is needed now is to use any occasion to reduce suffering rather than ignore wise counsel and prolong the suffering of others.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 23 Jul 2016 : 10:49:35
A speech by Lawyer Darbe that he was not allowed to read in court for being sentenced to a 3-year prison term by the Nigerian mercenary judge Eunice O. Dada
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA CRIMINAL CASE NO. HC/179/16/CR/060/AO BETWEEN:
THE STATE ... COMPLAINANT AND
OUSAINOU DARBOE ... 1ST ACCUSED PERSON
KEMESSENG JAMMEH… … 2ND ACCUSED PERSON
FEMI PETERS ... 3RD ACCUSED PERSON
LAMIN DIBBA ... 4TH ACCUSED PERSON
LAMIN JATTA … 5TH ACCUSED PERSON
YAYA BAH … 6THACCUSED PERSON
BABUCARR CAMARA … 7TH ACCUSED PERSON
FAKEBBA COLLEY … 8THACCUSED PERSON
ISMAILA CEESAY … 9TH ACCUSED PERSON
MOMODOU FATTY … 10THACCUSED PERSON
DODOU CEESAY … 11THACCUSED PERSON
SAMBA KINTEH … 12TH ACCUSED PERSON
MAMUDU MANNEH … 13TH ACCUSED PERSON
NFAMARA KUYATEH … 14TH ACCUSED PERSON
FANTA DARBOE … 15TH ACCUSED PERSON
LAMIN NJIE … 16TH ACCUSED PERSON
JUGUNA SUSSO … 17THACCUSED PERSON
MOMODOU L.K SANNEH ... 18TH ACCUSED PERSON
YAYA JAMMEH … 19TH ACCUSED PERSON
MASANEH LALLO JAWLA … 20TH ACCUSED PERSON
ALLOCUTUS OUSAINOU DARBOE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE UPON CONVICTION ON 20TH JULY 2016
May it please the honourable court, I am 67 years old. At the age of 19, I started the pursuit of knowledge in earnest. I focused on attaining qualification for admission to university. My goal was to read philosophy and political science. Then I had no vision.
In the Christmas of 1967, I was home for the Christmas vacation. On a day, the exact date of which I cannot recollect, I found my father sitting with some of his constituents – my father was then the honourable member representing Lower Fulladu in the House of Representatives. He introduced me to his supporters in words I have never forgotten and I will never forget i.e “Camrade (meaning comrades) this is my son, he is in form six in Gambia High School and when he is finishes his study in Gambia High School, he will go to England to study and come back to be the Commissioner MID (McCarthy Island Division)”. His comrades prayed for my success at my exams and the fulfillment of my father’s dream.
From that day I had a vision – a vision to have a university degree and return to the Gambia to serve my people, particularly the people of MID now Central River Division (CRD). I envisioned myself going to the villages to talk to the people not just as an administrator but as their brother, cousin, nephew and son. One who can easily appreciate that the problems faced by every person in MID is the same problem that my mother, aunt and uncle face.
However my father’s dreams which formed the basis of my vision in life was not to be. An incident occurred in this country whilst I was still a sixth former. The president of Senegal had made a statement which in effect described the Gambia as a nation of smugglers. This did not go down well with the well-informed and educated young men of the day most of whom viewed the then Senegalese president as a neo-colonialist and such insults would not be tolerated. This statement was made a few days before the Senegalese president was due in Banjul to officially open a branch of the BICI bank in Banjul.
The occasion for the opening of the BICI bank provided an opportunity for some Gambians to protest at the statement that tended to show Gambia in a bad light. In the course of the protest, information reached our school that a member of the teaching staff of the school was arrested. The class to which I belonged was the most senior class in the school. Some of us trooped out and came to the police station at Buckle Street, where we believed our teacher was detained. The police quickly dispersed us. I took refuge in the then Supreme Court. Although I was brought up by Gambia’s most prominent lawyer PS N’jie, I had never seen the inside of a court room except that day. I sat in the court room watching the lawyers arguing and I loved the Latin phrases they uttered.
On this day, I decided to disappoint my father. I no longer had the vision of becoming a provincial administrator. I wanted to become a lawyer and worked hard to pass my Advance Levels with grades that will make it difficult for a university in any Commonwealth country to reject my application for admission.
My Lady, in September 1969, I got news from the Ministry of Education that AAI secured a place for me at the University of Lagos, Africa’s Premier University, to read law and that the entire cost of my studies – university to law School – would be met by the AAI. At University, I had the privilege and honour of being lectured by one of the most distinguished lecturers, Professor IO Elias.
My Lady, at the beginning of my third year in university, I started envisioning my role in Gambian society. From the cases I read in criminal and constitutional law, I concluded that I must become a state law officer, rising through the ranks to become solicitor general or Director of Public Prosecution and ultimately branch off to the bench and be one of the honourable justices of the Gambia.
It was my vision that I will bring up my family in the way a great man, solicitors-general, Directors of Public Prosecution or justices bring up their families and give them the best of education, taking them for holidays to the UK, USA and of course Nigeria. My vision then as a law student was rather self-centered. The focus was on me as a person and my family.
In May 1973, I returned to the Gambia after passing my final exams for the law degree and took up appointment as a prosecutor. Due to the state of the laws regulating the admission to the Nigeria and Gambia Bar, I could not be called to the Bar until November 1973. I became the first Gambian to pursue his first professional legal training outside, England, Ireland or Wales. I also became the first person of provincial origin to become a lawyer and I am also the first Mandinka who with pride describes himself as barrister.
My Lady, upon being admitted to the Bar in November 1973, I was appointed a state counsel. I started seeing the fulfillment of my selfish and self-centered vision being achieved. I served as a law officer for seven years, during the period that I was in the law office, I was conflicted with myself.
As a civil servant I knew I was subject to the direction of my superiors but as a barrister, particularly when appearing in court, I held myself answerable to no one except the ethics of my profession. One of the positions I held in the Ministry of Justice was acting Registrar General and Curator of Intestate Estates. At this time, I was also responsible for drafting of legislations.
The leadership of the Gambia Workers Union was not making life easy for the government. The union was not in compliance with the law as to the filing of annual returns. As acting Registrar General, I, on instructions of my superiors de-registered the Worker’s Union. I went home in distress. I pondered on the various legal theories, I read in jurisprudence. In this particular case I saw the Marxist theory of law at play i.e that the law is an instrument of oppression in the hands of the oppressor. The governor uses the law to subdue the governed.
My Lady, since that day, I have fought hard to ensure that whenever and wherever I can, whatever I do as a lawyer will negate the Marxist theory. I became a staunch disciple of Jeremy Benthan – I subscribed and still subscribe to the view that the law must be used to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
My Lady, in my humble view one of the ways to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number is to fearlessly stand for and uphold the rights of the ordinary persons and protect them against executive excesses. I have always believed that the criminal justice system should really be used to combat crime.
My Lady, in my humble view one of the ways to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number is to fearlessly stand for and uphold the rights of the ordinary persons and protect them against executive excesses. I have always believed that the criminal justice system should really be used to combat crime and criminals. It should never be used to get at political opponents or perceived political opponents. I expressed my total rejection of the use of the law to suppress rights in or about 1980 when a gentleman by name MI Jallow was brought before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on an allegation of murder. In those days persons accused of murder were subject to a preliminary inquiry depending on the sufficiency of the evidence, the person is either indicted on information or discharged. Section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code was then unadulterated. The right to bail was presumed. MI Jallow was granted bail.
The State Law Office was unhappy. I was assigned the file to apply to the Supreme Court (now the High Court) to vacate the order granting bail. Mr Jallow was a prominent member of the “NTerrikafo”, a group of people perceived to be opponents of the then ruling party. I examined the reasons advanced by the magistrate in granting bail and I found myself unable to argue against it. I faced my client – the Gambian state, then personified by the Attorney General in this particular instance and said to him, “I will not go to court and argue in favour of a position that I do not believe in”.
Gambia opposition UDP protest
UDP Leader Ousainou Darboe, fourth from the right, leading a protest against the arrest and murder of Solo Sandeng by NIA officers
My refusal to argue a case I do not believe in was dictated by my belief that when I pick up a case file and proceed to court, I cease to be bound by any directive or administrative code. I am independent but I also realised that such independence might have limits and I do not want to be bugged down by limitations – so I proceeded on five months vacation during which period I tendered my resignation. My vision of being a career law officer came to an end but the reasons leading to it helped shape a vision that is more altruistic.
I set up Basangsang Chambers in June 1980. The first two cases – criminal – in which I was involved as part of the defence team again revealed to me that the executive, even if the government however democratic, law abiding and benevolent may use the law to suppress dissent. I, with Mr Secka, a lawyer of sharp intellect and profound ability defended some gentlemen who were charged for managing an unlawful society. We also defended a group of young men who were alleged to have been in possession of arms. The evidence showed that the arms were in fact bows and arrows. I stood against the misuse of the criminal justice system and sided the oppressed.
My Lady, in July 1981 there was an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government by a group of people who did not seem united in their objective. The attempt failed resulting in massive arrests. A state of emergency was declared. I appeared and defended at least 200 people who were brought before the Review Tribunal established to investigate the allegation of involvement in the failed coup and make recommendations to the president for their release.
From 1981, I represented accused persons in some of the most celebrated criminal cases – amongst them the State v SM Dibba, the State V Musa FK Sanneh & ors, the State v Ebrima Barrow. These are some of the treason cases in which I offered pro bono services for the sake of justice. I also argued some of the most celebrated constitutional law cases – Halifa Sallah & ors, V Speaker of the National Assembly, UDP v AG, Kemesseng Jammeh v AG & UDP, NRP & allied Momodou K Sanneh v AG. In the areas of administrative law, I have to my credit the case of Continent Bank v Central Bank.
My Lady today in every court of the Gambia, the case of the Fatou Badjie v Joseph Bassen is cited daily in support of one or other proposition of law. I am proud that I took up some of the issues in the Supreme Court. I am gratified that in my advocacy I have contributed to the development of the jurisprudence of this country in various ways. In some of the treason cases, I was ably assisted by Mr AAB Gaye of counsel. In my practice I had the privilege of appearing before several judges the majority of them being Nigerians. They included the honourable Justices Adeyinka Morgan, EO Ayoola Sr, EO Ayoola (CJ), Olatawura, Akanbi, Wali, Ejiwumi, Ahmed Belgore, AD Yahya, CS Yusuf, N, Izuako, Okoi- Itam, Ihekire, Omosun (CJ). The Gambia was never so blessed. I was proud and still proud that the country in which I received my legal education could produce so eminent and fearless jurists willing to serve in a sister African country to uphold the rule of law.
My Lady speaking of eminent Nigeria jurists, it will be remiss of me if I fail to mention honourable Justice Ota and Agim. The latter we all know was at one time Chief Justice. Before then he was DPP I locked heads with him in many cases. I will just mention the cases of IGP v Omar Amadou Jallow, a senior executive member of the opposition PPP and the State v Ebrima Barrow & Ors earlier mentioned. Honourable Justice Agim was one of the most accomplished prosecutors I faced. We both have enormous respect for each other. He, like Chief Justice EO Ayoola often exchanged views with me on legal issues and the administration of the judiciary.
My Lady, in my readings of cases from various Commonwealth and common law jurisdictions, I became particularly impressed with the judicial valour of honourable Justice Belgore CJN, Hon. Justice Oputa, Hon. Justice Esso, Hon. Justice Obaseki, Hon. Justice Uwais, Hon. Justice Wali, Hon. Justice Karibi-White amongst many other justices of the Nigerian judiciary. It is a fact that these justices faced the greatest challenges any judicial officer could face.
They had the onerous task of dispensing justice in an era dominated by military dictatorship. Yet they demonstrated by their decisions that the law speaks the same language under a military dictatorship as under a democratically elected government. Such cases as Obuya Memorial Hospital v AG, Ojukwe v Military Governor of Lagos State are ample testimony to the fact that these justices of the superior courts of Nigeria would do nothing but to advance the rule of law and keep executive excesses at bay.
My Lady, when a Nigerian national assumes office as one of the justices of the Superior Courts of the Gambia, I look for an Obaseki, Esso, Oputa, a Wali, a Belgore, an Ejuwumi, an Ayoola, a Karibi-White and all those justices of the Nigerian judiciary who are the subject of the book titled “Tribute to Courage”. The opinions of those great defenders of the law have influenced me a lot in my practice of the law. They have provided for me the elan to be more of service to the public than to my family. It was in the spirit of serving the public that I took the risk of defending many members, ministers and public officers – of the ousted regime. In fact, I was detained by the military junta. This did not deter me in my quest for justice for those who for good reason fall out of favour with the executive.
My Lady, during the military rule, it dawned on me that any government whether a dictatorship or a true democracy turns first to lawyers for whatever its wishes to accomplish. It is the lawyers that draft the most draconian legislations. It is also the lawyers that draft and draft legislation that catalyst economic growth and development with its attendant by products. It is also the lawyers who help put in place a constitution that may or may not establish an autocratic rule.
My Lady, the preamble to the 1997 Constitution states amongst other things that “we the people of the Gambia have accomplished a great and historic task. We have had our say on how we should be governed”.
My Lady, I was part of that historic task and I have had a say in how we Gambians should be governed. I did so in this very court room wherein members of the Gambia Bar Association met to make recommendations to the Constitutional Review Commission on the new Constitution of the Gambia. I was then vice president of the Gambia Bar Association. I was also a part of a small group of lawyers comprising Mr OME Sillah, Mr PCO Secka of blessed memory and Hon. Justice RC Sock that submitted various recommendations to the Constitutional Review Commission. Of interest to me is the independence of the judiciary. I saw then the threat to the independence of the judiciary. I believed that a provision such as Section 120 (3) of the Constitution, together with an Esso type of judges will guarantee the absolute independence of the judiciary. I believe that with an independent judiciary no one will starve of justice. I believe that with an independent judiciary, democracy will be constitutionalised.
In August 1996, I was compelled to answer the call of Gambians who believe in democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law to lead the United Democratic Party UDP). It was and still is the hope of ushering in true democratic values in the Gambia. The United Democratic Party seeks to falsify Karl Marx’s theory that the law is an instrument of oppression. The United Democratic Party believes in utilitarianism – to use the law as a vehicle for the maximisation of the happiness of the greatest number of people.
Since 1996, I have been on the side of the law. I have encouraged my supporters to respect the law and eschew violence. That is why, except in the cases presided over by foreign nationals, members of the UDP who have faced prosecution in this country have been acquitted. It is my cardinal belief that every law enforcement officer has the authority to arrest persons suspected of having committed an offence. But I reject the slightest notion that a law enforcement officer has authority to arrest any person and subject him to torture resulting in his death. This is murder. I cannot condone it, and no civilised nation will condone it.
My Lady, I objected to the Gambia Police Intervention Unit’s arrest of Ebrima Solo Sandeng and his subsequent detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) during which period he was murdered. His death was never communicated to his family or his political associates. There was no coroner’s inquest to ascertain the cause of his death. His remains have not been delivered to his family. The ordeal he went through before he breathed his last breath is deposed to in an affidavit sworn to by Nogoi Njie filed in support of the habeas corpus application pending before this honourable court.
On the same day and at the same NIA, premises, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara and Nogoi Njie were brutalised by persons who one can only conclude are agents of the NIA. They were subjected to the most horrendous acts of brutality. They were not only humiliated by the thugs. The torture inflicted on them was more severe on the most private parts of their lives. The humiliation, the horrendous acts of barbarism meted out to these women is humiliation and barbarism to all women of Africa and the Gambia in particular.
My Lady, if these are not sufficient and good reasons for any person with conscience to go on a peaceful demonstration/procession to ask for the release of Solo Sandeng dead or alive, and to protest against the humiliation and acts of thuggery committed on these women? Every woman in the Gambia today stands in solidarity with Solo Sandeng’s wife. Every woman in Africa and the Gambia in particular stands in solidarity with Fatoumatta Jawara, Nogoi Njie and Fatou Camara.
My Lady, instead of the perpetrators of these crimes of murder and torture of these women being brought before the courts to answer for their acts of criminality, I and my people are flung before the courts at the behest of our political adversary.
My Lady, I refuse to ask this court to be lenient with me because in so doing I am accepting the fact, that Mr Sandeng deserved to be tortured to death by the security agents of this country.
My Lady I know the purpose of an allocutus but I refuse to ask this court for leniency because in so doing, I break rank with Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara and Nogoi Njie who in spite of their humiliation and acts of horrendous brutality committed on them are now being persecuted at the behest of our political adversary whilst the real criminals are walking freely on the streets of Banjul and congratulating themselves for accomplishing their acts of brutality.
When I was flung before the court, I comforted myself with the belief that I will have the full protection of the Constitution and other laws of the Gambia. But I was disappointed. My experience as an advocate led me to conclude that my conviction as a pre-arranged revelation in court. Every procedural rule guaranteeing my fair trial was ignored.
The first theory any law student in law school learns in that Civil Procedure Rules apply to the trial of civil matters and criminal Procedure Code applies to the trial of criminal matters. My right to representation by counsel as provided for by the constitution was denied because this court ruled that we the accused persons can defend ourselves against the charges we face. I do not know which constitution in a common law country makes a distinction between offences for which an accused person can be represented by counsel and those for which an accused must defend himself.
I have not been availed the due process of law. Because of my pre-arranged conviction and because I strongly believe that my political adversaries have their eyes on this case, this court, it is very evident that this court, as some of the ex tempore rulings show, has deprived me of a fair trial. I will not in the circumstances ask the court for leniency. To do so will be accepting that I was availed the due process of the law when I was not.
My lady, on 21st April 2016 heavily armed Police Intervention Unit officers escorted me and my co-accused to court.
Your Ladyship could not have failed to notice the presence of these armed security officers in and around the court. Since 21st April up to date each day I come to court, I do so in handcuffs. I am not indicted on any felony. All Gambians who know me will attest to the fact that I and my party members are not violent and we eschew violence by any one including members of all security outfits in The Gambia.
Putting me and my co-accused handcuffs is very symbolic and sends a significant and profound message to all and sundry. The handcuff represents the chain bondage, it shows that there is no free-man in the Gambia – we are all crawling under our political adversary who towers above all of us as a colossus. It also tells that no one can truthfully give evidence in court in a case such as the one I am involved in. It tells out in no certain terms that even judges look over their shoulders in cases such as this. It shows that there is no one in the Gambia now is free to act according to the dictates of his or her conscience.
It is my mission to reverse this unacceptable state of affairs by means that accord both the laws and constitution of this country. It is my mission to actualise for Gambians the preamble statement in the constitution that it “provides for us a fundamental law, which affirms our commitment to freedom, justice, probity and accountability.”
My Lady, logic demands that ironies are rejected. One of the ironies in this case is that Nigerian lawyers can reject the application of the constitutional law principles expounded by eminent judges of the courts in IGP v All Nigerian People’s Party. Those principles are being rejected because Nigerian judges here believe that Nigerians deserve better protection of the constitutional provisions that are in pari material with the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia, but we who are born and live in the birth place of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights sometimes called the Banjul Charter, we who are born and live in the country that hosts the African Commission on Human Rights, the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies and other international human rights organisations, we are born and live in the natural home for an African Court for Human rights can be denied the same protection by a court presided over by a Nigerian aided by a Nigerian who pretends to be a prosecutor. It is for all these reasons that I refuse to ask the court for any leniency.
My Lady, I am not embarrassed by this conviction. My children, brothers, cousins, sisters are not embarrassed by my conviction. My political family and my friends are not embarrassed by my conviction.
Today I take pride standing amongst the likes of Chief Obafeni Awolowo, Chief Anthony Enahoro, Mallam Amunikodi, Ken Saro Wiwa, President Olusegun Obasanjo, Dr, Kwame Krumah, Nelson Mandela, Abdoulaye Wade (former President of Senegal) and President Alfa Condeh of Guinea.
My Lady I am prepared to receive the sentence that I believe has also been predetermined even before my arraignment.
But before receiving the sentence, it is obvious to everyone that I am the prime target of this persecution. I would therefore ask that the other accused persons be sentenced to time already served.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 22 Jul 2016 : 10:39:10
UDP Leader Darboe, 18 others, jailed for 3 years
By Kebba Jeffang
Foroyaa: July 21, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11323
The High court in Banjul on Wednesday, July 20, 2016 presided over by justice Eunice Dada of the criminal division of the high court, From right Momodou Sanneh Fakebba Colley Lamin Dibba Lawyer Darboe Kemeseng Jammeh Femi Peters Aji Suwareh Bojangfound 19 members of the United Democratic Party (UDP) including the party leader Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, guilty of six counts charges and accordingly sentenced them to a term of 3 years imprisonment without hard labour.
The sixth accused person Yaya Bah, the driver of Momodou Sanneh was discharged while the 3rd count against all the accused persons was struck out after the prosecution failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
In court, the DPP appeared for the state while the accused persons were not represented.
Justice Dada reminded the court that the charges against the accused persons are seven which are unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without permit, disobedience to lawful order and conspiracy.
She said during the trial, the defendants have applied for bail but it was turned down due to security concerns. She said the defence team led by Counsel Antouman Gaye applied for ‘denovo’ seeking for the restart of hearing following the transfer of the case to her but it was overruled.
She said the defence also applied for a ‘stay of proceedings’ as certain counts were taken to the Supreme Court for interpretation but that application was refused. She added that lawyer Gaye complained of denial by security officers of having private discussion with their clients after the court itself had granted such stand down. She explained that upon resumption in court, Mr. Gaye said “in view of the fact that the accused persons are persistently denied their constitutional right we have nothing to do here,” and he led the entire team members marching out of court.
She said in proving their case, the State has called 11 witnesses who all testified in the trial including the arresting officers and those who took the cautionary and voluntary statements from the accused persons while in detention.
She said the State has also filed number of exhibits including the statements of the defendants and also an address filed on the 19th July, 2016. She further said PW1 upon his recall, application was granted by the court, The Point newspaper copy was tendered as exhibits where the 1st accused person was quoted saying: “If this can get Solo Sandeng what about us. We are going to hold a procession to demand for his release, dead or alive without a permit because it is our Constitutional right.”
However, she confirmed that none of the witnesses were subjected to cross examination.
The trial judge indicated that on the other hand, the accused persons were called upon after the closure of the prosecution’s case to enter their defence to narrate their own side but she said the first accused Ousainou Darboe responded that: “I have said our rights have been infringed so I will not participate in a trial where my right is not protected.” She said the rest of the accused persons kept mute.
Justice Dada said at this juncture, the DPP applied to file a written address but the 1st accused person remained insistent that he would not be participating in the trial thus there will be no address from them.
“On the 19th July, 2016, prosecution’s address was adopted where the DPP urged for their conviction.”
She noted that “it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt on whether the assembly was unlawful, the charge ‘riot’ can breach peace and whether the published banner can lead to destruction or damage of properties as stated in the charge sheet.
She said she would determine the case using three conditions including whether lack of participation of the defence can affect the trial. She said it was submitted by the DPP that the silence of the accused persons could mean that they are resting their case on the prosecution. She said her determination of the case would be based on the totality of the evidence before her.
She said she would also rely on the cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused persons. She quoted the first accused person’s cautionary statement indicating that Lawyer Darboe said he has been practicing law since 1973. She said Darboe stated in his statement that he saw an article on the Voice newspaper that some youths have participated in a protest and one of the members of the UDP Solo Sandeng was killed. She said Darboe added that they conducted a peaceful demonstration demanding for his release dead or alive and that they did not apply for a permit because it is their constitutional right. She said she would rely on the totality of the evidence before the court.
She noted that she would determine whether lack of permit can cause fear or trouble. She declared that the particular charge is proven by the prosecution because the marchers had no permit.
On count two ‘riot’ she holds that this count stands too against the accused persons because there was obstruction and the noise challenging the government.
On count three, she struck out the charge because what was established as evidence is the accused persons were demanding the release of Solo Sandeng but not inciting violence. “This count failed and it’s struck out,” she ruled.
On count four, “riotously interfering with vehicles, she said it was testimonies of evidence that there was traffic jam and accordingly it stands.”
On the fifth count of violating Public Order Act which is liable to punishment of 3 years imprisonment, she said “this is a law of the Gambia and it is very clear. This was proved beyond reasonable doubt,” said justice Dada.
She said count six of disobedience to a lawful order is well established and proven. She said the seventh charge which is conspiracy is also proven beyond reasonable doubt for the fact that all these accused persons confirmed in the cautionary statements that they met at the residence of the first accused person.
She said Yaya Bah, the sixth accused person is acquitted because he stated in his statement that he is only a driver of Momodou Sanneh and was not present in the house during the discussion but instead was standing outside where he was arrested. She said Fanta Darboe also wrote in her statement that she is dual citizen and she visited his uncle lawyer Ousainou Darboe where she was arrested after someone pointed at her.
“However, the evidence of Fanta Darboe is unbelievable. The case against Yaya Bah is struck out. Accordingly all the 19 accused persons are found guilty for all the charges except count three,” she ruled.
At this juncture the trial judge pointed out that contrary to what the first accused lawyer Darboe stated, the Nigerian judges in the Gambia are not helping to promoting justice like they do in other places. She argued that the Nigerian judges have no personal infringement against any Gambian citizen.
She also ruled that there will be no plea of mitigation for the convicts because she said they have choosen to keep mute during the trial.
Accordingly, Mr. Ousainou Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Jukuna Suso, Momodou L.K. Sanneh, Yaya Jammeh and Masanneh Lalo Jawla were sentenced to one year for unlawful assembly, 6 months for riot, 6 months for riotous interference with vehicles, 3 years for holding procession without permit, 3 years for disobedience to lawful order to disperse and 6 months for conspiracy to commit a felony.
The sentences are to run concurrently. In effect they are jailed for three years.
Upon their conviction and sentence and prior to their leaving the courtroom, the accused persons together with their supporters jointly raised their voices to sing the national anthem.
The other militants could be seen wailing while their loved ones were being taken away to the waiting van that was later seen in the middle of the convoy heading towards the Central prison at Mile 2 under tight security.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 22 Jul 2016 : 10:36:38
WHAT IS THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE THREE YEAR SENTENCE ON THE UDP LEADERSHIP?
Foroyaa Editorial: July 21, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
WHAT IS THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE THREE YEAR SENTENCE ON THE UDP LEADERSHIP?
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11325
There is every reason to conclude that a “Free Ousainou Darboe and UDP members” campaign will take place everywhere there are Gambians on all sides of the political spectrum. Hence UDP is not being killed. It is kept alive. We hope that parties will be kept alive by being free to campaign for votes rather than through earning sympathy from all those who have hearts to feel the pain of others in their times of need.
There is also the case of the driver of the former minority leader who is acquitted and discharged because of the evidence he gave that he was just caught up in the process. Fanta Darboe also gave a similar explanation which was highlighted by the court. She was however not acquitted and discharged. She has a strong case in any appeal if the rule of proof beyond reasonable doubt is applied to the letter.
The National Assembly members should bear in mind how to make laws. Penalties which impose custodial sentences of three years without the option of a fine tie the hands of courts. These types of laws oust the mercy of courts and make them retributive. The hands of the courts should not be bound since they are faced with first offenders, lactating mothers and people who are caught up in cases without having any criminal intent. The law should give maximum sentences but the minimum should be left to the discretion of the courts.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 22 Jul 2016 : 10:23:30
THE DUTY OF JUDGES BEFORE SENTENCING
Foroyaa Editorial: July 21, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11327
Judges are the guardians of justice. They are supposed to be independent and impartial in the exercise of their judicial powers, they are not supposed to be under the direction or control of any other authority but the constitution and the law. This is the dictate of section of 120 subsection (1) of the constitution which reads:
¡§In the exercise of their judicial functions, the courts, the judges and other holders of judicial office shall be independent and shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law, and, save as provided in this Chapter, shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority.¡¨
When a judge finds a person guilty before sentencing the person the person has a right to be heard. The reason for this is simple. A court has power not to convict a person after he or she is found guilty. This is why the person is accorded the opportunity to make a plea in mitigation.
Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes it a duty for judges to inform those guilty to have their say. It reads:
¡§If the accused person is found guilty or pleads guilty, it shall be the duty of the judge to ask him whether he has anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him according to law, but the omission to ask him shall have no effect on the validity of the proceedings.¡¨
This is very clear. Judges are duty bound not to deprive accused persons of this opportunity. Needless to say, only judges who forget their duty could be absolved if they deliver judgment without listening to what the accused person has to say. Justice is not vindictive. The courts are courts of justice, but also courts of mercy. That is why final judgment must be influenced by both. It is not always necessary to punish an accused person. This is why judges are given discretionary powers to mitigate punishment after finding a person guilty.
For example section 267 subsection (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states:
¡§Where any person is charged with an offence not punishable with death and it appears to the court that the charge is proved but that having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed or to the trivial nature of the offence, it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation, the court may, instead of convicting and sentencing him at once to any punishment, order that he be released on his entering into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to appear for conviction and sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.¡¨
We hope the courts and judges will be mindful of their duties at all times. This is how to build the integrity of the courts.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 21 Jul 2016 : 20:27:28
Darboe & 18 others jailed for 3 years
The Point: Thursday, July 21, 2016
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/darboe-18-others-jailed-for-3-years
The Banjul High Court presided over by Justice E.O. Dada yesterday sentenced the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and 18 others, to three (3) years in prison without hard labour.
The judge also struck out the name of the 6th accused, Yaya Bah.
The accused persons were convicted on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 while count 3, which is incitement of violence, was not proved by the prosecution.
All the accused persons were convicted accordingly: count one, 1-year imprisonment, county two, 6 months, count four, 6 months, count five, 3 years, count 6, 3 years, and count seven, 6 months.
The sentences are to run concurrently.
The other accused persons are Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yaya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Jukuna Suso, Momodou L.K. Sanneh, Yaya Jammeh and Masanneh Lalo Jawla.
They were indicted on seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, and incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession, and conspiracy.
The court was crowded by the UDP supporters, who came from across the country to witness the judgment of their party leader and his members.
The leader of the PDOIS party, Halifa Sallah and GDC leader Mama Kandeh were also in attendance, as well as members of the Gambia Bar and students of the law school, amidst a heavy security.
Delivering her judgment, the trial judge said the accused were charged with seven counts and they pleaded not guilty.
She said the prosecution opened their case and called 11 witnesses, adding that the accused persons failed to open their defence or file a written address.
She said the court turned down the bail applications of the accused persons on the grounds that the charges show they posed a security threat to the nation.
She also said there were several applications brought by the defence for the court to a stay its proceedings, which were also turned down.
The prosecution was then called upon to open their case, she added.
The judge also stated that the defence team led by senior counsel Gaye also walked out of the case, on the grounds that there was a “persistent denial” of the accused persons’ rights.
At the closure of the prosecution’s case, the accused persons were called upon to enter their defence, but they failed to do so.
They also failed to file an address, and the prosecution’s address was adopted and the matter set for judgment.
Justice Dada said that, in his address, the DPP said the state had proven its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and that the accused persons’ failure to participate in the trial showed that they tended to rest their case on the prosecution.
The DPP then urged the court to convict the accused persons, she said, adding that it was her view that the accused persons’ refusal to participate in the case meant they tended to rest their case on the prosecution.
She added that the evidence before the court was that the accused persons demonstrated without a permit, and that caused panic in the neighbourhood.
The prosecution had proven the burden of their case beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, but failed to prove count 3, which was therefore struck out.
She said that while Yaya Bah could be believed that he had “nothing to do with the matter”, Fanta Darboe, who said she paid a visit to her uncle, was not persuasive upon deciding to remain silent.
The judge, therefore, struck out Yaya Bah’s name from the charge sheet.
She said the accused persons have been mute throughout the trial, and that they would not be allowed to do a plea of mitigation, as the 1st accused might misuse it to the detriment of the court.
The 1st accused had said the Nigerian Judges were infringing upon the rights of Gambians, but that she wanted “to assure the good people of The Gambia that the Nigerian Judges are here to uphold the laws of The Gambia”.
She, therefore, sentenced them accordingly.
After her verdict, Darboe and the rest of the accused persons got up and started singing the National Anthem, while the supporters and family members started weeping, as they said good-bye to their loved ones.
Author: Halimatou Ceesay |
| Momodou |
Posted - 21 Jul 2016 : 11:10:54
Gambia opposition leader Ousainou Darboe jailed
BBC Online
Protests were held in Banjul after an opposition politician was allegedly killed in custody in April
The Gambia's opposition leader Ousainou Darboe and 18 others have been jailed for three years for taking part in an unauthorised demonstration.
In April, they were part of a group protesting about the alleged death in custody of an opposition activist.
Rights group Amnesty International described the sentences as part of the "continuing downward spiral for human rights in Gambia".
President Yahya Jammeh has in the past dismissed criticism of his record.
Political tensions are rising in the country in the run-up to elections in December, says the BBC World Service Africa editor James Copnall.
Mr Darboe and many of his supporters from the United Democratic Party (UDP) took to the streets in Serrekunda, near the capital, Banjul, on 16 April, demanding the release of their colleague Solo Sandeng "dead or alive".
He had been arrested, along with other activists, two days earlier, and it was alleged that he had died in custody after being beaten.
Mr Sandeng has not been seen since and Amnesty International says he was killed.
The judge found that Mr Darboe did not have permission for the demonstration and sentenced him, and the 18 others, on six charges relating to this.
Reports from the court says the convicted activists sang the national anthem after they were sentenced.
In a statement, the UDP called the trial a "farce" and described the verdict as a reflection of "a corrupt and discredited effort to arrest, torture and persecute innocent citizens".
In an interview in May, President Jammeh said it was "common" for people to die in detention or while under interrogation.
He said UN chief Ban Ki-moon and Amnesty International could "go to hell" for asking for an investigation.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 21 Jul 2016 : 10:51:36
Gambia: Prison sentences for opposition leaders continues downward spiral for human rights
Amnesty International: 20 July 2016
The conviction of opposition leader Ousainou Darboe and 18 other peaceful protestors highlights the continuing downward spiral for human rights in Gambia, Amnesty International said today.
Following a court decision this afternoon, 19 people including the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) have been sentenced to three years imprisonment. They were found guilty on six counts relating to participating in unauthorised protests on 16 April 2016 in the outskirts of the capital Banjul. They were found not guilty of incitement to violence, while one man was found not guilty on all counts..............................
Read more
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 20 Jul 2016 : 22:12:31
Tthe Nigerian female judge has today sentenced Lawyer Darboe the UDP Leader and 19 others to 3 years in prison.
A dark day in Gambia's political history. |
| Momodou |
Posted - 19 Jul 2016 : 22:56:17
Culled from Kairo News
Darboe Tells Justice Dada ‘Deliver Your Ruling Right Now’
By Musa Saidykhan — July 19, 2016
In a defiant tone reminiscent of a hero, Gambian opposition leader has told Justice Eunice O. Dada Oshin of the High Court in Banjul to deliver her twisted, wrong verdict today.
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe made his statement when called upon to give their defence against the seven allegations levelled against them. Lawyer Darboe stood up, repeatedly telling Yahya Jammeh’s Mercenary Judge ‘we’ve told you time and time that the trial is a farce and a miscarriage of justice. And we reiterate that we will not help you legitimise this sham process. I urge you to conclude to verdict right now. We’re committed to the cause of justice and political freedom in the Gambia.”
At this juncture, the Nigerian Judge decided to adjourn the case until Wednesday, July 20th when she will deliver judgment in a politically motivated case.
Lawyer Darboe interrupted Justice Dada, telling her “please give your verdict right now so that people can know how wrong this whole process is. There is no need for adjournment since you were unfair from the begining to now.”
The Judge continued and said ‘the case is adjourned till Wednesday 4pm for her verdict.”
Read more .........
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 06 Jul 2016 : 17:31:58
Will the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions intervene to withdraw charges preferred against the UDP leadership and the other members on trial?
Foroyaa Editorial: July 6, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Will the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions intervene to withdraw charges preferred against the UDP leadership and the other members on trial?
The Muslim elders who will appear before the president after the eid prayers should speak the mind of the Gambian people who are yearning for a country where all citizens enjoy respect for their human rights and tolerance of religious, ethno linguistic and political diversity. It is important for the country to move towards the creation of an environment conducive to free, fair and genuine elections.
This is inconceivable where the leader of a major opposition party is incarcerated. The long trial without bail for a peaceful march to show concern for a member who is reported to have died after arrest cannot go down well with any reasonable person who subscribes to peace and justice. We therefore hope that the concerted effort being galvanized to effect their release would be supported by the religious leaders as they conclude the fast month.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 06 Jul 2016 : 17:08:40
Darboe: “I will not participate in any trial where my Rights are infringed”
By Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: July 5, 2016
 Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, Party Leader of United Democratic Party (UDP)Lawyer Darboe is has again told the Banjul High court presided over by Justice Eunice O. Dada that he will not participate in any trial where his rights are infringed. Mr. Darboe made this remark when he was asked by the courtFrom right Momodou Sanneh Fakebba Colley Lamin Dibba Lawyer Darboe Kemeseng Jammeh Femi Peters Aji Suwareh Bojang interpreter whether he wished to open his defence in a trial involving him and 19 other supporters of his party.
He continued, “We are accused persons unrepresented by counsels. The court had earlier indicated that we can defend ourselves. The Gambia is a place where the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has its headquarters. I am sure the judges in Nigeria stood by their citizens and protect their rights. In The Gambia we have a judge who does not respect the rights of the citizens”.
“Our rights are being denied by the court that should protect our rights. I do not expect this court to take away those rights. I will not participate in any trial where my rights are infringed”, said Darboe.
This evoked clapping and murmuring in the courtroom from the party militants and sympathizers in attendance. The Court said people were clapping and that it is inconsistent with the decorum of the court and warned that the court won’t tolerate it again and if it happens again they will not be allowed in the subsequent sittings.
The other accused persons are Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yahya Bah, Baboucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Juguna Suso, Momodou L.K Sanneh, Yaya Jammeh and Masaneh Lalo Jawla.
Justice Dada in her ruling held that the response of the first accused has been noted.
The court interpreter was ordered by the Judge to interpret in wollof to the 2nd-20th accused whether they wish to open their defence or whether they will wait for their lawyers. However, the court interpreter Mr Camara was heard saying he has sore throat.
He later left saying he was going to the restroom and came back with the Judicial Secretary who was seen talking to the judge. Justice Dada later informed the court that the Judicial Secretary has replaced Mr. Camara with P.M. Bojang an interpreter.
When P.M Bojang interpreted the question to the 2nd-20th accused persons as to whether they wish to open their defence or wait for their lawyers, but they all remained silence.
Justice Dada in her ruling held that the response of the 2nd-20th accused persons is recorded as mute.
At this juncture, the Hadi Saleh Barkun, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) told the court that in view of the position taken by the accused persons not to open their defence, he is applying for 7 days to file their written address.
The court interpreter was again ordered by the court to ask the accused persons how many days they will need to file their addresses.
However, before the court interpreter asked them, Lawyer Darboe stood up and said, ”I will not contradict myself by filing a written address. I earlier said if I am convicted I will say why sentence should not be passed on me”.
While adjourning the case till 12 July, 2016 at 12noon for adoption of addressees, Justice Dada granted 7 days to the prosecution to file their written address. |
| Momodou |
Posted - 27 Jun 2016 : 20:31:35
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
