|
Momodou
Denmark
11645 Posts |
 Posted - 12 May 2007 : 18:28:19
|
FOCUS ON POLITICS:
SIX MOJA MEMBERS ARRESTED, A DAY AFTER THE BAN
With Suwaibou Touray
We have been focusing on politics from pre-colonial to post-independence era. In the last issue, we have mentioned the arson attacks and subsequent burning of the presidents’ yacht “the Barajally.” We have stopped where we said the police were frantically searching for information up to the point where the state had to make a handsome reward of D5000 to any informer who would help them to arrest the culprits.
Let us continue from where we stopped. Continued from: http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3621
At this stage, people were caught up between two possible coercive powers, i.e; the state, on the one hand, and the possible threat from whichever clandestine group may have been responsible for the burning of the state yacht, on the other
By 30 October 1980, The Gambia Gazette Published the proscription of MOJA-G and The Gambia Socialist Revolutionary Party of Mr. Pengu George. According to the Gazette, the grounds given for the banning of these two orgnisations were; “that they were being used for purposes considered prejudicial to and incompatible with the interest of public safety, public order, public morality and are further being used for interfering with the rights and freedoms of other persons.” Just one day after the announcement on 31 October, 1980 at about 10:40am, according to records of MOJA-G, a team of police officers, armed with a search warrant, entered 46 Buckle street, the house of Koro Tijan Sallah. The house was searched and the six occupants, including Koro, were arrested. According to the MOJA leaflet, the six were not informed, at the time, of the reasons for their arrest.
According to the Amnesty International’s report on the trial, a quantity of items were removed during the search and subsequently produced in court. They include two bows and two arrows, one cutlass and scabbard, six shotgun cartridges, two long-playing records, documents, a stamp being the insignia of MOJA, radio equipment and speakers.
According to the MOJA leaflet, the exact nature of the radio equipment, i.e, whether it was a transmitter or a receiver or an ordinary radio, had not been made clear at the trial. The six were brought to the CID office in the police station and subsequently charged with “managing an unlawful society and with possession of weapons, contrary to the Arms and Ammunition Act.
This means that the 1971 Society’s Act was retroactively applied after the Gazette. The law at the time says before a society could be banned it must be published in The Gambia Gazette.
According to records, the trial proper commenced on November 7, 1980 before Mr. Swanika, an acting principal Magistrate. The six accused persons were named as follows;
1. Koro Tijan Sallah, age 33, former student of Harvard University, U.S.A and Patrice Lumumba University, USSR), former secondary school teacher in Banjul.
2. Bakari Jobe, age 18, unemployed, former mechanical apprentice.
3. P.Modu Jobe, age 24, former police officer, currently unemployed.
4. Fakebba Juwara, aged 21, building assistant.
5. Momodou M’boge, aged 21, unemployed, former clerk, Public Works Department.
6. Solomon Tamba, age 21, unemployed, former clerk, Public Workers Department.
The MOJA- six, as they were popularly called, were represented by five Gambian lawyers, Mr. Pap-Cheyassin Secka, Mr. Ousainou Darboe, Mr. Antouman Gaye, Mr. Sillah, and Mr. Kocker. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Grante. The Solicitor General stood for the state assisted by lawyers from the state law office. According to the MOJA leaflet summarizing the report of Amnesty International, the charges read as thus;
(i) to wit the “ Movement for Justice in Africa managing an unlawful society, contrary to section 4 of the Societies Act 1971.
(2) the six accused ) were on the 31st day of October 1980 between 1100 hours and 1200 hours at 46 Buckle Street in the city of Banjul found to be in possession of arms and ammunition without lawful authority, contrary to Section 8, of the Arms and Ammunition Act (Cap, 6)”.
When the trial opened on 7 November 1980. Mr. Pap Secka for the defendant Sallah, submitted a “plea in bar” to the effect that the indictment did not disclose any offence. The magistrate adjourned the court to consider this defence submission, which was rejected when the court resumed on l4 November 1980. The prosecution then immediately sought leave to amend the charges by the addition of charges of membership of MOJA and attending meetings of MOJA. The application was rejected, after legal objection from the defence. There were no further steps taken in the trial until 28 November 1980, because senior prosecution counsels were not available. The prosecution’s case opened with the evidence of the senior police officer who conducted the search and arrest operation on 31 October 1980. After his evidence-in-chief was partly heard, the trial was again adjourned and recommenced on 29 December 1980.” The magistrate’s continued refusal to grant bail was sought to be reversed by a separate motion before the Supreme Court. Shortly before Christmas, however, at the regular demand of the six defendants in the magistrate’s court, the prosecution withdrew objection to bail and the magistrate granted bail to all six defendants. All six were on bail throughout the trial. During the three days of the hearing which Amnesty international’s representative observed, the testimony of the first prosecution witness, the principal police officer, was completed, and the direct examination of a second police officer who accompanied the first on the search on 31 October was commenced. The substance of the evidence brought forward by 29 December 1980 establishes that all six defendants were found in the sitting room of 46 Buckle Street, Banjul on 31 October 1980. The two police witnesses gave conflicting evidence as to what they were doing at the time of the police search. One had five of them sitting around listening to a radio; while the sixth read a book and the other stated that they were all seated discussing a document. The raid was conducted because of information received by the police that there were arms and ammunition in the house. The police officer who stated this in evidence refused to divulge the source of the information relying on Section 13 of the Societies Act 1971 which protects an informer from having his identity revealed in court except in exceptional circumstances.
The magistrate ruled in this case that the police officer did not have to give the source of the information. The defence did not object. All of the items mentioned above, the fruits of the search, were tendered as evidence in the trial but not all were admitted in evidence. The court admitted the two bows and arrows, the cartridges, the cutlass, the records (“The Story Behind Mandela”, and “Kwame Nkrumah”) and the MOJA stamp. The rest were accepted “for identification purposes only”. With respect to the evidence in support of the charge of possession of arms and ammunition, it appeared to Amnesty International’s representative that these charges could not be sustained. In the first place, proof of possession against each of the six defendants appeared to be absent. Secondly, apart from the cartridges, it was doubtful whether the other items constituted “arms”. The defence case was that two bows and two arrows were curios, not intended or capable of being used for offensive purposes.
See next issue for more on the trial of MOJA – SIX.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 54/2007, 11 - 13 May, 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
Topic Locked
