 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Apr 2007 : 18:38:45
|
JOURNALIST FATOU JAW MANNEH
CHARGED WITH SEDITION
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
Fatou Jaw Manneh, a Gambian practising journalism in the US, appeared before Magistrate Pa Harry Jammeh yesterday. She did not take a plea, when the first charge was read to her. She told the court that she could not take her plea without her lawyer being present in the court. She also told the court that she had been detained at the NIA for six days. Magistrate Jammeh told her that he cannot grant her bail due to the fact that her lawyer was absent. “If your lawyer is here, you will be granted bail.” She also asked the court to allow her to contact her lawyer, which was granted. But the lawyer Lamin S. Jobarteh came when the court had already risen. He went to the chambers to announced his arrival. The case is to be heard today Wednesday at midday. Fatou Jaw Manneh is standing trial for allegedly acting with seditious intention, contrary to section 52 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code.
According to the particulars of the offence, Fatou Jaw Manneh is charged with granting an interview to a newspaper indicating that Jammeh is stupid and is a betrayer. The purported interview noted that it was time to speak out against this tendency of President Jammeh. It also noted that Gambia is desperately in need of change and supported the replacement of President Jammeh.
It could be recalled that Fatou Jaw Manneh was arrested at the airport upon her arrival from USA on Wednesday 25 March 2007.
For the benefit of the reader, the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act, 2005 spells out the penalty created by section 52(1) of the Criminal Code. It indicates that any person guilty of the offence is “liable to a fine of not less than fifty thousand dalasis and not more than two hundred and fifty thousand dalasis or imprisonment for a term not less than one year, or to both such fine and imprisonment…”
On Monday, media personnel visited the NIA to enquire about Fatou Jaw Manneh. They were GPU President, Madi Ceesay, Swaebou Conateh of News and Report, Pap Saine of The Point, Sam Obi of Daily Express and Sam Sarr of Foroyaa. The media personnel were assured by the NIA Spokespersons that there would be no delay in either charging Fatou Jaw Manneh and taking her to court or releasing her.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 39/07, 4th – 5th April 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 01:38:03
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH PLEADS NOT GUILTY
Lawyer Challenges Jurisdiction of Court
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
FATOU Jaw Manneh, a Gambian journalist based in the USA has pleaded not guilty to three charges preferred against her when she appeared at the Kanifing Magistrates Court for the second time on Wednesday 4 April 2007. Journalist Manneh faces three charges.
Count One alleges that she acted with seditious intention contrary to section 52(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Count Two states: publication of seditious words, contrary to section 52(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Count Three states: publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to The Gambian public, contrary to section 59(1) of the Criminal Code.
The particulars of offence indicate that “Fatou Jaw Manneh, between January and March 2007, with seditious intention, granted an interview contained in a publication dated 23 October 2005, consisting of the following words, to which is included, “Betrayal”, Jammeh is tearing our beloved country into shreds, he debunked our hopes and became a thorn into every issue that is related to progress in The Gambia, be it social, political and economic. Worst of all, he is a bundle of terror. There is need to speak out . If you look around The Gambia, particularly at the condition people live in, you will see what I mean, that Gambians are desperately in need of an alternative to this egoistic frustrated imam of APRC. Jammeh is full of energy but very negative energy and he totally lacks direction, what he needs is to come clear to The Gambian people and say that he has failed us all miserably, that he will be doing everything to revitalize his promises to The Gambian people, excuse his ten years in office, rather than forcing us to like him or forcing us to recognise the developments that do not exist.”
Jurisdiction of the Court Questioned
Defence counsel, Lamin S. Jobarteh, raised objection, pointing out that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case due to the fact that offences were committed outside the perimeters of The Gambian territory. Jobarteh submitted that the charge sheet did not include anywhere in The Gambia where the said offences are said to be committed. He argued that the charge sheet indicates “between January and March 2007” and that of “23rd October 2005”, which clearly indicates that the defendant was in the United States of America. “This court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case which was committed in the USA or outside The Gambia.” He concluded that any matter which is committed outside the perimeters of The Gambia could not be heard by court. Citing the law, Counsel Jobarteh argued that offences should be within the local limits of the jurisdiction. He said that there was nothing in the charge sheet to indicate who the publication has been made to. He also cited section 57 of the CPC to back his claims. Mr. Jobarteh argued it is certain that the act was in the USA during that period. “Therefore, no court, not even the high court or the court of appeal has the power to hear this matter. Under the circumstance and to the fact that the counts are uncertain that she granted an interview to whom, not here, we don’t know who to prepare our defence to, we are asking this court to rule that it cannot hear this charges for lack of jurisdiction,” he emphasised. The state counsel, NB Jones Nebu, asked the court to give her time to respond to the submissions made by the defence on a later date. Mr. Jobarteh told the court that his client should not even plead to the charges, but that due to the fact that her liberty was at stake he will let her take her plea. He added that under the circumstances of the case, he was applying for the accused person to be bailed in view of two reasons: (1) the counts are a misdemeanour and are bailable. He told the court that they are willing to faithfully adhere to the conditions. There was no objection from the state counsel for the bail application. Magistrate Buba Jawo later granted her bail in the sum of D25,000 with a Gambian surety. The Magistrate ruled that the accused person surrender her travelling documents to the authorities unless they are under the control of the authorities. Jobarteh told the court that the documents are already under the control of the NIA. The case is adjourned till tomorrow, 11 April 2007.
The case was heard in a crowded court room with relatives and friends showing sympathy and solidarity to the accused person. Fatou Jaw Manneh was arrested at the airport upon arrival from USA, on Wednesday 25th March 2007. She spent six days in detention at the NIA, before being granted bail by the court.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 40/2007, 9 - 10 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 01:38:03
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH PLEADS NOT GUILTY
Lawyer Challenges Jurisdiction of Court
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
FATOU Jaw Manneh, a Gambian journalist based in the USA has pleaded not guilty to three charges preferred against her when she appeared at the Kanifing Magistrates Court for the second time on Wednesday 4 April 2007. Journalist Manneh faces three charges.
Count One alleges that she acted with seditious intention contrary to section 52(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Count Two states: publication of seditious words, contrary to section 52(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Count Three states: publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to The Gambian public, contrary to section 59(1) of the Criminal Code.
The particulars of offence indicate that “Fatou Jaw Manneh, between January and March 2007, with seditious intention, granted an interview contained in a publication dated 23 October 2005, consisting of the following words, to which is included, “Betrayal”, Jammeh is tearing our beloved country into shreds, he debunked our hopes and became a thorn into every issue that is related to progress in The Gambia, be it social, political and economic. Worst of all, he is a bundle of terror. There is need to speak out . If you look around The Gambia, particularly at the condition people live in, you will see what I mean, that Gambians are desperately in need of an alternative to this egoistic frustrated imam of APRC. Jammeh is full of energy but very negative energy and he totally lacks direction, what he needs is to come clear to The Gambian people and say that he has failed us all miserably, that he will be doing everything to revitalize his promises to The Gambian people, excuse his ten years in office, rather than forcing us to like him or forcing us to recognise the developments that do not exist.”
Jurisdiction of the Court Questioned
Defence counsel, Lamin S. Jobarteh, raised objection, pointing out that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case due to the fact that offences were committed outside the perimeters of The Gambian territory. Jobarteh submitted that the charge sheet did not include anywhere in The Gambia where the said offences are said to be committed. He argued that the charge sheet indicates “between January and March 2007” and that of “23rd October 2005”, which clearly indicates that the defendant was in the United States of America. “This court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case which was committed in the USA or outside The Gambia.” He concluded that any matter which is committed outside the perimeters of The Gambia could not be heard by court. Citing the law, Counsel Jobarteh argued that offences should be within the local limits of the jurisdiction. He said that there was nothing in the charge sheet to indicate who the publication has been made to. He also cited section 57 of the CPC to back his claims. Mr. Jobarteh argued it is certain that the act was in the USA during that period. “Therefore, no court, not even the high court or the court of appeal has the power to hear this matter. Under the circumstance and to the fact that the counts are uncertain that she granted an interview to whom, not here, we don’t know who to prepare our defence to, we are asking this court to rule that it cannot hear this charges for lack of jurisdiction,” he emphasised. The state counsel, NB Jones Nebu, asked the court to give her time to respond to the submissions made by the defence on a later date. Mr. Jobarteh told the court that his client should not even plead to the charges, but that due to the fact that her liberty was at stake he will let her take her plea. He added that under the circumstances of the case, he was applying for the accused person to be bailed in view of two reasons: (1) the counts are a misdemeanour and are bailable. He told the court that they are willing to faithfully adhere to the conditions. There was no objection from the state counsel for the bail application. Magistrate Buba Jawo later granted her bail in the sum of D25,000 with a Gambian surety. The Magistrate ruled that the accused person surrender her travelling documents to the authorities unless they are under the control of the authorities. Jobarteh told the court that the documents are already under the control of the NIA. The case is adjourned till tomorrow, 11 April 2007.
The case was heard in a crowded court room with relatives and friends showing sympathy and solidarity to the accused person. Fatou Jaw Manneh was arrested at the airport upon arrival from USA, on Wednesday 25th March 2007. She spent six days in detention at the NIA, before being granted bail by the court.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 40/2007, 9 - 10 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 00:33:37
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH’S TRIAL
APPLICATION FOR VOIR DIRE OVERRULED
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
In the trial of Journalist Fatou Jaw Manneh at the Kanifing Magistrates Court, on Friday, the court turned down an application by the defence for a trial within a trial on the grounds that the accused faced “mental torture at the time her statement was being taken.” This matter arose when the prosecution attempted to tender the cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused.
In his testimony before principal Magistrate Buba Jawo, of Kanifing Magistrate Court, the first prosecution witness (PW1) name withheld, told the court that he was asked to obtain a cautionary statement of Mrs. Manneh. He said he introduced the independent witness by the name Babucarr Khan to the accused person. He said that was done in English and Wollof languages. “That she need not say anything if she wished to, but if she says anything, it can be used against her as evidence in court, which she agreed to,” he said. He said that she wrote her own cautionary statement and she went over it. He said that he later realized that she left two other issues which they were discussing earlier. He said he gave her another cautionary statement to allow her to touch on those issues. He said that an independent witness was introduced again and that she agreed. He indicated that she wrote her statement and signed it. He also said that the statement was signed by the independent witness and himself with his name and signature on it. He noted that a charge was preferred on the voluntary statement and that there was a portion on it which asked the accused whether she agreed to the charges against her. He said that she told him that she did not agree to the charges but that she would like to consult a lawyer or seek opinion or consult her family. He said that she also put it on the second statement that she would like to reserve her statement. He said that he obtained two voluntary and two cautionary statements from the accused person. He said that when the accused was being cautioned the independent witness was present.
The prosecution wanted to tender the statements, but was objected to by defence counsel. Counsel Jobarteh said that the statements are cautionary in nature and was indeed recorded on the 29 March 2007, from an accused person who was supposedly invited for discussions and questioned by a group of men unknown to her. “Any reasonable person wouldn’t believe that.” Jobarteh said that the most peculiar thing about the story is that the witness indicated that the accused said “I need to consult a lawyer or a family “and that the other thing is” “I reserve my opinion.” Jobarteh said that there was clear indication that the accused was denied her constitutional rights to secure a lawyer or a legal representation of her choice. Mr. Jobarteh said that the witness has told the court that the accused wrote her own statement but at the bottom of the statements which indicates the name of the recorder what is there cannot be associated to his client. He said that there is no signature on the statement to authenticate it. He added that the cautionary statement was recorded by a detective officer of the NIA who put his name on it and not the accused person as the recorder. “Under this circumstance, we are applying for the statement to be rejected or order be made for a voir-dire (trial within trial) to test the voluntariness of the statements.” With regards to the argument he made, he said the point is clear. He said the court would have difficulty on the voluntariness of the statements. “You provided an independent witness and denied the accused to consult a lawyer, we indicated that the accused was invited for a discussion and questioning and was kept over night without arresting her and continued questioning her for nearly a week, it is not possible to have a voluntary statement from her.” He also said the period which she spent at the NIA was not an invitation because she had stayed up to the point when her bag was searched and nothing was found on her. Jobarteh said his client was denied access to her family members and a lawyer and she was infact held incommunicado. He then asked: who is the independent witness, where did he come from, his occupation, did he show his identity card to the accused person to show her who he was? He said he is sure that his client was not tortured physically but maybe tortured mentally. “I’m challenging the voluntariness of the statements in a “voir-dire.” We don’t know whether the statements were obtained under duress, threats and promises,” he concluded.
The state counsel, Emmanuel O Fagbenle Submitted that the said documents sought to be tendered are relevant under the Evidence Act, with respect to section 31 of the Act. He said that the evidence before the court is that the accused wrote the statement with her own hand writing. He added that the fact that the document was not authenticated is not a reason. “The fact that there is nothing to show that the accused was given an opportunity to consult a lawyer cannot be found on the face of the document sought to be tendered. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be rejected. I therefore urge this court to overrule the objection made by the defense counsel.”
In delivering the ruling, Magistrate Jawo, said that the ground for a “voir-dire” is overruled. He said that the defence should have laid a foundation for a “voir-dire.” He added that the “voir-dire” must be based on suspicion of duress, torture or threat. “Consequently the document sought to be tendered is hereby accepted as an exhibit. He overruled the idea of “voir-dire” (trial within a trial). The statements were all admitted in evidence and the court was adjourned till Friday 20 April 2007.
Court Overrules Defence Objection
Magistrate Buba Jawo of Kanifing Magistrates Court, on Wednesday 11th April, overruled the objection raised by the defence counsel, Lamin Jobarteh, on the lack of jurisdiction of the court to hear the case on the ground that offenses committed outside The Gambia cannot be tried by Gambian courts.
During his objection, Counsel Jobarteh told the court that the counts did not contain the name of the person or to whom the interview was granted. He asked, where the individual whom the interview was granted was and where the accused person was when she granted an interview. He also asked: Where was the publication done and who published the article?
Mr. Jobarteh said that they have been denied actual information about the whole case. He cited section 110 of the criminal procedure code (CPC), indicating charges and information. He also cited section 113 of CPC to back his claims. “The concerns that we raised is that we have been denied the reasonable information in the nature of the case,” he continued. “The publishing newspaper must be stated and the person who published it. I therefore submit that the charge sheet be struck out, for uncertainty and denying the defendant with reasonable information,” he argued.
Mr. Jobarteh submitted that it is out of the question for the court to hear the case, because the court lacks jurisdiction over it. He said that” whatsoever the case, it is not a continuing offence which is said to have been committed in any of the perimeters of the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court.” Mr. Jobarteh stated that the accused could not be in the USA and commit an offence in The Gambia and adding that “close the chapter in this case”. He then cited Granvill Williams, on the terminology of the theory of jurisdiction and venue and ambit of the criminal law. Jobarteh also cited section 58 which he said makes the matter very clear. He asks whether by referring to local area limits the USA is considered to be within the local area of The Gambia.”
“Most importantly, the charges are statute bound,” Counsel Jobarteh argued. He referred to count one which states that the date of the Interview was on the 23 October 2005 and then cited section 53(1) of Criminal Code which states that the offence must be committed within duration of six months. He also cited the case of one Omar Camara and the state and the case of IGP vs. Ansumana Darboe. He said that those cases were presided over by Justice Yeboah. “I therefore urged this court to dismiss the charges against the accused person for duplicity, difficult informal procedure and uncertainty for failure to provide reasonable information about the case”, Counsel Jobarteh concluded.
The state counsel, E.O Fagbenle argued that the charge sheet contained sufficient information under the laws of The Gambia and that the court has the right to hear the case. He said that under summary jurisdiction the charges are clear to enable the accused to take her plea. He claimed that the charge sheet contained all the required information and that firstly the accused person was living in the USA but was presently present in The Gambia. He said that there was a publication which is subjected to a publisher. He said, “it was published in the internet which is a universal publication including the Gambia. Articles posted at the internet are for the whole world and it remains at the net continuously.” Mr. Fagbenle said that even though the alleged offences are committed at the USA, it was committed by a Gambian citizen. He said that the charge before the court is that the accused was responsible for a publication of offensive words contained in a publication of a certain date. He said that the contents of the publication are included in the charge sheet which was read to the accused person. He said that taking a plea means two things, whether the accused published it or does not publish it. He emphasised that the name of the publisher is not the issue in the case. “The issue before the court is whether the accused is responsible for the alleged offence or not. The law did not require that every evidence should be put in the charge sheet. I want to submit that section 113 of CPC exonerated the charge. There is ample support in the charge sheet and there is no need for referral advice. I therefore urge this court to uphold the charges and overrule the defence objection,” he advised.
Defence counsel Jobarteh also added that, even though the alleged offences were committed by A Gambian citizen outside the country, the accused must at that time be an employee of the government. He said, “The internet was not in The Gambia but that you have to click somewhere for it to go out into The Gambia.”
When delivering his ruling, Magistrate Jawo cited section 69 of CPC, which provides defects on the face of the charges cannot invalidate any proceedings. He also ruled that the court have jurisdiction to hear the matter. He added that the law states that, within six months of the arrival of the accused person. “I therefore overrule the defence’s objection on the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 43/2007, 16 - 17 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 00:33:37
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH’S TRIAL
APPLICATION FOR VOIR DIRE OVERRULED
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
In the trial of Journalist Fatou Jaw Manneh at the Kanifing Magistrates Court, on Friday, the court turned down an application by the defence for a trial within a trial on the grounds that the accused faced “mental torture at the time her statement was being taken.” This matter arose when the prosecution attempted to tender the cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused.
In his testimony before principal Magistrate Buba Jawo, of Kanifing Magistrate Court, the first prosecution witness (PW1) name withheld, told the court that he was asked to obtain a cautionary statement of Mrs. Manneh. He said he introduced the independent witness by the name Babucarr Khan to the accused person. He said that was done in English and Wollof languages. “That she need not say anything if she wished to, but if she says anything, it can be used against her as evidence in court, which she agreed to,” he said. He said that she wrote her own cautionary statement and she went over it. He said that he later realized that she left two other issues which they were discussing earlier. He said he gave her another cautionary statement to allow her to touch on those issues. He said that an independent witness was introduced again and that she agreed. He indicated that she wrote her statement and signed it. He also said that the statement was signed by the independent witness and himself with his name and signature on it. He noted that a charge was preferred on the voluntary statement and that there was a portion on it which asked the accused whether she agreed to the charges against her. He said that she told him that she did not agree to the charges but that she would like to consult a lawyer or seek opinion or consult her family. He said that she also put it on the second statement that she would like to reserve her statement. He said that he obtained two voluntary and two cautionary statements from the accused person. He said that when the accused was being cautioned the independent witness was present.
The prosecution wanted to tender the statements, but was objected to by defence counsel. Counsel Jobarteh said that the statements are cautionary in nature and was indeed recorded on the 29 March 2007, from an accused person who was supposedly invited for discussions and questioned by a group of men unknown to her. “Any reasonable person wouldn’t believe that.” Jobarteh said that the most peculiar thing about the story is that the witness indicated that the accused said “I need to consult a lawyer or a family “and that the other thing is” “I reserve my opinion.” Jobarteh said that there was clear indication that the accused was denied her constitutional rights to secure a lawyer or a legal representation of her choice. Mr. Jobarteh said that the witness has told the court that the accused wrote her own statement but at the bottom of the statements which indicates the name of the recorder what is there cannot be associated to his client. He said that there is no signature on the statement to authenticate it. He added that the cautionary statement was recorded by a detective officer of the NIA who put his name on it and not the accused person as the recorder. “Under this circumstance, we are applying for the statement to be rejected or order be made for a voir-dire (trial within trial) to test the voluntariness of the statements.” With regards to the argument he made, he said the point is clear. He said the court would have difficulty on the voluntariness of the statements. “You provided an independent witness and denied the accused to consult a lawyer, we indicated that the accused was invited for a discussion and questioning and was kept over night without arresting her and continued questioning her for nearly a week, it is not possible to have a voluntary statement from her.” He also said the period which she spent at the NIA was not an invitation because she had stayed up to the point when her bag was searched and nothing was found on her. Jobarteh said his client was denied access to her family members and a lawyer and she was infact held incommunicado. He then asked: who is the independent witness, where did he come from, his occupation, did he show his identity card to the accused person to show her who he was? He said he is sure that his client was not tortured physically but maybe tortured mentally. “I’m challenging the voluntariness of the statements in a “voir-dire.” We don’t know whether the statements were obtained under duress, threats and promises,” he concluded.
The state counsel, Emmanuel O Fagbenle Submitted that the said documents sought to be tendered are relevant under the Evidence Act, with respect to section 31 of the Act. He said that the evidence before the court is that the accused wrote the statement with her own hand writing. He added that the fact that the document was not authenticated is not a reason. “The fact that there is nothing to show that the accused was given an opportunity to consult a lawyer cannot be found on the face of the document sought to be tendered. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be rejected. I therefore urge this court to overrule the objection made by the defense counsel.”
In delivering the ruling, Magistrate Jawo, said that the ground for a “voir-dire” is overruled. He said that the defence should have laid a foundation for a “voir-dire.” He added that the “voir-dire” must be based on suspicion of duress, torture or threat. “Consequently the document sought to be tendered is hereby accepted as an exhibit. He overruled the idea of “voir-dire” (trial within a trial). The statements were all admitted in evidence and the court was adjourned till Friday 20 April 2007.
Court Overrules Defence Objection
Magistrate Buba Jawo of Kanifing Magistrates Court, on Wednesday 11th April, overruled the objection raised by the defence counsel, Lamin Jobarteh, on the lack of jurisdiction of the court to hear the case on the ground that offenses committed outside The Gambia cannot be tried by Gambian courts.
During his objection, Counsel Jobarteh told the court that the counts did not contain the name of the person or to whom the interview was granted. He asked, where the individual whom the interview was granted was and where the accused person was when she granted an interview. He also asked: Where was the publication done and who published the article?
Mr. Jobarteh said that they have been denied actual information about the whole case. He cited section 110 of the criminal procedure code (CPC), indicating charges and information. He also cited section 113 of CPC to back his claims. “The concerns that we raised is that we have been denied the reasonable information in the nature of the case,” he continued. “The publishing newspaper must be stated and the person who published it. I therefore submit that the charge sheet be struck out, for uncertainty and denying the defendant with reasonable information,” he argued.
Mr. Jobarteh submitted that it is out of the question for the court to hear the case, because the court lacks jurisdiction over it. He said that” whatsoever the case, it is not a continuing offence which is said to have been committed in any of the perimeters of the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court.” Mr. Jobarteh stated that the accused could not be in the USA and commit an offence in The Gambia and adding that “close the chapter in this case”. He then cited Granvill Williams, on the terminology of the theory of jurisdiction and venue and ambit of the criminal law. Jobarteh also cited section 58 which he said makes the matter very clear. He asks whether by referring to local area limits the USA is considered to be within the local area of The Gambia.”
“Most importantly, the charges are statute bound,” Counsel Jobarteh argued. He referred to count one which states that the date of the Interview was on the 23 October 2005 and then cited section 53(1) of Criminal Code which states that the offence must be committed within duration of six months. He also cited the case of one Omar Camara and the state and the case of IGP vs. Ansumana Darboe. He said that those cases were presided over by Justice Yeboah. “I therefore urged this court to dismiss the charges against the accused person for duplicity, difficult informal procedure and uncertainty for failure to provide reasonable information about the case”, Counsel Jobarteh concluded.
The state counsel, E.O Fagbenle argued that the charge sheet contained sufficient information under the laws of The Gambia and that the court has the right to hear the case. He said that under summary jurisdiction the charges are clear to enable the accused to take her plea. He claimed that the charge sheet contained all the required information and that firstly the accused person was living in the USA but was presently present in The Gambia. He said that there was a publication which is subjected to a publisher. He said, “it was published in the internet which is a universal publication including the Gambia. Articles posted at the internet are for the whole world and it remains at the net continuously.” Mr. Fagbenle said that even though the alleged offences are committed at the USA, it was committed by a Gambian citizen. He said that the charge before the court is that the accused was responsible for a publication of offensive words contained in a publication of a certain date. He said that the contents of the publication are included in the charge sheet which was read to the accused person. He said that taking a plea means two things, whether the accused published it or does not publish it. He emphasised that the name of the publisher is not the issue in the case. “The issue before the court is whether the accused is responsible for the alleged offence or not. The law did not require that every evidence should be put in the charge sheet. I want to submit that section 113 of CPC exonerated the charge. There is ample support in the charge sheet and there is no need for referral advice. I therefore urge this court to uphold the charges and overrule the defence objection,” he advised.
Defence counsel Jobarteh also added that, even though the alleged offences were committed by A Gambian citizen outside the country, the accused must at that time be an employee of the government. He said, “The internet was not in The Gambia but that you have to click somewhere for it to go out into The Gambia.”
When delivering his ruling, Magistrate Jawo cited section 69 of CPC, which provides defects on the face of the charges cannot invalidate any proceedings. He also ruled that the court have jurisdiction to hear the matter. He added that the law states that, within six months of the arrival of the accused person. “I therefore overrule the defence’s objection on the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 43/2007, 16 - 17 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 01:16:17
|
If this is what justice in Jammeh's APRC Gambia calls it, we are doomed. In simple sense, it was not Fatou who published the article in question. She expressed her opinion and if someone published that, then Gambian justice is tilted in arresting her. When Jammeh's wife lost her father it was like a national mourning. Was Zainab Souma's father more deserving of respect than Fatou Jaw's father? Let us face the truth, Jammeh is a wicked person to be accepted as good leader. This is the highest level of hypocricy for a whole generation in Gambia. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 01:16:17
|
If this is what justice in Jammeh's APRC Gambia calls it, we are doomed. In simple sense, it was not Fatou who published the article in question. She expressed her opinion and if someone published that, then Gambian justice is tilted in arresting her. When Jammeh's wife lost her father it was like a national mourning. Was Zainab Souma's father more deserving of respect than Fatou Jaw's father? Let us face the truth, Jammeh is a wicked person to be accepted as good leader. This is the highest level of hypocricy for a whole generation in Gambia. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 13:25:35
|
"FATOU JAW MANNEH, DAME OF THE FLAMING PEN"
Says Witness
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
The NIA officer, (name withheld) testifying in the much publicized sedition trial of Fatou Jaw Manneh, has told the court that the article extracted from the internet, bearing Fatou Jaw Manneh's names states, "Fatou Jaw Manneh, dame of the flaming pen."
The NIA told the court that on the 29th of March 2006, the accused herself printed the article from her postings at the (google) internet. He said that the article contained her own name as the author. He said that the accused has also visited her email address to check for some of her articles but that there was no article there. He said that the same article was given to him as part of the case file. He noted that he downloaded the same laptop and compared the hard copy with the others and later certified it by himself.
He recognised the said article in court. The prosecution wanted to tender the article but defence objected.
Counsel Lamin Jobarteh, said that his objection was based on a view of non compliance. He quoted section 22 of the Evidence Act concerning statements printed from computers. He argued that a proper foundation has not been laid before the court with regards to the said articles. He cited sections 22 (1) and 22(2) of the Evidence Act. He said that a foundation shall be laid to certify the documents from a computer or any other devices. He argued that there was no proper foundation and the conditions about the articles has not been fulfilled. He therefore urged the court to reject it outright.
The State Counsel Emmanuel Fagbenle reminded the court that the witness testified that the accused person herself downloaded the document from the computer of an investigating officer. He said that the document was certified by the witness and recognised it in court. He explained that an item recovered during the course of an investigation is admissible. He added that the document was acknowledged by the accused person that it was downloaded from a functional computer. "The objection lacks strength," he challenged. E.O. Fagbenle lamented that the testimony from the witness has complied regularly to section 22 of Evidence Act. He said that there are manners of information that comes from a computer, either they are letters or emails and that all those manners are of professionals. He added that it does not apply to make sure that all documents from the computers are to be certified. He emphasised that yahoo and google were functioning and that was why the information was loaded from there. He asserted that the manner of the document sought to be tendered confirms the original course of transactions, that computers are the means to access internet, either by yahoo or google. "The document sought to be tendered was certified and stamped and it has complied with the law and it is relevant. The witness is a competent person. I urge this court to accept the document as an exhibit" he lamented.
Defence Counsel Jobarteh also cited the Law of Evidence Justice H. Jallow. He said that the witness cannot certify the document apart from either a notary public or Commissioner for Oath. Jobarteh said that under the exclusive rule of interpretation, where a rule under a certain issue intended to form part, a law needs to certify a document. He said that if certain issues are exception, then law makers must have said so.
"There is no where in the law, especially under the jurisdiction, even from the commonwealth, that overrides a statute. The only known law that can override the statute is the supreme law. The document sought to be tendered needs to be rejected," he urged.
Magistrate Jawo ruled that under section 3 of Evidence Act 1994, documents concerning computers need to be certified. He said that there were no doubts that the document sought to be tendered is relevant to the procedure of the trial. He therefore admitted the document and marked it as exhibit B.
Continuing his testimony, the witness told the court that, he at one point struck out the words, "I reserve my opinion till I consult a lawyer, on one of the exhibits. He said that he was asked by the accused to do so because, according to him, the accused told him that she did not know whether to consult a lawyer or defend herself. When asked about his knowledge of the Deyda Hydara incident, the NIA officer said that their office received information that Deyda Hydara was gunned down by unknown gunmen. He said that an investigating panel was setup regarding the incident. He noted that during the investigation somebody was suspected whose house was searched. He also said that the April 10-11 2000 incident was also investigated. At this point hearing was adjourned till Friday 20 April, for further hearing.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 44/2007, 18 - 19 April 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2007 : 13:25:35
|
"FATOU JAW MANNEH, DAME OF THE FLAMING PEN"
Says Witness
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
The NIA officer, (name withheld) testifying in the much publicized sedition trial of Fatou Jaw Manneh, has told the court that the article extracted from the internet, bearing Fatou Jaw Manneh's names states, "Fatou Jaw Manneh, dame of the flaming pen."
The NIA told the court that on the 29th of March 2006, the accused herself printed the article from her postings at the (google) internet. He said that the article contained her own name as the author. He said that the accused has also visited her email address to check for some of her articles but that there was no article there. He said that the same article was given to him as part of the case file. He noted that he downloaded the same laptop and compared the hard copy with the others and later certified it by himself.
He recognised the said article in court. The prosecution wanted to tender the article but defence objected.
Counsel Lamin Jobarteh, said that his objection was based on a view of non compliance. He quoted section 22 of the Evidence Act concerning statements printed from computers. He argued that a proper foundation has not been laid before the court with regards to the said articles. He cited sections 22 (1) and 22(2) of the Evidence Act. He said that a foundation shall be laid to certify the documents from a computer or any other devices. He argued that there was no proper foundation and the conditions about the articles has not been fulfilled. He therefore urged the court to reject it outright.
The State Counsel Emmanuel Fagbenle reminded the court that the witness testified that the accused person herself downloaded the document from the computer of an investigating officer. He said that the document was certified by the witness and recognised it in court. He explained that an item recovered during the course of an investigation is admissible. He added that the document was acknowledged by the accused person that it was downloaded from a functional computer. "The objection lacks strength," he challenged. E.O. Fagbenle lamented that the testimony from the witness has complied regularly to section 22 of Evidence Act. He said that there are manners of information that comes from a computer, either they are letters or emails and that all those manners are of professionals. He added that it does not apply to make sure that all documents from the computers are to be certified. He emphasised that yahoo and google were functioning and that was why the information was loaded from there. He asserted that the manner of the document sought to be tendered confirms the original course of transactions, that computers are the means to access internet, either by yahoo or google. "The document sought to be tendered was certified and stamped and it has complied with the law and it is relevant. The witness is a competent person. I urge this court to accept the document as an exhibit" he lamented.
Defence Counsel Jobarteh also cited the Law of Evidence Justice H. Jallow. He said that the witness cannot certify the document apart from either a notary public or Commissioner for Oath. Jobarteh said that under the exclusive rule of interpretation, where a rule under a certain issue intended to form part, a law needs to certify a document. He said that if certain issues are exception, then law makers must have said so.
"There is no where in the law, especially under the jurisdiction, even from the commonwealth, that overrides a statute. The only known law that can override the statute is the supreme law. The document sought to be tendered needs to be rejected," he urged.
Magistrate Jawo ruled that under section 3 of Evidence Act 1994, documents concerning computers need to be certified. He said that there were no doubts that the document sought to be tendered is relevant to the procedure of the trial. He therefore admitted the document and marked it as exhibit B.
Continuing his testimony, the witness told the court that, he at one point struck out the words, "I reserve my opinion till I consult a lawyer, on one of the exhibits. He said that he was asked by the accused to do so because, according to him, the accused told him that she did not know whether to consult a lawyer or defend herself. When asked about his knowledge of the Deyda Hydara incident, the NIA officer said that their office received information that Deyda Hydara was gunned down by unknown gunmen. He said that an investigating panel was setup regarding the incident. He noted that during the investigation somebody was suspected whose house was searched. He also said that the April 10-11 2000 incident was also investigated. At this point hearing was adjourned till Friday 20 April, for further hearing.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 44/2007, 18 - 19 April 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 12:57:57
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH'S TRIAL
"PRESIDENT JAMMEH DID NOT LACK DIRECTION,"
Says Witness
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
The NIA officer (name withheld) testifying in the sedition trial of journalist Fatou Jaw Manneh has said that President Jammeh is not somebody who totally lacks direction. He was responding to the article alleged to be an interview with Fatou Jaw Manneh, while in U.S.A.
He said that he had seen the said article on the Freedom online newspaper. He said that the accused person was a subscriber to that online newspaper. He noted that the Freedom Newspaper is owned by a Gambian based in the United States. He added that the article was published on 23rd October 2005 and that he saw the article in the first week of its publication. He asserted that he saw the said article on the internet on many occasions and that many people could have also read it on the net. He stressed that the internet is for universal coverage and that it does not go directly to anybody but to the whole world. At this point, he was asked by the state counsel E. O Fagbenle to read paragraph three of the said article. He read as thus: "Betrayal, Jammeh is tearing our beloved country into shreds, he debunked our hopes and became a thorn into every issue that is related to progress in The Gambia; be it social, political and economical. Worst of all he is a bundle of terror."
Continuing, the witness opined that Jammeh became president in 1994 and was elected to office on term-basis but he (the witness) did not know any act of betrayal done by Jammeh. He opined that he could not say from 1994 to date where Jammeh has torn our country into shreds. He added that he did not know of any issue or fact where Jammeh has been a thorn in every issue that leads to progress in The Gambia, be it social, political or economic. "I do not know of any fact or incident where Jammeh could be branded as a bundle of terror." He said in his opinion those allegations are not true. He said when he read that article, he felt very bad. The accusations labelled against the President is not true," he said. The state counsel asked him to read out paragraph four on the same article. He read it thus: "If you look around in The Gambia, particularly at the conditions people lived in, you will see what I mean; that Gambians are desperately in need of an alternative to this egoistic frosty Imam of APRC Jammeh is full of energy and totally lacks direction, all he needs is to come clear to the Gambian people that he has failed us all miserably; that he will be doing everything to revitalise his promises to The Gambian people, excuse his ten years in officer rather than forcing us to like him or forcing us to recognise the developments that do not exist."
The witness stated that his opinion is that President Jammeh is not an egoistic frosty Imam of APRC and that since 1994 he does not know of any negative energy of him. "President Jammeh did not totally lack direction and did not fail Gambians miserably" he opined. He never forced anybody to like him but what can force Gambians to like him is that he is development oriented, that anybody who sees that will like him" he said. He opined that, Jammeh brought many developments in The Gambia, such as university, good road networks, new airport building, numerous hospitals, numerous schools, from lower to upper levels. He also opined that earning capacity of Gambians has increased between 1994 to date. He said that there are street lights which were not there before, adding "I did not agree with the accused person's comments on the article and as far as I know they are not true. The NIA officer concluded that there are three (3) arms of The Gambia government that is the executive, judiciary and legislature. He said that members of the legislature are elected through elections or by nomination. He added that such procedures are contained in the Constitution of The Gambia. "The constitution is a legal and a public document," he said.
During cross examination by defence counsel Lamin Jobarteh, the witness indicated that he is an O'level product with six grades, adding that he has a certificate and will be in a position to produce it in court if necessary. He said that he graduated in 1995 and joined the NIA in 2003. Jobarteh asked him whether he had travelled from Banjul to Koina and seen the state of the development there. The witness replied that he never travelled beyond Basse and may not know the state of development beyond that. Jobarteh asked him about the state of the road between Barra and Amdalai and whether there is any electricity there. He said that there was no electricity but that in his opinion the road condition there is as good as between Banjul and Serrekunda. "I'm putting it to you that, the road between Barra and Amdalai is as bad as the road between Mandinaba and Soma and that you are not telling the truth," said Jobarteh. He replied, "I'm speaking the truth and that the road is not as bad as that." "Can you define the word frosty, asked Jobarteh. The NIA officer replied "No." At that juncture the case was adjourned till Friday 4th May 2007. The case was heard at Kanifing Magistrates' Court, presided over by Magistrate Buba Jawo.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 46/2007, 23 - 24 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2007 : 12:57:57
|
FATOU JAW MANNEH'S TRIAL
"PRESIDENT JAMMEH DID NOT LACK DIRECTION,"
Says Witness
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
The NIA officer (name withheld) testifying in the sedition trial of journalist Fatou Jaw Manneh has said that President Jammeh is not somebody who totally lacks direction. He was responding to the article alleged to be an interview with Fatou Jaw Manneh, while in U.S.A.
He said that he had seen the said article on the Freedom online newspaper. He said that the accused person was a subscriber to that online newspaper. He noted that the Freedom Newspaper is owned by a Gambian based in the United States. He added that the article was published on 23rd October 2005 and that he saw the article in the first week of its publication. He asserted that he saw the said article on the internet on many occasions and that many people could have also read it on the net. He stressed that the internet is for universal coverage and that it does not go directly to anybody but to the whole world. At this point, he was asked by the state counsel E. O Fagbenle to read paragraph three of the said article. He read as thus: "Betrayal, Jammeh is tearing our beloved country into shreds, he debunked our hopes and became a thorn into every issue that is related to progress in The Gambia; be it social, political and economical. Worst of all he is a bundle of terror."
Continuing, the witness opined that Jammeh became president in 1994 and was elected to office on term-basis but he (the witness) did not know any act of betrayal done by Jammeh. He opined that he could not say from 1994 to date where Jammeh has torn our country into shreds. He added that he did not know of any issue or fact where Jammeh has been a thorn in every issue that leads to progress in The Gambia, be it social, political or economic. "I do not know of any fact or incident where Jammeh could be branded as a bundle of terror." He said in his opinion those allegations are not true. He said when he read that article, he felt very bad. The accusations labelled against the President is not true," he said. The state counsel asked him to read out paragraph four on the same article. He read it thus: "If you look around in The Gambia, particularly at the conditions people lived in, you will see what I mean; that Gambians are desperately in need of an alternative to this egoistic frosty Imam of APRC Jammeh is full of energy and totally lacks direction, all he needs is to come clear to the Gambian people that he has failed us all miserably; that he will be doing everything to revitalise his promises to The Gambian people, excuse his ten years in officer rather than forcing us to like him or forcing us to recognise the developments that do not exist."
The witness stated that his opinion is that President Jammeh is not an egoistic frosty Imam of APRC and that since 1994 he does not know of any negative energy of him. "President Jammeh did not totally lack direction and did not fail Gambians miserably" he opined. He never forced anybody to like him but what can force Gambians to like him is that he is development oriented, that anybody who sees that will like him" he said. He opined that, Jammeh brought many developments in The Gambia, such as university, good road networks, new airport building, numerous hospitals, numerous schools, from lower to upper levels. He also opined that earning capacity of Gambians has increased between 1994 to date. He said that there are street lights which were not there before, adding "I did not agree with the accused person's comments on the article and as far as I know they are not true. The NIA officer concluded that there are three (3) arms of The Gambia government that is the executive, judiciary and legislature. He said that members of the legislature are elected through elections or by nomination. He added that such procedures are contained in the Constitution of The Gambia. "The constitution is a legal and a public document," he said.
During cross examination by defence counsel Lamin Jobarteh, the witness indicated that he is an O'level product with six grades, adding that he has a certificate and will be in a position to produce it in court if necessary. He said that he graduated in 1995 and joined the NIA in 2003. Jobarteh asked him whether he had travelled from Banjul to Koina and seen the state of the development there. The witness replied that he never travelled beyond Basse and may not know the state of development beyond that. Jobarteh asked him about the state of the road between Barra and Amdalai and whether there is any electricity there. He said that there was no electricity but that in his opinion the road condition there is as good as between Banjul and Serrekunda. "I'm putting it to you that, the road between Barra and Amdalai is as bad as the road between Mandinaba and Soma and that you are not telling the truth," said Jobarteh. He replied, "I'm speaking the truth and that the road is not as bad as that." "Can you define the word frosty, asked Jobarteh. The NIA officer replied "No." At that juncture the case was adjourned till Friday 4th May 2007. The case was heard at Kanifing Magistrates' Court, presided over by Magistrate Buba Jawo.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 46/2007, 23 - 24 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
