 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 01:40:10
|
JOURNALIST LAMIN FATTY’S TRIAL RESUMES
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
The long drawn out trial of Journalist Lamin Fatty of The Independent, a local newspaper shut down a year ago, has finally been assigned to Magistrate Buba Jawo.
Mr. Fatty’s case was adjourned indefinitely at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court following the appointment of the former trial magistrate, Mr. Kebba Sanyang, as the Secretary of State for Justice, late last year.
Fatty who is accused of false publication is expected in court today, Tuesday April 10, for continuation of the matter under Magistrate Jawo.
Before he was charged with the offence, the reporter spent sixty two days in detention under the custody of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), which followed the closure of his paper in late March 2006.
Lamin Fatty was arrested exactly a year ago, on 10th April 2006. He was arraigned before the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on 12 June 2007. The court granted him bail in the sum of D50, 000 (fifty thousand dalasi) with a Gambian surety on 22 June 2006. The first prosecution witness testified on 27 July 2006. The second prosecution witness testified on 2 August 2006. The case was adjourned till 31 August 2006 but the case did not proceed because the prosecution said its last witness had travelled. Since then there were four other adjournments for the same reason, the last date of adjournment being 9 October 2006. At that proceeding, the magistrate vowed that if the prosecution failed to bring their last witness he would not only discharge the accused but acquit him, noting that there have been two many excuses from the prosecution regarding the case.
The matter was adjourned till 25 October but the case did not proceed. On 7 November the prosecution failed to appear and defence counsel urged the court to strike out the case but the magistrate declined to do so.
The case was then adjourned till 20 November but by then the then trial magistrate was appointed as Secretary of State. The case was adjourned till 5 and 19 December 2006 respectively.
On the 19 December 2006 Lamin Fatty was told that the case was adjourned indefinitely.
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 : 22:07:17
|
LAMIN FATTY’S TRIAL ADJOURNED
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
The trial of Lamin Fatty of The Independent Newspaper which was closed almost a year ago did not proceed on Tuesday, April 10th before Magistrate Buba Jawo at the Kanifing Magistrates Court.
This setback arose following an indefinite deferring of the case in December 2006 due to the lack of a trial Magistrate. The then trial Magistrate, Kebba Sanyang was appointed Secretary of State for Justice and Attorney General.
Mr. Fatty who is accused of “false publication” told the court that his counsel, L.S Camara is engaged in another proceeding at the Court Martial at the Yundum Army Barracks.
Police Prosecutor, Momodou Mballow also informed the court that his witness was on the way coming, as he was reported to have been busy.
Magistrate Jawo then adjourned the case till today April 11, following the accused person’s request that his lawyer wanted the matter to be adjourned for a short period.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 41/2007, 11 - 12 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 22:07:17
|
LAMIN FATTY’S TRIAL ADJOURNED
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
The trial of Lamin Fatty of The Independent Newspaper which was closed almost a year ago did not proceed on Tuesday, April 10th before Magistrate Buba Jawo at the Kanifing Magistrates Court.
This setback arose following an indefinite deferring of the case in December 2006 due to the lack of a trial Magistrate. The then trial Magistrate, Kebba Sanyang was appointed Secretary of State for Justice and Attorney General.
Mr. Fatty who is accused of “false publication” told the court that his counsel, L.S Camara is engaged in another proceeding at the Court Martial at the Yundum Army Barracks.
Police Prosecutor, Momodou Mballow also informed the court that his witness was on the way coming, as he was reported to have been busy.
Magistrate Jawo then adjourned the case till today April 11, following the accused person’s request that his lawyer wanted the matter to be adjourned for a short period.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 41/2007, 11 - 12 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2007 : 02:19:19
|
JOURNALIST FATTY’S TRIAL, “NO CASE” SUBMISSION OVERRULED
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
Upon the close of the case of the prosecution, Defense Counsel Lamin S. Camara on Monday made “no case to answer” submission in the trial of the closed Independent Newspaper reporter, Lamin Fatty. But the trial Magistrate, Buba Jawo, overruled his submission and said that the defence should prepare to open their case. In his submission Counsel Camara told the court that the accused was charged with false publication under section 181 A of the Criminal Code. He said that the accused was alleged to have committed a crime between the 23-27 March 2006, when he was working for an independent newspaper in the municipality of Kanifing. He indicated that he was allegedly charged with willful/negligent publication of a false issue about an unnamed individual.
“My submission is that the prosecution has failed to lay a correct foundation against the accused person,” he said. He said that a “no case to answer” submission is amply spelt out in the book of the criminal law in Nigeria. He said that the Nigerian law report states that there are conditions that have to be fulfilled before the court, before “a no case to answer” submission can be sustained.
He stated that the first thing is that the court should be satisfied with the ingredients of the offense. He said that, that was not proved by the prosecution; that they have failed to produce sufficient evidence in the main trial. He noted that another condition was that the evidence produced by the prosecution has been falling out during cross examinations. Counsel Camara added that another points is that the evidence by the prosecution was not manifestly reliable for a tribunal.
He urged the court to go for a “no case to answer” submission to be successful and for the court to see whether the prosecution has moved even one ingredient of the offences.
He said that the first ingredient of the charge is that the accused did published The Independent newspaper of 24-26 March 2006. He added that the other is that the accused did that willfully, negligently or recklessly, which according to him, are not true. Camara reminded the court that the prosecution has provided three witnesses and that witnesses one and three are so inconsistent that the court should not believe in them or rely on them. Counsel Camara said that Samba Bah (PW1), the alleged subject matter of the offense testified on the 27th July, 2006. He said that Mr. Bah stated in his Evidence-in-Chief that he requested for a rejoinder and admitted that the rejoinder was his statement. He added that Mr. Bah could not show to the court in his statement where he requested for a rejoinder. Camara noted that Mr. Bah also stated that the accused person published the story which is totally inconsistent with Exhibit A (The Independent newspaper). “There is nothing in exhibit A to say that Mr. Fatty published the story on The Independent newspaper. He said that when it was put to Mr. Bah that the inclusion of his name in the alleged publication could have been the editor’s own imput, that Mr. Bah replied that he was only going by what was on the newspaper. “I urge this court to closely structinise Exhibit A (The Independent newspaper) to see whether the accused published anything on the paper. I therefore submit that the evidence of Samba Bah (PW1) is inconsistent and that they are unreliable,” Camara said.
Camara reminded the court about the Prosecution Witness Two (PW2), Detective Corporal 1838, Lamin Cham, has testified on the 2nd August 2006 and tendered Exhibits A+ A B and B1. Camara indicated that Detective Cham told the court that the accused person’s statement (Exhibit B) was recorded on 28 April 2006 at NIA. Camara indicated that the witness said he read out the cautionary warnings to the accused in the presence of an independent witness and other people in the office. He said that the witness stated in his cross examination that the statement of the accused was taken without an independent witness on 28 April 2006. Camara indicated that the witness later said that it was on the 11 June 2006 when he read out the cautionary statement to the accused in the presence of an independent witness. Camara asserted that the witness (Cham) stated that Exhibit B (the cautionary statement) was taken at the NIA, but there was nothing in it to show that it was taken at the NIA and that the same independent witness by the name Bakary Ceesay was present. Camara noted that the detective said that he never asked the independent witness whether he is literate or not. “Bakary Ceesay’s signature are completely different, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that,” said Camara.
Counsel Camara stated that it was confusing that Bakary Ceesay signed the exhibit, not knowing that it was recorded on the May 11, 2006. Counsel Camara buttressed on the statement of PW3, ASP Ceesay, who stated that he was the IPO and that he instructed the arrest of Lamin Fatty (the accused). He said that ASP Ceesay cannot tell the court when the accused person was arrested, how long he had been in detention and could not tell how often he met the accused in his office. Camara indicated that ASP Ceesay indicated that on Exhibit A1, which contained the rejoinder, there was no name as a reporter under it. Camara said that the witness (ASP Ceesay) said that the name under the caption, “23 Coup Plotters Arrested” was Lamin Fatty. “Few minutes later, under cross examination, ASP Ceesay indicated that there was a name of a reporter for the rejoinder by the name Sulayman Makalo, even though Makalo’s name did not appear under the same column. His evidence is completely at variance with his Evidence-in- Chief,” said Camara. Defence counsel Camara said that the witness (ASP Ceesay), had said that there were two names of reporters on the front page of the newspaper (Exhibit A1) which according to him are Makalo and Secka. Camara argued that there were three names and that the third one is Sanna Camara. “The witness is absolutely unreliable, his statements are different from the one in the Examination-in-Chief,” said Camara. Counsel Camara said that ASP Ceesay indicated that Samba Bah (PW1) had told him that it was the accused who published the story but that he could not find that potion in PW1’s Samba’s statement.
Camara said that ASP Ceesay later stated that The Independent Newspaper Media Company Limited published Exhibits A and A1 (both newspapers). Camara reminded the court that, when it was put to the witness (ASP Ceesay) that “It is correct that Exhibit A and A1 were not published by the accused,” he said that Ceesay replied categorically that it was published by The Independent Newspaper Media Company Limited.
“There is not an atom of evidence before the court to even require the accused person to enter defence, the evidence is very clear that the accused did not publish the story on The Independent newspaper. I humbly urge this honourable court to uphold the case of no submission and to acquit and discharge the accused person,” he concluded.
The state prosecutor 1848 Momodou Mballow, asked the court to overrule the application made by the defence counsel to acquit and discharge the accused person. He said that the accused was charged with false publication and broadcasting under Section 181A of the Criminal Code. 1748 Mballow indicated that it was clear that the accused was the reporter for Exhibit A. He said that the accused was not a machine to produce Exhibit A but a reporter for the exhibit. Mballow indicated that it was clear that the publication was false and that Samba Bah was never arrested. He maintained that they have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. “We called three witnesses whose evidences are all consistent as regard to the false publication,” said Mballow. He argued that the defence’s submission is based on the two that is administrative and substantive justice.
Mballow added that whether a rejoinder was written or not, there was false publication and that it is now left to the court to determine. He said that the two different signatures on the Exhibits are totally irrelevant and that there was no proof to say that the signatures are different. 1748 Mballow told the court that for PW3 to state that editors could have put their own imput in that story is a probability. He said that the editor’s role is to edit the grammar or omit the formatting matters. He added that there was no reaction from the accused when the story was published. “We therefore urge this court to hold the accused to enter defence to prove that exhibit’s contents were indeed the editor’s and not him. We firmly urge this court to dismiss the application by the defence counsel,” says Mballow.
The trial Magistrate, Buba Jawo, said that the court has heard on both sides. He ruled that the accused has a case to answer and should be prepared to enter into defence before the court. He therefore adjourned the case till 23 April 2007 for the defence to put up their case.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 45/2007, 20 April - 22 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11835 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2007 : 02:19:19
|
JOURNALIST FATTY’S TRIAL, “NO CASE” SUBMISSION OVERRULED
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
Upon the close of the case of the prosecution, Defense Counsel Lamin S. Camara on Monday made “no case to answer” submission in the trial of the closed Independent Newspaper reporter, Lamin Fatty. But the trial Magistrate, Buba Jawo, overruled his submission and said that the defence should prepare to open their case. In his submission Counsel Camara told the court that the accused was charged with false publication under section 181 A of the Criminal Code. He said that the accused was alleged to have committed a crime between the 23-27 March 2006, when he was working for an independent newspaper in the municipality of Kanifing. He indicated that he was allegedly charged with willful/negligent publication of a false issue about an unnamed individual.
“My submission is that the prosecution has failed to lay a correct foundation against the accused person,” he said. He said that a “no case to answer” submission is amply spelt out in the book of the criminal law in Nigeria. He said that the Nigerian law report states that there are conditions that have to be fulfilled before the court, before “a no case to answer” submission can be sustained.
He stated that the first thing is that the court should be satisfied with the ingredients of the offense. He said that, that was not proved by the prosecution; that they have failed to produce sufficient evidence in the main trial. He noted that another condition was that the evidence produced by the prosecution has been falling out during cross examinations. Counsel Camara added that another points is that the evidence by the prosecution was not manifestly reliable for a tribunal.
He urged the court to go for a “no case to answer” submission to be successful and for the court to see whether the prosecution has moved even one ingredient of the offences.
He said that the first ingredient of the charge is that the accused did published The Independent newspaper of 24-26 March 2006. He added that the other is that the accused did that willfully, negligently or recklessly, which according to him, are not true. Camara reminded the court that the prosecution has provided three witnesses and that witnesses one and three are so inconsistent that the court should not believe in them or rely on them. Counsel Camara said that Samba Bah (PW1), the alleged subject matter of the offense testified on the 27th July, 2006. He said that Mr. Bah stated in his Evidence-in-Chief that he requested for a rejoinder and admitted that the rejoinder was his statement. He added that Mr. Bah could not show to the court in his statement where he requested for a rejoinder. Camara noted that Mr. Bah also stated that the accused person published the story which is totally inconsistent with Exhibit A (The Independent newspaper). “There is nothing in exhibit A to say that Mr. Fatty published the story on The Independent newspaper. He said that when it was put to Mr. Bah that the inclusion of his name in the alleged publication could have been the editor’s own imput, that Mr. Bah replied that he was only going by what was on the newspaper. “I urge this court to closely structinise Exhibit A (The Independent newspaper) to see whether the accused published anything on the paper. I therefore submit that the evidence of Samba Bah (PW1) is inconsistent and that they are unreliable,” Camara said.
Camara reminded the court about the Prosecution Witness Two (PW2), Detective Corporal 1838, Lamin Cham, has testified on the 2nd August 2006 and tendered Exhibits A+ A B and B1. Camara indicated that Detective Cham told the court that the accused person’s statement (Exhibit B) was recorded on 28 April 2006 at NIA. Camara indicated that the witness said he read out the cautionary warnings to the accused in the presence of an independent witness and other people in the office. He said that the witness stated in his cross examination that the statement of the accused was taken without an independent witness on 28 April 2006. Camara indicated that the witness later said that it was on the 11 June 2006 when he read out the cautionary statement to the accused in the presence of an independent witness. Camara asserted that the witness (Cham) stated that Exhibit B (the cautionary statement) was taken at the NIA, but there was nothing in it to show that it was taken at the NIA and that the same independent witness by the name Bakary Ceesay was present. Camara noted that the detective said that he never asked the independent witness whether he is literate or not. “Bakary Ceesay’s signature are completely different, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know that,” said Camara.
Counsel Camara stated that it was confusing that Bakary Ceesay signed the exhibit, not knowing that it was recorded on the May 11, 2006. Counsel Camara buttressed on the statement of PW3, ASP Ceesay, who stated that he was the IPO and that he instructed the arrest of Lamin Fatty (the accused). He said that ASP Ceesay cannot tell the court when the accused person was arrested, how long he had been in detention and could not tell how often he met the accused in his office. Camara indicated that ASP Ceesay indicated that on Exhibit A1, which contained the rejoinder, there was no name as a reporter under it. Camara said that the witness (ASP Ceesay) said that the name under the caption, “23 Coup Plotters Arrested” was Lamin Fatty. “Few minutes later, under cross examination, ASP Ceesay indicated that there was a name of a reporter for the rejoinder by the name Sulayman Makalo, even though Makalo’s name did not appear under the same column. His evidence is completely at variance with his Evidence-in- Chief,” said Camara. Defence counsel Camara said that the witness (ASP Ceesay), had said that there were two names of reporters on the front page of the newspaper (Exhibit A1) which according to him are Makalo and Secka. Camara argued that there were three names and that the third one is Sanna Camara. “The witness is absolutely unreliable, his statements are different from the one in the Examination-in-Chief,” said Camara. Counsel Camara said that ASP Ceesay indicated that Samba Bah (PW1) had told him that it was the accused who published the story but that he could not find that potion in PW1’s Samba’s statement.
Camara said that ASP Ceesay later stated that The Independent Newspaper Media Company Limited published Exhibits A and A1 (both newspapers). Camara reminded the court that, when it was put to the witness (ASP Ceesay) that “It is correct that Exhibit A and A1 were not published by the accused,” he said that Ceesay replied categorically that it was published by The Independent Newspaper Media Company Limited.
“There is not an atom of evidence before the court to even require the accused person to enter defence, the evidence is very clear that the accused did not publish the story on The Independent newspaper. I humbly urge this honourable court to uphold the case of no submission and to acquit and discharge the accused person,” he concluded.
The state prosecutor 1848 Momodou Mballow, asked the court to overrule the application made by the defence counsel to acquit and discharge the accused person. He said that the accused was charged with false publication and broadcasting under Section 181A of the Criminal Code. 1748 Mballow indicated that it was clear that the accused was the reporter for Exhibit A. He said that the accused was not a machine to produce Exhibit A but a reporter for the exhibit. Mballow indicated that it was clear that the publication was false and that Samba Bah was never arrested. He maintained that they have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. “We called three witnesses whose evidences are all consistent as regard to the false publication,” said Mballow. He argued that the defence’s submission is based on the two that is administrative and substantive justice.
Mballow added that whether a rejoinder was written or not, there was false publication and that it is now left to the court to determine. He said that the two different signatures on the Exhibits are totally irrelevant and that there was no proof to say that the signatures are different. 1748 Mballow told the court that for PW3 to state that editors could have put their own imput in that story is a probability. He said that the editor’s role is to edit the grammar or omit the formatting matters. He added that there was no reaction from the accused when the story was published. “We therefore urge this court to hold the accused to enter defence to prove that exhibit’s contents were indeed the editor’s and not him. We firmly urge this court to dismiss the application by the defence counsel,” says Mballow.
The trial Magistrate, Buba Jawo, said that the court has heard on both sides. He ruled that the accused has a case to answer and should be prepared to enter into defence before the court. He therefore adjourned the case till 23 April 2007 for the defence to put up their case.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 45/2007, 20 April - 22 April, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
