| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Momodou |
Posted - 12 May 2016 : 18:15:47
April 14 alleged demonstrators denied bail
The Point: Thursday, May 12, 2016
 The alleged demonstrators on the amended charge are Lamin Sonko, Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Modou Touray, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Alhagie Fatty, Alhagie Jammeh, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Lamin Jatta, Lamin Camara, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yabo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, Bubacarr Touray and Saderr Secka, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kawsu Bayo, Modou Ngum, Ebrima Jabang, and Kalilou Saidy.
They were indicted on a seven-count of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
When the case was called DPP S.H. Barkun alongside with Deputy DPP M.B. Abubacarr appeared for the state.
Senior Counsel Antouman Gaye led the defence team along with A.N. Bensouda, H.S. Sabally, O.M.M. Njie, R.Y. Mendy, N. Cham, C. Gaye, Yasin Senghore, A. Sissoho, and S.M. Tambadou, among others.
Delivering his ruling, the trial judge said the applicants filed a bail application based on sections 19 and 24 of the constitution of The Gambia and section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said the applicants each filed an affidavit in support of the motion.
He said that in response, the DPP filed an affidavit in opposition replying to all the applicants individually.
Justice Ottaba said the applicants’ affidavit in support of the motion stated that the offences charged “are all bailable”, and that they had people who would act as sureties when granted bail.
It also stated that the applicants when admitted to bail would not jump bail or interfere with witnesses or investigations.
The affidavit also stated that some of the applicants have medical problems, while others said that they are breadwinners of their family.
It further stated that the offences are bailable, and urged the court to grant the applicants bail.
They also said the state had charged and brought the applicants to court, which means that the investigation was over.
On the issue of national security, the applicants’ counsel stated that the charges did not state that it had anything to do with national security.
They, therefore, urged the court to exercise its discretion and admit the applicants to bail.
The respondents, the judge went on, in their affidavit in opposition, stated that investigations are still ongoing in the case, and that the applicants might flee the jurisdiction if granted bail.
They also stated that the applicants when released on bail might interfere with witnesses and the investigation, and that “the offences are serious” and concern national security.
It was further stated that there was likelihood that the applicants might commit the offence again.
He also said the state in their affidavit in opposition further stated that going through the affidavit in support, the applicants had woefully failed to convince the court in exercising its discretion.
The fact that “they are sick does not warrant” the court to admit them bail, because “there are medical facilities in prison.”
It also stated that when granted bail they might go ahead with their unlawful protest again.
The state, therefore, urged the court to refuse the bail application.
Replying on points of law, the judge continued, the applicants’ counsel stated that since the applicants are in detention the burden to justify bail could not be placed on them.
The applicants’ counsel, therefore, said the court should consider the presumption of innocence of the accused persons and admit them on bail on reasonable terms.
“It is factual that bail is not a matter of cost or automatic, but it depends on the facts, circumstances and peculiarities of the case,” the judge said.
There was no doubt that the offences the applicants are charged with “touch on the security and peace” of the country.
He added that the charge brought against the applicants was a serious one and, therefore, granting them bail might send a wrong signal to the society.
He added that with regard to the materials before the court, there is a prima facie case against the applicants and that there was a possibility of the applicants jumping bail.
“In view of the facts, circumstances, peculiarities in relation to the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, likelihood of the offence being committed again and prima facie case against the accused persons, I, therefore, hold that this application lacks merit and hereby dismissed,” the judge announced.
Senior Counsel Gaye then told the court that they wanted to make the same application for the court to stay proceedings on counts 5 and 6, but to save time they want to adopt their application made in the case involving Darboe and 19 others.
However, the DPP objected on the grounds that these are two different instances.
“We agree that the two cases are different even though the charges are the same. We apply for your lordship to stay the application of this case pending the determination of the application in Darboe and Co case,” he said.
The trial judge granted the application, saying the outcome of the ruling on the application for a stay of proceedings on counts 5 and 6 in the Darboe and Co case would determine the next step that would be taken in the case.
The case was then adjourned until 17 May 2016.
Meanwhile, senior Counsel A.N. Bensouda said the court had previously made an order that the prison’s rules should be applied to the accused persons, as they are remand prisoners and not convicts.
She told the court that from the reports coming from their clients, “they are not allowed food from outside and, when they complain about ill-health, they are only given paracetamol.”
“We applied that they be treated like any other remand prisoner and also allowed to exercise their privilege guaranteed by the law. All prisoners have the right, and if the prison authority failed to comply with the court order we are ready to pursue a contempt suit against them.”
The DPP then said there was no need for any other order, because he had confirmed that the previous order of the court was complied with, and said the court could asked the prison officer.
The prison officer, Kalifa Bojang, said that since the order was served to the Director of Prison the accused persons “are given access”.
The trial judge said that it was important to treat the accused persons as innocent until the contrary is proven.
He said the accused persons should enjoy the rights and privileges within the rules of the prison.
Author: Halimatou Ceesay
Source: http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/april-14-alleged-demonstrators-denied-bail |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Momodou |
Posted - 07 Dec 2016 : 12:37:21
14 UDP supporters granted bail
By Halimatou Ceesay
The point: Wednesday, December 07, 2016
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/14-udp-supporters-granted-bail
Fourteen supporters of the United Democratic Party (UDP) were yesterday granted bail by the Special Criminal Court in Banjul presided over by Justice O. Ottaba.
The accused persons were Bakary Jammeh, Kaddy Samateh, Lele Bojang, Alakali Sanneh, Yaya Fatty, Muhammed Singhateh, Kemo Touray, Bakary Marong, Buba Mass, Alagie Saidykhan, Tombong Njie, Modou Sarr, Sheriff Suma, and Lamin Dampha.
They are being tried on a seven-count charge of conspiracy to commit felony, unlawful assembly, and riot, incitement of violence, interfering with vehicles, holding procession without permit and disobeying an order to disperse.
They were granted bail of D100,000 with a surety each, who must be a Gambian and must enter into recognisance to avail the presence of the applicants in court. They should also depose to an affidavit of means.
When the matter was called, B. Jaiteh appeared for the state, whilst A.N.D. Bensouda, H.S. Sabally, R.Y. Mendy, B.S. Touray, Y. Senghore, C. Gaye and A. Njie appeared for the applicants.
Delivering his ruling on the bail application in a packed courtroom, Justice Ottaba said it was certain in law that an application for bail might be brought as many times as possible, if a new change of facts and circumstances arise.
He said it amounts to an abuse of court process when a repeated bail application is brought to the court without any change in facts and circumstances.
He added that the applicants were refused bail because they posed a threat to national security, but he now agreed with learned counsel that if they were not released on bail it would pose threat to the peace and stability of the country based on the prevailing circumstances in the country.
The judge said he would, therefore, exercise his discretion and grant the applicants bail taking into account that the charges were a misdemeanour.
They were granted bail accordingly, and the matter was adjourned until 22 December 2016.
Meanwhile, UDP supporters led by the deputy party leader stormed the court house with a huge crowd to await the verdict of the court.
After the ruling of the court granting the applicants bail, they were seen laughing and calling out Allah’s name aloud, and saying they were very happy that things had “turned out this way”.
Some of them said they had been longing for this day, when they would be free to support and belong to any party of their choice.
After the court sitting, the UDP team led by the deputy party leader was seen doing the paper work to secure their freedom, and re-unite them with their family members.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 03 Nov 2016 : 14:50:48
UDP 14 case: PIU officer declines to tell court why month-old-baby was arrested
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Pont: Thursday, November 03, 2016
The first prosecution witness, Sub-Inspector Alagie Touray, a PIU officer, who claimed to be part of the arresting team that arrested the 14 supporters of the United Democratic Party (UDP), yesterday declined to tell the court why a month-old-baby of the 2nd accused person was arrested along with her mother.
The PIU officer was responding to a question put to him by senior counsel Hawa Sisay-Sabally, before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Court.
The accused persons are Bakary Jammeh, Kaddy Samateh, Lele Bojang, Alkali Sanneh, Yaya Fatty, Muhammed Singhateh, Kemo Touray, Bakary Marong, Buba Mass, Alagie Saidykhan, Tombong Njie, Modou Sarr, Sheriff Suma, and Lamin Dampha.
They are being tried on a seven-count charge of conspiracy to commit a felony, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse.
The state was represented by counsel Ade and A. Yakubu, whilst the defendants were represented by senior counsel Hawa Sisay-Sabally, R.Y. Mendy, Y. Senghore, C. Gaye and A. Njie.
Under cross-examination, senior counsel H.S. Sabally asked the witness whether Kaddy Samateh, the 2nd accused person, was arrested on her way home from attending the Ousainou Darboe and Co trial, which her husband was part of. Is that correct?”
“No,” PW1 said.
“Why was she arrested?”
“No idea,” said the witness.
“It was correct that when she was arrested and taken to the PIU, her one-month-old-baby was taken to her for breastfeeding, and the baby was also arrested and detained?”
“No idea,” said PW1.
“Are you aware that once the baby was arrested and detained, the officers at the PIU asked the family to bring diapers for the baby because you don’t know how to take care of a month-old-baby in custody?”
“No,” PW1 responded.
“I am putting it to you that it happened.”
“No,” he said.
“Can you tell the court the crime the one month-old-baby you arrested committed?”
“I don’t know.”
“It is your evidence that the accused persons were arrested at the ICE Man Junction?”
“Yes.”
“I am putting it to you that it was the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th and 13th accused that were arrested at the ICE Man Junction, and not all the accused persons.”
“I don’t know.”
“There is another junction called Cooperative Junction, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“At that Cooperative Junction, the 9th and 11th accused were arrested there, and not at the ICE Man Junction.”
“I don’t know.”
“Is it not correct that the 1st, 5th, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 14th accused were arrested at Kairaba Avenue near Ousainou Darboe’s compound, after having a nice lunch?”
“I don’t know.”
“Whom did you arrest personally?”
“I did not arrest anybody.”
“On 9 May 2016, the case of Ousainou and others was proceeding at the High Court. You know that as a fact, don’t you?”
“Yes.”
“Is it correct that most of the accused persons attended the court that day in Banjul?”
“I don’t know.”
“Were you part of the PIU at the court that day?”
“No.”
“I am putting it to you that the reason why PIU arrested these people is because of their affiliation to the United Democratic Party (UDP). Is that not correct?”
“I don’t know.”
“When the PIU arrested them, they gave the accused persons a severe beating. Is that correct?”
“I don’t know.”
“It is correct that the PIU took the accused person to Jangjanbureh Prisons after beating them, where they were detained for several weeks.”
“I don’t know.”
“The 12th accused, Modou Sarr, was onboard a vehicle with his driver when the PIU stopped him and arrested him with his driver and took him to PIU headquarters in Kanifing.”
“I have no idea.”
“I put it to you that there was no unlawful gathering that day.”
“I don’t know.”
The case continues on 7 November 2016, at 4 pm.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 30 Jul 2016 : 15:03:06
State admits Solo Sandeng died in custody
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Friday, July 29, 2016
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/state-admits-solo-sandeng-died-in-custody
The Banjul High Court presided over by Justice E.O. Dada yesterday dismissed the writ of habeas corpus to produce UDP Solo Sandeng, after the respondent admitted in their affidavit that Solo Sandeng died in custody.
Delivering her judgment, Justice Eunice Dada Oshim said court papers revealed that “the Government has set in motion an inquiry surrounding his death”.
She said an originating summons dated 25 April 2016 filed by the applicant was seeking a writ of habeas corpus to have the body of Ebrima Solo Sandeng, and for the court to make a declaration for Solo Sandeng who was detained to be released unconditionally.
She added that the affidavit stated that the applicant went on a peaceful protest on 14 April 2016 at Westfield, where he was arrested and since then no one heard of him, and his family was being denied access to him and there was no reason stated why he was not charged and brought to court, which was a “violation of the applicant’s right”.
The affidavit sworn to by one Nogoi Njie, the deponent, stated that she saw the applicant in a deplorable state due to the beatings he got at the NIA, and that was the last time she heard or saw him.
The respondent’s affidavit deposed to by one Saihou Omar Jeng, Director of Operations at the NIA headquarters, stated that on 14 April 2016, an “unlawful protest was held in the Westfield area of Kanifing Municipality. The demonstrators held banners calling for unspecified electoral reform and a change of Government.”
The deponent stated that “the applicant and others were approached by law enforcement officials who inquired whether they had a permit, and they replied in the negative. That the applicant and the others were told to disperse, and there was an attempt to arrest the leader of the demonstration, which was the applicant, but he resisted arrest.”
The deponent admitted that the applicant was denied access to his family, and that the applicant lost his life in the whole process of arrest and detention; that the Government has set in motion an inquiry surrounding his death, and that the reason for not charging the applicant was as a result of “his death.”
The judge further said that counsel for the applicant asked the court to make an order for the respondent to produce the body of the applicant, and to conduct proper investigation to ascertain the cause of his death and bring forward facts concerning his death.
Counsel Binga D. for the respondent argued that the government had established a committee to look into the death of the applicant.
The judge added that she had looked carefully through the application before her, and that it was revealed in the application before her that the applicant was dead.
“While the main issue touches on the life of Solo Sandeng, this application was dealing with a dead body. This court cannot extend its armpit outside its jurisdiction. The court cannot, therefore, make an order to produce the dead body of Solo Sandeng.”
“The application is incompetent for the fact that it has been overtaken by circumstances, and hereby dismissed.”
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 28 Jul 2016 : 12:26:14
Solo Sandeng’s Habeas Corpus Case: Judgment Deferred
By Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: July 28, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11388
 The habeas corpus case filed by lawyers for the production of Mr Ebrima Solo Sandeng did not proceed yesterday 26 July, 2016 as theSolo Sandeng 2 trial Judge did not sit.
The case was scheduled for judgment yesterday before Justice Eunice Dada of the Banjul High court as per the course list, but a judicial source informed this reporter that the trial judge is attending a workshop.
However, the next adjourned date was not confirmed to this reporter.
Mr. Sandeng was arrested on the 14 April, 2016 at Westfield for his role in a protest. Since then he has not been seen by family members or produced in court for trial.
However, the group that he led in the Westfield protest were brought to court, prosecuted and sentenced by the Mansakonko High Court in the Lower River Region.
When is the Ebrima Solo Sandeng’s habeas corpus case to be heard?
Foroyaa Editorial: July 28, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11390
QUESTION OF THE DAY
When is the Ebrima Solo Sandeng’s habeas corpus case to be heard?
Our findings revealed that it was in the cause list of the high court and should have undergone judgment yesterday. Apparently, the judge was not available. The case therefore could not proceed.
We will pay particular attention to this due process of law. The name of Ebrima Solo Sandeng is associated with the incidents of 14 and 16 April 2016 which have so far landed 39 people in jail. If this is not history, it should close to it. The fact that his whereabouts is yet to be legally established is a matter of great concern.
We will therefore pay close attention to the proceedings and inform the public accordingly.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 26 Jul 2016 : 10:16:51
Fatoumatta Jawara, 10 others Imprisoned
Rohey Jadama Reporting from Mansakonko LRR
Foroyaa: July 26, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11356#more-11356
   The Mansakonko High court in the Lower River Region of the Gambia presided over by Justice SimeoFatoumata Jawaran Ateh Abi on 21 July, 2016 Nogoi NjieFatou Camarahas sentenced Mrs Fatoumatta Jawara, the Chairperson of the Female Youth Wing of the United Democratic Party(UDP) and 10 others to fines and imprisonment.
The other convicts are Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lasana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alagie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum.
The accused persons were charged with ‘Unlawful assembly’, ‘Riot’, ‘Incitement of Violence’, Riotously interfering with vehicle’, ’Holding a possession without a permit’, ‘Disobeying an order to disperse’ and ‘conspiracy to commit a felony’.
Justice Abi said the accused persons are arraigned on an amended information on 15 June, 2016. He said when the charges were read to the accused persons they kept mute and pursuant to sections 223 and 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he entered a plea of not guilty for all of them.
He said in a criminal trial the onus lies in the hands of the prosecution to prove its case.
The trial judge said the prosecution called a total of 8 witnesses to prove its case.
He said Pateh Baldeh the first prosecution witness(PW1) said on the 14 April, 2016, while at the PIU office in Kanifing and while on standby they received a directive to go to Westfield junction to go and disperse a group of people who gathered unlawfully protesting against the government.
PW1 said upon their arrival with their commander, they found a large group of people assembling unlawfully and blocked the traffic on the high way, obstructing movement of the vehicles. All the vendors’ shops at Westfield were closed and people were running.
The trial judge said the witness added that they found them with their banners and flags. He said an unknown person was holding a public Address System advocating “Gambians are hungry, why is the border closed? We need a proper election for a better reform”.
He continued, “That is the time our commander used a P.A System and asked them for a permit , there was no answer from anybody . They started shouting again provoking the situation and that is the time their commander read the proclamation to them. “That in the name of the president of the Islamic Republic of the Gambia that I’m hereby warning all of you to disperse from your this unlawful assembly and go to your lawful businesses”. He said they disobeyed his commander and he again used different local languages to them but they still disobeyed him.
He further told the court that while they were waiting for an order, his commander told them that this is the last warning that whosoever refuses to disperse from this unlawful assembly shall be arrested with their minimum force. He said they refused and that they were given an order for their arrest which they effected. He said those who were arrested were taken to the kanifing PIU for further police actions.
The accused persons were asked whether they have any questions for PW1 and whether they wish to cross-examine him but they did not respond to him, said the judge.
He said the court ruled that in view of the failure of the accused persons to ask PW1 questions when called upon to do so, the court recorded that all the accused persons had no question for the witness and the witness was thereby discharged.
He said at the closure of the prosecution’s case the accused persons were asked whether they wished to open their defence, but there was no response from them and they were reminded of their right to remain silent.
He said Lawyer A.M Yusuf in his address urged the court to sentence the accused persons because the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial judge held that the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 were consistent. He said they all testified that a group of people assembled unlawfully at Westfield, that all the vendors’ shops were closed and people were running. He said none of the accused persons cross-examined the witnesses therefore, he said the evidence stands uncontroverted. He also added that the banners and whistles also tendered in court were not challenged by the accused persons.
“It is evidence that they intended to disrupt the traffic and that is in fact an offence. Carrying a banner and the wordings being read by a member of the group is an assembly for a purpose. I therefore find and hold that it is as a result of fear that the neighborhood ran away and the prosecution has proven the elements of count one”, said the trial judge.
Justice Abi said it is already in evidence that when PW1, PW2 and PW3 went to Westfield they found the accused persons with banners stating “Why are the borders closed?”, “Gambians are Hungry”, “No fifth term for a dictator, enough is enough”, “We need an electoral reform”. He held that the elements of count three has also been proven by the prosecution.
“The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 indicated that the accused persons assembled in a manner which made the neighbourhood to run away. I find and hold that the accused persons riotously interfered with vehicles. The prosecution has proven the elements of count four”, said the trial judge.
Justice Abi said the prosecution has proved that a public procession has taken place without a permit. He said PW1, PW2 and PW3 testified that when their commander asked the accused persons a permit, they failed to produce it.
He continued, “To make matters worse the accused persons refused to cross-examine the witnesses or open their defence to challenge that evidence. The witness emphasised that their commander took a megaphone and read the proclamation to them but they disobeyed the order and they were warned again and they refused to take heed and the order for arrest was given which was effected”.
Justice Abi added that the witnesses testified that they found the accused persons in large crowds at Westfield and the accused did not challenge this evidence. He held that the prosecution has proved count seven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons conspired to commit felony.
He said the 1st accused Lamin Sonko stated in his statement that he received a call from one Solo Sandeng to meet him at Westfield. Fatoumata Jawara also said in her statement that she was from school MDI the day of their arrest and she further said she is the female youth leader of the UDP. He said it is only Alagie Fatty who did not associate himself as an active member of the UDP.
“This court cannot speculate what the accused persons would have said in their defence and the evidence presented by the prosecution is overwhelming. I therefore, find and hold that all the accused persons are guilty on all the counts.
All accused persons are sentenced on count one (‘Unlawful assembly’) 1 year imprisonment without hard labour; Count two (‘Riot’) a fine of D20,000 in default to serve 2years imprisonment; Count three (‘Incitement of Violence’) 3 years imprisonment without hard labour; Count four (Riotously interfering with vehicle’) a fine of D20,000 in default to serve 2years imprisonment; Count five (’Holding a procession without a
permit’) 3 years without hard labour; Count six (‘Disobeying an order to disperse’) 3 years imprisonment without hard labour and count seven (‘Conspiracy to commit Felony’) 3 years without hard labour.
However, it is not clear whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. He only stated that parties are reminded of their right to appeal against the judgment.
The accused persons did not do their plea in mitigation.
After the delivery of the verdict by the trial judge, the accused persons were chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and they later sang the National Anthem together with their family members and sympathizers in the courtroom.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 25 Jul 2016 : 14:38:58
April 14 UDP Westfield protesters jailed for 3 years
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Monday, July 25, 2016
 The Mansakonko High Court in the Lower River Region presided over by Justice Abi Thursday convicted and sentenced 11 UDP supporters charged with protesting at Westfield on 14 April 2016.
The accused persons were Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alhajie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum.
They were sentenced on count one, to 1 year in prison; count two, to a fine of D20,000 in default to serve 2 years in prison; count three, 3 years in prison; count four, to a fine of D20,000 in default to serve 2 years in prison; count five, 3 years in prison; count six, 3 years; and count 7, 3 years in prison.
The sentences are without hard labour, and the convicts were reminded of their right to appeal if they wish to do so.
They were charged with seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
Delivering his judgment, the trial judge, Justice Abi, said the accused persons were called upon to take their plea on the charge, but they all remained mute.
He said the accused persons out of “malice and mere stubbornness” refused to take their plea, and a plea of not guilty was then entered on their behalf.
He said the prosecution was called upon to prove their case, adding that the prosecution called eight witnesses in proving their case.
The trial judge then read the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, and said the accused persons were called upon to cross-examine the witnesses and object to the tendering of exhibits, but “they all refused” to do so and it was recorded that they did not have any questions or objections.
After the testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution applied for a stand down to advise themselves on whether to close case or call another witness, the judge said.
After the stand down, the prosecution announced the closure of their case.
Since the accused persons were unrepresented, they were reminded of their right to enter defence.
When called upon and asked if they wanted to open defence or exercise their constitutional right to remain silent, some of the accused persons shook their head in negative response, while others remained mute.
He said the court then recorded that they did not wish to open their defence.
Justice Abi further stated that as a general rule, the burden of proving the ingredients of the case was on the prosecution which should be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
He said the address filed by the prosecution, represented by A.M. Yusuf, submitted that in light of the evidence laid before the court the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, and urged the court to convict the accused persons.
He said in proving count one, which was unlawful assembly, the prosecution has to show that three or more persons assembled, intended to commit an offence, caused a breach of peace or provoked other persons to cause a breach of peace.
He said the testimonies of PW1, 2 and 3, therefore, stood un-contradicted since the accused persons did not cross-examine them.
He said on the issue of assembling with intent to commit an offence, the question was whether the act of the accused was intended to commit an offence.
He said the accused never denied being in a crowd affecting the flow of traffic and, therefore, it had been proved that it was intended to commit an offence.
It was the evidence of PW1 that shops were closed and people fled, he said.
“I find and hold that it is due to fear that the people closed their shops and fled. I find and hold that count one is proven beyond all reasonable doubt,” the judge added.
On count two, which was riot, the trial Judge said the people at Westfield, such as vendors, were put in “natural fear” and the peace at Westfield had been “disturbed” and, therefore, the count had also been proven.
Count three, which was incitement of violence, Justice Abi said PW1, 2 and 3 stated that they met a large crowd with banners and wordings written on it.
He said it was also in evidence that someone was using a public address system.
“I, therefore, hold that the accused persons had taken part in printing, publishing and distributing of the material and the banners,” he said.
He said the note from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice had consented to the prosecution of the accused persons on incitement of violence and, therefore, count three had been proven.
Justice Abi said that on count four, the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons riotously assembled and obstructed the movement of vehicles.
He said the evidence showed that they assembled and obstructed free flow of traffic and, therefore, count four was proved.
On count five and six, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession, the trial judge said that evidence has to show that the public procession took place without a permit.
He said PW1, 2 and 3 all stated that they met a crowd and asked if they had a permit, but no one produced a permit.
“To make matters worse, the accused failed to cross-examine the witnesses, which allowed the prosecution witnesses’ evidence to remain unchallenged, which means that they had no permit to show,” he said.
“I find and hold that the accused persons neglected the proclamation to disperse,” he concluded.
On count 7, which was conspiracy, the trial judge said it seemed to him the accused persons must have agreed to convene at Westfield, and that there was a crowd of people from among the accused who were arrested.
He said since the accused persons failed to testify or cross-examine the witnesses, he would consider the statements of the accused persons tendered before him.
He read all their statements and said: “In all the statements read above, it is only Alajie Fatty that did not say that he is a UDP member, but did not disassociate himself from the meeting.”
It was a gamble on the part of the accused persons when they decided to remain silent and shut out themselves from the case, he said.
“The prosecution has proven their case beyond all reasonable doubt. I therefore hold that and find all the accused persons guilty on the amended information before me,” he said.
He then sentenced them accordingly, and the accused persons were not allowed to make a plea of mitigation.
After the verdict of the judge, all the accused persons shouted “Allahu Akbarr” a few times, and then sang the National Anthem.
The court was crowded with UDP members who came all the way from the Kombos led by the Secretary General and Deputy Party Leader, Aji Amie Secka. |
| Momodou |
Posted - 23 Jul 2016 : 11:56:09
Exiled Female Opposition Activist Recounts Police Brutality
by Jollof Media Network: July 22, 2016
 (JollofNews) – A prominent Gambian opposition activist who was arrested for protesting against the arrest and detention of the leadership of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) has revealed how she was tortured and threatened with rape by security officers.
Sukai Darboe, a mother of two, and leader of the Kaalama Revolution, was arrested on 9th May in Kanifing by officers of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) while returning home from the trial of the UDP leadership.
She was held incommunicado for nearly two weeks before being charged together with Isatou saidy, Lele Bojang, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray with various offences including rioting, unlawful assembly and inciting violence.
She was later released on bail by Principal Magistrate Hilary Abeke of the Kanifing Court. She later fled the Gambia after she was threatened with murder by some State Guard officers.
Narrating her ordeal in an interview with Fatu Camara of Fatu Network, Ms Dahaba, who lost her husband about two years ago said: “I was returning from the trial of the UDP leadership in Banjul together with other UDP sympathisers. We decided to walk back to Serrekunda after local taxi drivers refused to take us back to the Kombos. When we got to Bond Road, we met some armed soldiers who barricaded the road. We explained to the soldiers why we were walking on foot to the Kombos and they told us that they would give us a lift in their truck. We declined the offer and told them to allow us to board a private vehicle instead.
“We later got a lift to Jimpex. And as we started walking towards the Westfield Junction, we saw a large number of officers running out of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) office in Kanifing who barricaded the road. As we made our way with some of the men in the group chanting “free Lawyer Darboe” and “We need Solo Sandeng”, I heard a loud bang. When I looked back, I saw the officers beating and kicking my colleagues. I also saw some officer give chase to Baby Aisha’s mother, who had given birth only four weeks earlier. She fell in a drain as she try to run away and the officers beat her so severely that she began to bleed from her privates.
“I continued walking and sought refuge at the CFAO office. A few minutes later, I was found by a tall officer who told me that he has been looking for me and he would be shagging my mum today. The officer asked me to run to the PIU office. When I started to run, he ran after me and beat me mercilessly with a hose pipe. He also kicked and hit each time he got close to me and I sustained various injuries . During the beating, the hose pipe landed on a scar I had after a recent operation, which split open and bleed profusely. I thought I was going to die......................
Read more
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 22 Jul 2016 : 10:40:57
Yestrerday, the demonstrators are also sentenced to 3 years in prison. |
| Momodou |
Posted - 22 Jul 2016 : 10:20:52
LAMIN SARJO FINALLY RELEASED AFTER 71 DAYS INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL
By Mustapha Jallow
Foroyaa: July 21, 2016
http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11321
Lamin Sarjo, an apprentice who was arrested alongside UDP sympathizers has been released after 71 days in incommunicado detention without charge. He was not also accorded access to relatives, a family source revealed.
The wife of Malang, Mrs. Amie Badjie, has confirmed that the 18 year old boy has been finally freed and is presently united with his entire family. She added that her husband and the young man were on the highway continuing their work.
It would be recalled that the apprentice-Lamin Sarjo, was amongst 36 supporters who were arrested by the PIU around Kanifing on 9 May while en route to the Kombos from Banjul after attending a court trial of the UDP leader and 19 other members.
He was said to be a nephew and apprentice of Malang Sarjo, a commercial ‘gele gele’ driver, who was part of those UDP supporters who were released on bail on 30 June at the police headquarters in Banjul.
Lamin Cham, a youth leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), had in the past corroborated the information that the young man, had been moved to Mile two prison some days ago. He added that the 18 year old boy is not part of those who were arraigned before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High court on Tuesday, 12 July 2016.
“It’s only Lamin Sarjo that is currently held incommunicado without trial. We are making effort to secure his release because his name was not part of the charge sheet and some others who were detained alongside him have been finally taken to court,” he asserted.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 19 Jul 2016 : 22:31:07
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS SHOULD TAKE NOTE
Foroyaa Editorial: July 19, 2016
Foroyaa has reported many cases of detention affecting people who were detained in prison. How a person who is not charged with any crime could be found in prison defies logic and the law.
Logic dictates that any person who is not charged with a crime, should not be punished because of the whims and the caprices of the powerful. To punish an innocent person is impunity. The law is also clear that no one should be admitted in a prison that he/she is not legally sent for detention. Section 31 subsection (1) of the Prisons Act gives a warning to all those responsible for the administration of prisons. It orders without any ambiguity that:
“No prisoner shall be admitted to prison unless accompanied by a remand warrant, a warrant or order of detention, or warrant of conviction or of committal or an order of a court martial.” A secret detention in prisons is a sign of impunity and should be stopped by those administering prisons. They are duty bound to reject any prisoner who has not been ordered to be kept in prison through a warrant of one sort or the other issued by a competent authority.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 19 Jul 2016 : 22:26:59
WHERE IS LAMIN SARJO?
Foroyaa Editorial: July 19, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
WHERE IS LAMIN SARJO?
Lamin Sarjo is an apprentice driver who is said to be 18 years old. He is not charged. The driver and transport have been released while he, the apprentice to the driver who was transporting people to the court proceedings involving the UDP leadership and members, is still in detention without trial.
Such a person should not be under detention, because of the fact that he is not charged with any crime. The authorities should quickly look into this case and release him accordingly. A young man like him should have been in high school, but instead he is struggling to learn a skill in order to become productive. Any day he spends in detention affects his development. It is unjust to expose him to detention at this age without any justification that he has been charged with an offence.
LAMIN SARJO MOVED FROM CRR PRISON TO MILE TWO
By Mustapha Jallow
Foroyaa: July 19, 2016
Information from a reliable source indicates that Lamin Sarjo, has been transferred from Janjanbureh Prison in the Central River Region (CRR) to Mile II Prison in the outskirts of Banjul.
He is said to be still held at prison without court appearance or release.
Lamin Cham, a youth leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), corroborated the information that Lamin Sarjo, has now been moved to Mile prison some days ago. He added that the 18 year old boy is not part of those who were arraigned before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High court on Tuesday, 12 July 2016.
‘‘It’s only Lamin Sarjo that is currently held incommunicado without trial. We are making effort to secure his release because his name was not part of the charge sheet and some others who were detained alongside him have been finally taken to court,’’ he asserted.
Young Sarjo, was part of the 36 supporters who were arrested by the PIU around Kanifing on 9 May while en route to the Kombos from Banjul after attending a court trial of the UDP leader and other members.
He is also a nephew and apprentice of Malang Sarjo, a commercial ‘gele gele’ driver, who was part of those UDP supporters who were released on bail on 30 June at the police headquarters in Banjul. Both are residing in Mandinaring in Kombo North.
At the time of going to press, a source informed this medium that Malang’s ‘Gele gele’ was returned to him before the Eid ‘Koriteh’.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 13 Jul 2016 : 08:44:43
NOGOI NJIE SPOTTED AT BANSANG HOSPITAL
Abdoulai G. Dibba
Foroyaa: July 13, 2016
An eye witness informed this medium that Nogoi Njie, the vice chairperson of the female youth wing of the United Democratic Party Nogoi Njieis currently admitted at the Bansang Hospital.
According to the eye witness, Madam Njie who is admitted at the women’s wing of the hospital was escorted to the said facility by prison wardens on Saturday 9 July 2016.
Nogoi Njie, one of the accused persons of the April 14 demonstrators at Westfield is standing trial at the Banjul High Court which was later transferred to Mansakonko.
When Nogoi and her co accused appeared at Mansakonko, they were remanded at Janjanbureh Prison.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 12 Jul 2016 : 21:23:46
April 14 alleged protesters’ bail appeal adjourned for ruling
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The Gambia Court of Appeal yesterday adjourned the bail appeal of the 14th April alleged protesters for ruling.
The appellants are Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Lamin Camara, Alagie Jammeh, Lamin Jatta, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yarbo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, Babucarr Touray, Sagan Secka, Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lasana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alagie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang, Modou Ngum and Kalilou Saidykhan.
They are appealing against the bail ruling of Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court.
The case was presided over by a panel of three judges, Justice O.A. Adogoke, Justice Edrissa Fafa M’bai, and Justice Awa Bah.
When the case was called, Lawyer Yassin Senghore announced her representation for all the appellants, and told the court that the appellants were absent and are in the custody of the state.
Defence counsel Senghore then applied to adopt the appellants’ briefs of argument filed on 21 June 2016.
She further urged the court to admit the appellants to bail.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Barkun said he thought the defence counsel would bring it to the notice of the court that 14 out of the 25 appellants were released.
He further told the court that he did not see the necessity for their appeal, when they were released and discharged from the case.
At this stage, he went through the names of the 14 people who were released.
In response, Lawyer Senghore told the court that they were aware that some of the appellants were released, but how they were released and the condition of their release was unknown to defence counsel.
The DPP then told the court that the 14 people were released on 15 June 2016.
However, Justice Awa Bah interjected and asked the DPP how come they were released on 15 June, because on 16 June they were in court, which ordered for the filing of briefs.
The DPP responded that they had a problem with communication.
He further told the court that the 14 people were released by Justice Abi of the Mansakonko High Court.
However, when the DPP was asked by Justice Bah whether he had the copy of the order releasing the 14 appellants, he responded in the negative.
While adjourning the case until 26 July 2016, for ruling, Justice Adogoke said the briefs of both parties were adopted, and further said it was in the interest of justice for the copy of the order to be furnished with the court before the next adjournment date.
|
| Momodou |
Posted - 29 Jun 2016 : 12:08:31
Non Service of Brief Delays Solo Sandeng’s Habeas Corpus Case
By Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: June 28, 2016
The Habeas Corpus Case filed by lawyers for the production of Ebrima Solo Sandeng did not proceed yesterday 27 Solo Sandeng 2June, 2016. The court maintained that the respondents were not served with the applicant’s brief of argument.
The case was yesterday scheduled for adoption of written briefs before Justice Eunice Dada of the Banjul High Court but the state told the court that they were not served with a copy of the applicant’s brief of argument.
When the case was called, Lawyer Lamin S. Camara told the court the applicant has filed their brief of argument pursuant to the originating summons. He further told the court that they filed it on the 21 June, 2016 and that he believes the respondent’s have been served.
Responding to Lawyer Camara, State Counsel Binga D told the court that they are yet to be served with the said brief of argument.
At this juncture the court clerk was heard saying the state has been served and the court clerk was seen handing over a copy to the state counsel Binga D in court.
Justice Dada said in the absence of any affidavit of proof of service the state is not served.
At this juncture, Counsel Binga D requested for 12 days to file the respondent’s brief of argument. However, Barrister Camara objected to the 12 days requested by Lawyer Binga D. He further argued that at the last adjourned date parties were given 7 days.
Justice Dada in her ruling ordered the state to file their brief in 7 days and 2 days for the applicant’s counsel to reply on points of law.
The case was adjourned till 7 July, 2016 at 2pm for adoption of briefs.
It could be recalled that Ebrima Solo Sandeng, the National Organising Secretary of the United Democratic Party was arrested on 14 April at the Westfield Junction while engaged in a protest. Since his arrest he has never been seen or heard from in public.
Source: http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11022 |
| Momodou |
Posted - 24 Jun 2016 : 12:56:31
April 14 alleged protesters case set for judgment
By Halimatou Ceesay
The point: Friday, June 24, 2016
The case of the April 14 alleged protesters before Justice Abi of the Mansakonko High Court, in the Lower River Region, has been set for judgment.
The accused persons are Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alhajie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum.
They were charged with seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
The case was adjourned until 21 July 2016, for judgment, by the trial judge after the prosecution closed its case and the accused persons opted for silence.
State counsel A.M. Yusuf with A. Bah appeared for the state, while the accused were unrepresented.
After an hour’s stand-down to enable the state decide on whether to call another witness or close its case, state counsel A.M. Yusuf said: “Having gone through our materials, we are satisfied with what we laid before the court; so we are closing our case.”
The trial judge, Justice Abi, then said to the accused persons, in English, that the state had closed their case and it was up to them to open their defence.
He told them that if they had something to say and wanted to swear they could do so. He also told them that if they had nothing to say and wished to remain silent they could do so, because it was their right to do so.
Having said that to the accused persons, the trial judge then called each of them by their names accordingly, and asked if they wanted to enter their defence or call a witness to talk on their behalf, but all of the accused persons opted for silence.
The trial judge then ruled that the accused persons decided to remain silent, and that under the constitution of The Gambia an accused person has the right to remain silent if he or she wished to do so, and the court has no right to compel an accused person who does not wish to give evidence in court to do so.
He, therefore, closed the defence of the accused persons.
State counsel A.M. Yusuf said they were seeking the discretion of the court to file a written address, and that he wished to deem it adopted upon filing.
The trial judge then asked state counsel Yusuf to give copies of the address to each of the accused persons, so that if they wished to reply they might do so.
However, A.M. Yusuf said that since the accused persons opted for silence there was no need for them to reply to an address.
He said it was only legal practitioners representing the accused persons that would file or address the court on their behalf. He did not quote any law to support his argument.
The trial judge then gave A.M. Yusuf until 7 July 2016 to file his address, which was deemed adopted upon filing.
The case was then adjourned for judgment.
Meanwhile, the 1st accused, Lamin Sonko, addressed the court on issues affecting them while being detained.
He said the trial judge, Justice Abi, ordered for them (the accused persons) to be remanded at Mile 2 Central Prisons, but instead they “are being remanded at the Jangjanbureh prison” and two of the accused persons “are seriously ill” and they “do not have access to their doctors”.
He said Lamin Marong, the 4th accused person, has an eye problem and was supposed to go for an operation, but he could not see his doctor because they “are still remanded at Jangjanbureh”.
Delivering his ruling on that, Justice Abi said it was his view that the prison officers that run Mile 2 Central Prisons and Jangjanbureh prisons “are one and the same,” and where they chose to keep the accused persons was at their discretion considering the location of the case and the logistics involved.
He said on the issue of ill-health, with regard to the accused persons, the court could not make an order on that, because he believed the prisons medical team could handle that and if inmates are sick they should consult the prison medical team, and if the medical team wishes to refer them to any hospital they may do so.
Testifying earlier, the seventh prosecution witness, Sub-inspector Bakary Drammeh, a police officer, said he recorded the statement of Alagie Fatty and Kafu Bayo at the Mile 2 State Central Prisons.
He said he cautioned them and obtained both cautionary and voluntary statements from them. Both thumb-printed the statements and he signed them.
The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them and the state applied to tender them.
When the accused persons were asked if they had any objection they decided to remain silent. They was tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits.
The accused persons were all asked if they had any questions for the witness, but they remained silent.
The eighth prosecution witness, Foday Kombo Sillah, attached to the Gender and Child Protection Unit at the police headquarters in Banjul, said he recorded the statements of Lamin Sonko and Fatou Jawara at the NIA.
He took the court through the same process of obtaining the statements. The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them and the state applied to tender them.
When the accused persons were asked if they had any objection they decided to remain silent. They were tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits.
The accused persons were all asked if they had any questions for the witness, but they remained silent.
The state counsel A.M. Yusuf then applied for a stand-down to enable them decide whether to call a witness or close their case.
The matter was then stood down for an hour.
The case was witnessed by the UDP deputy party leader with some supporters of the UDP and family members, who came all the way from Banjul and other places to witness the case and also brought along food, clothes as well as money for the upkeep of the accused persons.
The accused persons were escorted from Jangjanbureh prison in a truck by the security.
|
|
|
