 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Aug 2012 : 22:20:10
|
UNDERSTANDING THE DEBATE ON ABOLITION OR MAINTENANCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 12:39.
The media is supposed to disseminate ideas that will awaken the public. There is a tendency for certain media houses to go to the public and ask them to state opinions on subjects they know little about in the name of sounding public opinion.
Newspapers must know when to seek general opinion and when to seek expert opinion on a subject. The issue of death penalty cannot be argued in the Gambia from the angle of Shariah since the constitution of the Gambia is not based on Shariah but on secular Republican principles. Section 100 subsection (2) has in fact stated that "the National Assembly shall not pass a bill to establish any religion as a state religion." The Gambia is therefore a secular state. This is what the Gambian media should teach all Gambians.
Secondly, the debate on the death penalty should take place within the context of the constitution of the Gambia and other laws relevant to the subject matter. The constitution of the Republic did not abolish the death penalty outright but imposes restrictions on its application and orders for the National Assembly to review the desirability of abolishing or retaining it within ten years after the coming into force of the constitution. This is stated in Section (3) of the Constitution which reads: "The National Assembly shall within ten years from the date of the coming into force of the constitution review the desirability or otherwise of the total abolition of the death penalty in the Gambia." The constitution therefore is not conclusive on the issue of the death penalty even though it provides for it with conditions. The media should promote an enlightened debate on whether the death penalty should be retained or abolished. An enlightened debate should first contextualize the death penalty in a criminal justice system. A criminal justice system in a Republic provides for the right to fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The courts have power to hear cases, give judgment and sentence a convict to suffer punishment of a fine or custodial sentence which could go up to life imprisonment or death. Each crime is allotted an appropriate sentence in line with the criminal justice system of a country.
After many years of review of the criminal justice system many countries have come to realise that killing a person who has caused death to another only transforms the state into a perpetual taker of life in the name of avenging the death of a natural person. They realised that the person who ends up doing the killing will bloody his or her hands just because he or she is instructed to do so and could suffer psychological guilt for taking life of a person who has done nothing to him or her. To save the state from being a perpetual spiller of blood such countries have removed the death penalty from their statute books in their criminal justice system and make life imprisonment as the severest punishment for heinous crimes.
Foroyaa is of the opinion that the debate is not whether the person who commits murder should be punished or be allowed to go free. The debate is whether life imprisonment or the death penalty should be the severest penalty for murder.
In Foroyaa's view we should save all state employees from earning a living by being a hangman who takes the lives of others on behalf of the state. The most decent of the severest punishment for murder is life imprisonment. This is the point.
Gambia is a part of ECOWAS and the African Union. Each country is trying to be an example for others to follow. There is the desire to harmonise all laws and practices of countries.
Source: Foroyaa
Related Topics:
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 23:10:52
|
THE NATIONAL CONSCIENCE SHOULD NOT GO TO SLEEP ON UNENLIGHTENED DEBATE ON THE EXECUTIONS
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Friday, 31 August 2012.
Foroyaa is receiving enquiries from families regarding what to do to know when to give their third day or seventh day charity of those who have been executed.
Foroyaa has made it abundantly clear that crime goes with punishment. Each punishment should be equal to the crime committed. In the Gambia, the crime of murder and treason could be punished by imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or death. Many countries which used to have the death penalty in their statute books and have abolished it did so because of the realisation that the state should not have blood in its hands by turning employees into killers on behalf of a State. Hence many have concluded that life imprisonment would punish the murderer but would not bloody the hands of the State and would not give a hangman any moral dilemma for killing someone for a job. Foroyaa subscribes to the view that life imprisonment should be the severest punishment that should be meted for a crime in our statute books.
As for the burial arrangement of those executed, what Foroyaa could say is that Section 253 subsection 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code states: "The minister of Justice may from time to time make and, when made revoke rules to be observed on the execution of the judgment of death as he may from time to time deem expedient for the purpose, as well of guarding against any abuse in such execution as also of giving greater solemnity thereto, and of making known without the prison walls that such executions is taking place or has taken place".
Death row prisoners do have families and possessions. They may have religions believes. One would imagine that the solemnity the Act calls for is to provide the person with access to family members to give their last wishes and have audience with a religious leader for any spiritual purpose. What is to be done with the body should be witnessed by family members and or the religious leaders. This is the way to guard against abuse before and after the implementation of a death penalty. The State should therefore invite the family members and inform them officially what has happened and what is left of their properties or any will they may left behind. They should not be allowed to learn about events through the media.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2012 : 23:15:07
|
DIPLOMATIC CONTROVERSIES FROM THE EXECUTIONS
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Friday, 31 August 2012.
The Government should take note that rumours are rife that other death row prisoners have been executed. We have been reaching out to the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Justice for correct information but they have been rather busy with meetings.
We are aware that there is an intensification of diplomatic engagements of the government at home and abroad. Representations are being made and demonstrations are being organised against the executions. However it is important for the government not to allow families to learn about the execution of their family members through the media. We have made it clear that powers given to Presidents and Ministers to make regulations, issue orders and proclamations by laws should be given legal effect by publication in the Gazette. We have warned against the conduct of public affairs by informal, verbal and arbitrary rules of engagement. Even public holidays are declared overnight without publication in the gazettes. This is not proper administration and we have warned against it. In our view, if the letter and spirit of Section 253 of the Criminal Code was adhered to the current controversy would not have arisen.
Even stock of goods are accounted for not to mention human beings in custody. The law makes the state fully accountable for all persons in state custody. This is why even in a state of emergency the names of detainees are published in the gazette. Prisoners who die in custody are required to be subjected to Coroner's inquest in accordance with the Coroner's Act. This is the way to determine whether the death is natural or a by product of abuse.
In our view, the weakness of the President is due to the fact that all pressure groups have been neutralized. A democratic government is restrained to do what is right by the pressure exerted for it to do what is lawful or in line with standards of best practice. These pressure groups come in the form of unions, Human Rights associations or oversight institutions like commissions and the media. In most cases instead of bowing down to national pressure which is sovereign, democratic, constitutional and lawful it ends up bowing down to international pressure which is humiliating. This is the lesson of history to be learnt. A government that refuses to be dictated to by its own citizenry always ends up bowing down to the dictates of external powers, when the going gets rough. This is the sad history of third world leadership.
We therefore hope that in these defining moments the National Assembly members and the council of elders of the APRC would move away from propaganda and accept the facts surrounding the executions. It is then that they could give good advice to the President to put a halt to the executions and promote a review of the desirability of abolishing or retaining the death penalty as a punishment for crime. In our view life imprisonment is severe enough since Gambia is a secular state.
First and foremost, the majority leader should tell his members and their council of elders that it is wrong to say to the media that it is the Constitution which orders the president to implement the death penalty or that it is the courts which orders the president to implement the death penalty. The court could only sentence a person but has no power to sign a death warrant to execute a person. The Constitution could only say that a person could be killed for killing another person but has not made it mandatory for the person who has committed murder to be executed. The National radio and TV should entertain a debate on this matter. Taranga FM and other stations should be free to disseminate divergent views on this matter.
What Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure code states is that if court sentences a person to death a copy of the finding and sentence should be forwarded to the president and the Minister of Justice .The Minister of Justice should advise the president and the president has absolute power to issue a death warrant or commute the sentence of death to life imprisonment, or pardon the person with conditions or unconditionally. It is the absolute power of the president to decide to execute or reduce sentence to live or even pardon the convict.
It goes without saying that if the president signs a death warrant it should state when and where the execution is to take place and where the person is to be buried. He or she could say the body will be given to the families and that would happen. The Minister of Justice has full powers to make rules
on how executions could be carried out to prevent abuse.
Finally Section 18 protects the right to life. It does not make it mandatory for the President to take life because one has taken life. It simply says that no one has the right to take the life of a person intentionally. If the state does that the family could take the state to court to seek redress. However, if life is taken as a result of the execution of a death sentence then no one could make claims for redress for that life. That is all section 18(1) is saying. That is how matters stand in this debate. Foroyaa is ready to carry it out to its logical conclusion in the interest of fundamental justice and the public interest.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 12:45:13
|
VP condemns politicisation of executions
Daily Observer: Published on Monday, September 03, 2012
The vice president and minister f Women’s Affairs has strongly condemned the politicisation of the recent execution of nine death row prisoners, by certain people in the country and beyond. Her Excellency Aja Dr. Isatou Njie-Saidy was speaking during a courtesy call made to her Friday at her office in State House, by the Council of Elders of the West Coast Region.
Read Full Story |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 14:48:12
|
Alas!!!
Daily News Editorial: Published on Friday, August 31, 2012
So, President Yahya Jammeh has indeed spilled blood. Oh, but why? His justification is that those he killed had killed. It is a law described as ‘eye for an eye’. But this law is biased against murder. For instance, why doesn’t the state rob he who robs, maim he who maims, steal from he who steals, or assault he who assaults? Instead, these offenders are either imprisoned or fined. Or even sentenced both to a fine and imprisonment in some instances.
Who will, therefore, tell President Yahya Jammeh that killing he who kills is not justified? Who will tell him that killing he who kills never deters others from killing? The United States of America is a perfect example, where, despite the executions, murder is on the rise. And who will remind President Yahya Jammeh what Mahatma Gandhi who Black Africa so loves to identify with, said: ‘an eye for an eye leaves the whole society blind’?
Of course, these and other queries in protest against death penalty had been publicly demonstrated. President Jammeh did hear them. But he chose not to listen. What he gains from his actions is that the public, in whose interest he supposedly killed, is angry with him. Is this not ironical? Moreover, The Gambia is once again in the global media for all the wrong reasons, and at the time when the tourist season commences. Even more is that he antagonises the entire world. Consequently, his government is likely to face the wrath of the international community. In so many ways, the common man, not his executive government, will bear the brunt.
Now, the Executioner, who has been thirsty for twenty-seven years, has a river of blood to drink from. Oh, peaceful mother Gambia is bleeding. But in this 21st century, who will be the Moses that would salvage us from this Pharaoh tendency that invades the country, robs us of our genteel temperament and hardens our hearts?
Those executed were nine in number. They were all, but convicted for separate murders, which occured from the year 1985 to 2011. But there was a recent instance when twelve died on the spot after a presidential motorcade hit them. No one is held to account for this mass loss of lives. Neither were their families compensated. Yet, the presidential convoy continues to ply our highways in a neck-breaking speed, resulting in more accidents and eventually, more deaths. How about justice for the fourteen-plus students who were shot dead by soldiers in the 2000 student uprising?
In fact, which constitution is the Jammeh administration relying on to execute people. Obviously, it is not the 1997 Constitution. The Bar Association should not remain silent on this issue. The government of The Gambia is dangerously interpreting the law in its favour. Some independent legal minds hold the strong argument that death penalty is no longer constitutional in the country, as the conditions laid down for its legality has not yet been fulfilled. That, as stated in section 18 (3) of the constitution, the National Assembly shall review the desirability or otherwise of death penalty ten years after the constitution came into being. Fifteen years on, no review!
But even if the government relied on the law to execute, why did it do it half-hazard. For it is required by the law that certain procedures should be followed before executing anyone. Why would they kill Lamin Darboe, whose death sentence was commuted to life, after the abolition of the death penalty? He was sentenced in 1985 and the death penalty was abolished afterwards. It was reinstated in 1995, but Lamin Darboe’s sentence had already been commuted. The law is indeed never retroactive. Why is Lamin’s case different?
Why did the government summarily execute the nine death-row inmates in secret and without informing their families beforehand? What was the last wish of those executed? Which religious leader prayed for them? Where were they buried? Where were they executed? Who buried them? Why did the state refuse to surrender the bodies to the families? These questions are not answered by the state. They may never be answered by the state. And their failure to do that leaves the public with this question: Did the state have another agenda different from ridding the country of crime?
For keen observers of the developments in the country, the first shot of the Sunday killings of the nine people on death row was fired weeks before they were actually killed. In a chronological order, an attempted arrest was effected on Imam Ba-Kawsu, Teranga FM was closed down and what followed was even more bizarre: two men in Foni were forcefully taken away by men in military uniform and killed in a bush.
Then came the Eid, and the shocking message of blood spilling was delivered without respect for the ambient mood in the country. Religious leaders paid a traditional courtesy call on the President at State House, and the same message of soaking the earth with blood was reiterated without respect for their peaceful and conciliatory role in our society.
Source: Daily News Editorial |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2012 : 13:38:36
|
SECTION 18 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE NOT THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Monday, 03 September 2012
The debate is still on. The National TV (GRTS) has started to broadcast opinions on the death penalty without promoting an enlightened debate. Foroyaa would like the general public to know that nobody is saying that the person who commits murder should not be punished.
Foroyaa's position is that the harshest punishment for murder should be life imprisonment. In our view, if the harshest punishment is death someone must be employed to be the killer. That person would have to live with the picture of the person he or she has killed for the rest of his life. If the person could kill and feel nothing then he or she has been transformed into a brute or hired killer. If the person feels something then his/her conscience will haunt him/her for the rest of his/her life. In short, if most of us are asked whether we could make a living by being killers of murderers few people would accept such a career.
Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that Section 18 (1) is designed to guarantee the right to life. It provides that no one shall be deprived of his or her right to life. It reads:
"No person shall be deprived of his or her life intentionally except in the execution of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a criminal offence for which the penalty is death under the Laws of The Gambia as they have effect in accordance with subsection (2) and of which he or she has been lawfully convicted."
Hence if any person is intentionally deprived of his or her right to life his or her next of kin could take the case to the high court for redress. However, an exception is created which is being wrongly interpreted as meaning that the Constitution has made it mandatory for the death penalty to be implemented in cases of murder. The exception is that if a person is convicted of a crime whose penalty is death and that penalty is carried out that would not be classified as a violation of the right to life.
In fact, subsection (2) went further to add that even if a law made death the penalty for a given crime no court shall be competent to impose a death sentence unless the crime involves the use of violence or toxic substances that results in death. It reads:
"As from the coming into force of this Constitution, no court in The Gambia shall be competent to impose a sentence of death for any offence unless the sentence is prescribed by law and the offence involves violence, or the administration of any toxic substance, resulting in the death of another person."
This is why certain provisions that were enacted to make death a penalty for drug possessions had to be repealed because of their unconstitutionality.
Thirdly, the Constitution further called for a review within ten years of its coming into force of the desirability of abolishing or retaining the death penalty. Section 18(3) reads:
"The National Assembly shall within ten years from the date of the coming into force of this Constitution review the desirability or otherwise of the total abolition of the death penalty in The Gambia."
We should have been debating on the desirability of retaining or abolishing the death penalty instead of executing those on death row.
Finally, the Vice President, Ministers, the Mayor of Kanifing Municipality, Regional Governors, Council of elders and National Assembly members who are being featured on GRTS should tell the Gambian people the fact that only one authority in the Constitution that is approved at a referendum does not order the president to implement the death penalty. The Courts only have the power to sentence. They have no power to order the president to sign a death warrant. Only one person has power to sign a death warrant and that is the President. After a court sentences a person to death the president is provided with the power to issue a death warrant, reduce the sentence to life, pardon the convict with condition or pardon without condition. Whether a person who is sentenced to death lives or dies is solely the prerogative of the president. Whatever becomes of such a person is the sole responsibility of the president. That is the position of the law and it is incontrovertible.
Our position is that there should be no punishment for other people's crimes. One cannot justify implementing the death penalty on people who have not done wrong while imprisoned after benefiting from a moratorium, just to teach others a lesson. We hope, the President will revoke his decision to implement the death penalty, invite the families of those whose loved ones have already been killed and discuss about giving them burial according to their religion and customs.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2012 : 11:39:21
|
LAWYER BORRY TOURAY SPEAKS Condemns the implementation of the death penalty, calls for Gov’t to advise itself on the issue
by Abdou Aziz Saho
Foroyaa Burning Issues: Published on Wednesday, 05 September 2012
Lawyer Borry S. Touray, indicated that even though implementing the death penalty is not unconstitutional no government has the moral right to enforce the death penalty.
B. S Touray made it known that there is no government in the whole world that has the moral right to impose the death penalty.
"I do not believe that there is any one government in the world that does not have its hands tainted with blood. So I feel strongly that no government has that moral probity to enforce the death penalty, unless they bring themselves to account for the lives that have been lost either intentionally or unintentionally," Touray said.
Answering on the deterrence potentials, Touray said
"Yes, it can have deterrence effects if it is judicially and judiciously enforced; if there is a responsible government, responsible judiciary, responsible men and women who will be investigating crimes, having righteous decisions. If anybody has at the back of his mind that I will not enjoy impunity when I commit a crime, he/she will be very careful," he answered.
Touray however, believes that the National Assembly's failure to review the desirability or otherwise the total abolition of the death penalty, has not affected the legality of the death penalty.
On Section 18(3) which states: "The National Assembly shall within ten years from the date of coming into force of the Constitution review the desirability or otherwise of the total abolition of the death penalty in The Gambia," Touray said "Parliament should have availed itself the opportunity, within ten years after the coming into force of the Constitution to take a clear position on the issue."
However, he vehemently called on the Gambia government to advise itself on the implementation of the death penalty.
"The government should advise itself on the issue of the death penalty. It should take into consideration the circumstance of the people in prison. It should also consider the time of commission of the offence of the various convicts.
"The government should also ask itself whether it has the moral justification to implement the death penalty," he said, adding that the president however, is not under an obligation to sign the death warrant, but also has the prerogative to pardon or commute death sentences to life.
Borry described as unfortunate, the execution of Lamin B. Darboe, who he believed was not anyway affected by the Death Penalty Restoration Decree of 1995, which he said explicitly made provision against retroactivity. According to the lawyer, the family of Lamin Darboe is entitled to compensation.
EDITOR'S NOTE
The debate on the desirability of abolishing the death penalty should be intensified. Foroyaa would like to know that sentencing a person to life imprisonment could have the same effect in deterring crime than
spilling blood. In our view, a just criminal justice system must equate degree of crime with degree of punishment. The reason why life imprisonment should be the harshest punishment in the statute books of any civilized society is because of the fact that implementing the death penalty would require employing human beings to be killers in order for them to feed their families. Any body who is made to kill without any feeling would have been transformed into a brutish beast. Nobody in the Gambia would want to earn a living by being killers of human beings. This is why the death penalty should be abolished prior to its abolition a moratorium in its implementation should be imposed.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Sep 2012 : 15:38:05
|
THE COURTS SHOULD NOTE SECTION 18 SUBSECTION (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Friday, 07 September 2012
The Courts are the interpreters of the law. The interpreters of the law must know the law to their finger tips and must enforce it to promote and conserve justice. Nothing could be more vital in preserving peace and justice than an independent, impartial and just judiciary.
The Executive could err and sink into impunity. The legislators could err and make laws that are unconstitutional. It is the judiciary that has the authority to identify and correct such errors.
Let us point out the importance of Constitutions and section 18 subsection (2) for that matter. Readers would recall that the Drug Control Act was enacted in 2003.
Section 43 of the Act stated that "(1) A person who is engaged in drug traffic commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than one Million dalasis and in addition imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. "
In short, in 2003 the penalty for drug trafficking was the imposition of a fine of not less than one Million dalasis and an imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.
However, in 2010 the law makers and the executive came up with an unconstitutional amendment of the Drug Control Act which reads:
"43A (1) A person who is found in possession of more than two hundred and fifty grams (250g) of cocaine or heroine commits the offence of possession for the purpose of drug trafficking and shall on conviction be sentenced to death."
Imposing the penalty of death for drug trafficking was in contravention of section 18 subsection (2) which reads:
" (2) As from the coming into force of this Constitution, no court in The Gambia shall be competent to impose a sentence of death for any offence unless the sentence is prescribed by law and the offence involves violence, or the administration of any toxic substance, resulting in the death of another person."
Consequently, the provision had to be amended by the Drug Control (Amendment) Act, 2011 which reads:
"Section 43A of the Principal Act is amended - (1) in subsection (1) by substituting for the words "sentenced to death" the words "sentenced to life imprisonment";
(2) in subsection (2) (a) by substituting for the words "one million dalasis" the words "fifty million dalasis"
It is therefore very important for the Courts to be mindful of the fact that nobody could be sentenced to death that has not perpetrated any violence or has not used any toxic waste to cause the death of another. The nation should be mindful of the fact that currently there are people on death row who have not perpetrated violence or used toxic waste to kill anyone. To execute such persons would be intentional murder.
Finally, we would like to reiterate again that the death penalty constitutes an inhumane punishment that is not fit to be implemented by any civilized society. Life imprisonment is severe enough to be a penalty for murder. No human being on earth would be proud to have in his or her curriculum vitae that he was a chief executioner of human beings. No one would want to have a father, brother, son or husband whose profession is to kill on behalf of a State. Once one is used to blood and death, one becomes a heartless beast. A licensed killer has no place in a humane and civilized society.
The State authorities continue to quote US as an example. They fail to tell the people that the US has many States and many of these States have already abolished the death penalty. Their example therefore shows that they could not fully understand the debate or that they refuse to accept the truth that is before everybody's eyes.
No one is saying that a person who kills should not be punished even to the point of being sentenced to life. We still continue to ask: "Who would accept to be the killer who earns his living by executing human beings on behalf of the State?" We pause for a reply.
Let's further add that the State authorities should abandon the Saudi example. The reason why a person would not take property in Saudi Arabia is because of the Welfare State and not because of the threat of cutting hands. If threat of violence is what would deter crime, then there would be no suicide bombers in the Middle East.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2012 : 22:15:05
|
THE EXECUTIONS, THE OPPOSITION AND THE GOVERNMENT
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Monday, 10 September 2012
When President Jammeh swore on 17th August 2012 that he will execute all those who have been sentenced to death and have had their sentences confirmed by the courts many people felt that he was engaged in a not so unusual scare tactics, especially when he added that he would not entertain any appeal for mercy or clemency from anyone.
This statement of the president was not in line with tradition, religion or law. In short, Section 82 of the Constitution states that The President is even supposed to establish a committee to advise him or her on how to exercise his or her prerogative of mercy as follows:
"(1) The President may, after consulting the Committee established by subsection (2)-
(a) grant to any person convicted of any offence a pardon either free or subject to lawful conditions:
(b) grant to any person a respite, either indefinite or for a specified period, the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for any offence;
(c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed on that person for any
offence;
(d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on any person for such an offence or any penalty otherwise due to the State on account 0f any offence.
(2) There shall be a Committee on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy consisting of the Attorney General' and three other persons appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the National Assembly.
Suffice it to say that Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code also requires him to be advised by the Minister of Justice on whether or nor to issue a death warrant, commute a sentence of death to life or other lighter sentences, grant conditional or unconditional pardon. In the area of religion the id il fitr was meant to be a day of forgiveness, thanksgiving and mutual solidarity to promote happiness. In the area of traditions elders are to be tolerated to request for clemency. It was therefore very unconventional for the President to take the posture he did. Thursday August 2012 was a normal day for most of the 9 people who were executed. One of them was reported to have been to the hospital because of an eye problem. His children could not believe the story that he had been executed and when approached regarding the reports of movement of 9 prisoners and their execution on Thursday August 2012 they denied it until the state made its announcement on Monday August 2012.
Readers would recall that when the news of the execution of the 9 death row inmates spread like wild fire from Friday onwards on Saturday there was suspense when the Minister of Justice indicated that the information spreading was irresponsible and false. When it was confirmed that the death row prisoners were executed by firing squad most people who had hoped that the execution had not taken place felt insulted and dishonoured. This gave rise to condemnations and calls for a halt in the execution.
The Reaction of the Government
The Government has now realized that the execution has earned it condemnation of unimaginable proportion. It is now engaged in damage control by opening up to its grassroots base to make public appeal for a halt to the execution. The officials of the government are promoting two perceptions. They would want the public to hold that the constitution has made it mandatory for the president to implement the death penalty. Secondly they would want to create the impression that the president does listen to appeals from grassroots
The position of the opposition
The Group of Six has pointed out that there is no provision of the constitution or any law which makes it mandatory for the death penalty to be implemented. That life imprisonment should be the severest punishment for murder to avoid hiring employees of the state to become killers of human beings. The group further indicated that the President is fully responsible for issuing a death warrant and had the option in law to commute the death sentence to life or even pardon the prisoners. They condemned the option he took to execute and called on him to halt the execution. They have also called upon the national Assembly to respect the constitution which calls for a review of the desirability of abolishing the death penalty or otherwise within ten years by imposing a moratorium on the death penalty and hold a referendum on the death penalty. They have asked the government to learn the lesson that Mugabe has learnt that democratic change can only be delayed but cannot be denied. The Group has asked the people to galvanise around them to create a viable opposition that could have the authority to make their voices heard and respected. GMC however has chosen to take another approach to address the current concern. Foroyaa will cover this approach in subsequent issues so that Gambians will know what is being done by all political forces
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2012 : 18:51:08
|
STOP MISLEADING THE NATION
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 15:05. | Written by Administrator.
There is a deliberate campaign to mislead public opinion to give the impression that the Constitution has made it mandatory for the President to execute those on death row. Foroyaa will continue to combat such misleading notions until the authorities own up to their actions.
The Gambian people should be told that the death penalty was abolished in 1993. In 1995, the AFPRC restored the death penalty without the approval of the people. When the Constitution was reviewed in 1995 and 1996, the drafters were smart to introduce two contradictory provisions under Section 18 of the Constitution. First and foremost, they tried to please the coup makers by making the execution of a death row prisoner not to be equated with the deprivation of the right to life. It went further to ban any possibility of sentencing a person to death who has not killed anyone.
We have argued that the Constitution does not make it mandatory for the President to sign a death warrant. He is given the powers to transform death sentence into life imprisonment or pardon a prisoner.
The Constitution further instructed the National Assembly to review the desirability of abolishing the death penalty within 10 years of its coming into force in 1997. The State has failed to respect the Constitution. The order of the Constitution needs to be renewed. This could only come as a result of a referendum.
Lastly, we have repeatedly argued that no one is saying that murder should not be punished. We have always explained that life imprisonment is adequate punishment for murder. On the other hand, we have tried to explain that to implement the death penalty it would require having people who make killing human beings their profession. We are convinced that no human being with conscience and regard for human life would want to have such a career.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 12 Sep 2012 : 20:54:49
|
CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE EXECUTIONS
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Demonstrations have been taking place in many parts of the world against the execution of 9 death row prisoners. Some countries have issued security alerts to caution their citizens not to stray away from safe distance from embassies because of possible security threats.
The security forces are also in a state of alert because of possible threats.
What is strange is that apart from the arrest of two journalists in connection with issues of public order, Gambians at home are still trying to make sense of what is going on. Public opinion is waiting to be shaped and is being shaped. However, the electronic media is monopolised by the Cabinet and people driven by political interest. The solemnity of the issue is swept under the carpet and issues of party interest are put to the fore.
The Government appears to be engaged in damage control by entertaining delegations who come to endorse the executions and then call for a halt for further executions. The fact that they are calling for a halt to the execution is a positive input. What they should add is the need for the president to order for the families to be called and informed where their family members are buried, access their properties and their last will and testament.
The death penalty is a human rights issue. The debate is not only on whether the death penalty should or should not be abolished, it also deals with the manner in which it is executed where it is not abolished. There is a Special Rapporteur on the death penalty who is to ensure that there is no abuse when it comes to execution of the death penalty. Abuse could entail rape of female convicts, mutilation of bodies to allow slow death, cutting and sale of body parts, denial of religious rites, denial of last minute contacts with next of kin, denial of fitting burial, defrauding of property and other abuses. Civil society should be very active in monitoring to prevent such abuse.
Civil society is completely crushed in the Gambia. They show no presence in the public domain regarding the issue of the death penalty. Hence the active opposition in the country is entirely left to give another perspective to the execution.
The active opposition in the country has not politicised the execution. It has called for respect to be shown to those who have been executed since the serving of a sentence should result in the restoration of innocence. Things should not be said that will hurt their relatives. The opposition calls for the halting of the death penalty and a review of the provision in Section 18 of the 1997 Constitution which called for a review of the desirability of abolishing the death penalty within ten years of the coming into force of the constitution. It has clarified that the president has power to issue death warrants, commute death sentence, pardon conditionally or unconditionally. It has made it clear that life imprisonment is severe enough to serve as deterrence while death penalty would require professional killers who must be dehumanised to implement the death penalty.
There is need for the opposition to have access to the electronic media so that divergent views will be heard by the public to form an opinion on the execution and the death penalty.
The political system in the Gambia should now evolve to a higher plane. The ruling party and opposition parties should engage in debates in the electronic media like in Senegal. Rallies should increase and people who want change should feel that it is possible and inevitable. Those who want to maintain the status quo should do so by respecting all the tenets of democracy.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 15:33:52
|
WHAT DO THE GAMBIAN PEOPLE WANT?
Foroyaa Edotorial: Published on Monday, 17 September 2012
The Gambian people are the owners of the Gambia. Power belongs to them. As we face a critical national situation different forces are at work.
The months of August and September have witnessed the most uncertain of periods since the days of the coup. The global reaction to the execution of 9 death row prisoners shows that there is both national sovereignty of a nation and the collective sovereignty of the international community. Nations which domesticate the best standards accepted by the international community are bound to receive international acceptance and recognition. A country with leaders that cling to the doctrine of national sovereignty to the exclusion of international values is bound to be isolated in the world. The country that could defend its national integrity is the one that internalises the internal values and dispel any need to be pressured to accommodate and implement them.
The government has announced that it has imposed a conditional halting of the executions and would only resume the practice if murder continues to be on the rise. This has created mixed feelings that will not lay the issue of the death penalty to rest.
Suffice it to say that giving a foreign journalist 48 hours to leave the country as reported and closing down two newspapers soon after the announcement of the halting of the executions do not eliminate negative publicity.
The international community is also exposed to Gambians abroad claiming to be members of a group in Senegal that intend to be an armed opposition. It is also suffering a set back as civil society groups distance themselves from the group.
Many things are being done in the name of the Gambian people. It is time for them to speak and tell the government and the lawful opposition on the ground what they want. Apparently, the nation is searching for a way forward. Desperation and adventurism is not the answer. Sober thinking is necessary in order not to take a course of action that takes us into a vicious cycle. The opposition therefore needs to tell the nation where they want to take the Gambia in this time of uncertainty. What is their option for a way forward as so many contradictory tactics are being thrown about in the public space? Each party should come up with a policy on the current situation.
As for the government, the correct step is to open up to lawful opposition and freedom of the media. The best decision it could make would have been to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, commute all death sentences to life and commission the Law Reform Commission to look into the possibility of holding a Referendum on the death penalty.
Foroyaa is of the view that the current government should convene a cabinet meeting to look into the implications of its decision to clamp down on the press and focus more on reviewing the desirability of abolishing the death penalty.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11735 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2012 : 20:36:28
|
CHANGING TIMES AND CHANGING MINDS
Foroyaa Editorial:Published on Tuesday, 18 September 2012
Foroyaa has been proven right. A country is too complex an organisation to be ruled by the singular will and mind of a head of state. Any person who attempts this is bound to err.
Foroyaa has indicated that the president is not obliged to sign a death warrant for any prisoner on death row to be executed. He or she has power to commute death sentences, reduce sentences and pardon prisoners.
The fact that the President has now halted the executions because of national and international outcry and appeals has confirmed that it is within his powers to do so.
Secondly, since Reverend Jesse Jackson has managed to mediate for the release of two US citizens who originated from the Gambia, namely Mr Tamsir Jassey, former Director General of Immigration and Dr Amadou Scatred Janneh, former Minister of information confirms that the president has power to pardon prisoners.
The time has come for the President of the Republic to know that the office of President is a National office. A president was there in the first Republic who had power to commute death sentences and pardon prisoners and had in fact done so. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for years for political offences and later emerged to be the President of South Africa. Pap Cheyassin Secka was sentenced to death as a result of the 1981 coup but later became Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
These are obvious reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. The President today has and any future President would have the power to pardon prisoners.
We have also indicated that no Gambian would want to earn a monthly income to feed one's family by being a killer of prisoners. This is a second reason why the death penalty should be replaced with life imprisonment as the severest punishment.
Section 18 subsection (3) should now be focused on for review to be done on the desirability of abolishing the death penalty.
The country needs to open up so that the people would be able to influence policy and be the architects of their own destiny.
Source: Foroyaa |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
