| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 19:45:19
|
Culled from the PointNewspaper
The constitution is on trial
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe on Friday 19th February said the Constitution of The Gambia is on trial when he made a 'no case' to answer submission in the Femi Peters' case before Magistrate Kayode of the Kanifing Magistrates' Court.
In his submission, the defence counsel told the court that on the 28th October 2009, the IGP lodged at the Banjul Magistrates' Court a criminal charge containing two counts, that is, charging the accused person on those two counts.
He added that in his humble submission, the evidence that has been adduced in the case, particularly that of the fourth prosecution witness, shows the accused was not on trial. "It is the Constitution of The Gambia and the survival of democracy that are on trial," he told the court.
He argued that according to count one, the accused was charged with control of procession contrary to section 5 (5A) and holding a political rally. The accused was also charged with using a loudspeaker on count two, he noted.
Lawyer Darboe submitted that after the prosecution had called their witnesses, the defence considered that no prima facie evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to warrant the accused to enter his defence.
He further indicated that the criminal procedure code does not provide the criteria which could guide the court in this situation. He cited some law authorities to support his argument.
Senior defence counsel Darboe said that a no-case submission must be upheld when an essential element charged has not been proven or if the evidence has been so manisfested that no reasonable tribunal could convict on that.
"You must prove the commission of the offence. You must also prove that the person charged is the one who committed the offence. You must prove all," he argued.
He referred to the Oxford dictionary and Macmillan dictionary for the meaning of "procession." He went on to submit that the particulars of the offence in the charge sheet are different from the meaning of procession, according to the dictionaries referred to.
Lawyer Darboe then referred the court to the evidence of the first prosecution witness, who in his evidence told the court that he found the accused sitting down during the rally. "Where was the procession?" he asked.
He asserted that it was the UDP that was holding the rally, according to PW1, and not the accused. He further submitted that PW1 stated in his evidence that there was no procession, and that the accused did not hold the rally, but the UDP. "Why was the UDP not charged for holding the rally?" he asked. Darboe argued that the party does not need a permit to hold a rally.
Still making his submission, Lawyer Darboe submitted that the evidence of PW2 indicated that the accused was sitting at the podium and someone was speaking and that the accused was not talking to anyone, except when he responded to PW1 who spoke to him. "Where is the evidence of procession and the evidence of the rally held by the accused?" he asked.
According to him, the evidence of PW3 was virtually a narration of what PW1 and PW2 had said. He referred the court to the application by the UDP to hold a rally on the 24th October 2009 and at the back of the exhibit there was a minute that the application was not approved. He said the accused never applied for a permit, but it was the UDP that did so.
He submitted that there was not only evidence to support the statement of offence, but that the particulars of offence which must support the statement of offence was at variance with the offence charged. He argued that under the Public Order Act there is no provision to apply for a permit to hold a rally. He adduced that this is never the law, stating that there was no evidence that the accused has disobeyed or opposed any order.
"The IGP chooses to deny UDP a rally and allowed the APRC to go ahead with their rallies. The Constitution provided that all persons are equal before the law," he concluded.
In response to the defence no-case submission, Inspector Fadera, the prosecuting officer, stated that the accused was charged with control of procession. He read the charge sheet, and said that the prosecution called four witnesses and that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborated.
Inspector Fadera stated that PW2 testified that there was a procession, and that there was a group of people escorting a car. Officer Fadera further submitted that this evidence had been corroborated by the evidence of PW3, arguing that all these witnesses were never shown any permit to hold the rally.
He further stated that PW4 told the court that there was an application by the UDP to hold a rally, and it was signed by the accused who went back to find out whether the application was approved.
The prosecutor argued that, according to the prosecution witnesses, there was a rally and the use of a public address system. According to him, the APRC was denied a permit and urged the court to term the witnesses of the prosecution as credible, citing some law authority in support of his argument.
Prosecutor Fadera went on to say that the court should not believe that the accused person did not hold a rally. He stated that a prima-facie case has been established by the prosecution, and urged the court to ask the accused to enter into his defence.
The case was adjourned to 3rd March 2010 for ruling.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 22 Feb 2010 19:46:46 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 23:03:07
|
I THINK GUYS LIKE YOU (WHOM PERSONALISE ISSUES AND DISCOUNT THE BIGGER PICTURE) ARE ON TRIAL NOT FEMI OR THE CONSTITUTION, IN MY OPINION. WHAT DOES THIS CASE REPRESENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE MANY OF ITS KIND THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN ON TESTED, MANIPULATED AND ON TRIAL SINCE JAMMEH USURP POWER BY THE BARREL OF THE GUN. GAMBIA IS NOT OWN BY UDP OR APRC; SERVING ITS POLITICAL INTERESTS ALONE HOWEVER I COMMEND LAWYER DARBOE FOR DOING A GOOD JOB ON THIS CASE AMONGST OTHERS.
BUT TO YOU NYARINGKANGBANA IF YOU CANNOT APPRECIATE VIEWS OF OUR BEST BRAINS IN GAMBIAN POLITICS, THEN ROW, ROW, ROW YOUR BOAT MERRILY, MERRILY, MERRILY, DOWN THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA!
FOROYAA gave a better account on its National News : Defence Makes ‘No Case’ Submission in Femi Peters’ Trial under http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4526
|
Edited by - kobo on 22 Feb 2010 23:28:51 |
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 00:10:49
|
Kobo,
"I THINK GUYS LIKE YOU (WHOM PERSONALISE ISSUES AND DISCOUNT THE BIGGER PICTURE) ARE ON TRIAL NOT FEMI OR THE CONSTITUTION,"
The mere fact that NYARINGKANGBANA has had the timerity to post a piece from The Point newspaper that you happen to disagree with, preferring the piece from FOROYAA surley is no cause for you to vent your anger personally on this poster?
I thought that you were now in for discussion of topics rather than steamrollering your own views on bantaba readers,I was mistaken,at least you have had the good grace to " COMMEND LAWYER DARBOE FOR DOING A GOOD JOB ON THIS CASE AMONGST OTHERS." A bit of common ground there surley.? I will now sit back and wait for your personal tirade on me.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 20:13:33
|
RESPECT 2 Toubab 1020. I do appreciate your comments & contributions on this forum; especially this topic.
Nyaringkangbana has to taste his own medicine for always being spiteful, malicious and arrogant with Halifa or any label associated with him, e.g P.D.O.I.S, Foroyaa & N.A.D.D. Here is someone who is on smearing campaign and all sorts of propaganda with U.D.P only and indifference to Foroyaa/Halifa & co. He knew Foroyaa has better rapporteur but he decided to caged himself by relying on The Point newspaper. Sadly for U.D.P (bragging on as the largest opposition party) don't have a party organ for press release, disseminate information, politics, civic education, inter alia. Lately I appear to observed marriage of convenience and moral support being accorded to them by Freedom online newspaper, Senegambia news and certain Gambian websites or on-line newspaper; which is good for the common good but not biased reporting.
Also as U.D.P Website is dormant and handicapped in certain areas, therefore they should appeciate efforts of other opposition who filled those gaps for them? U.D.P should be grateful to P.D.O.I.S & Foroyaa team and they owe them solidarity Hope you will agree with me from the quality of reporting by Foroyaa and up-date on this case since it started
WHAT I WANT TO TELL NYARINGKANGBANA IS THAT HALIFA SALLAH & FOROYAA HAVE BEEN DOING FINE IN GAMBIAN POLITICS AS THEY DO THEIR HOMEWORK PROPERLY BEFORE REPORTING. THEY HAVE THE BEST ARCHIVES IN GAMBIAN POLITICS SINCE JAWARA DAYS, VERBATIM LANDMARK POLITICAL CASES FOR EXAMPLE THAT OF LATE ASSAN TICKS CASE Vs. SAIHOU SABALLY AMONGST OTHERS, PROPER ELECTION RESULTS & VARIETIES OF ISSUES ON THE MOTHERLAND OR INTERNATIONAL.
U.D.P SHOULD HAVE HELP YOU TO CONFIRM OFFICIAL FIGURES FOR 2001 ELECTIONS ACCORDING TO THEIR RECORDS BEFORE YOUR DISTORTIONS & MALICIOUS ATTACK AGAINST HALIFA
Related on-going debates;
1. Updates from Gainako news Re: UDP 2006 Votes; Modou Nyang Should Give Us a Break!
2. Response for 1. from Freedom newspaper Gambia: Effecting Political Change in 2011: A Differing view To Sonny Daffeh By Modou Nyang
MAKE SURE THAT U.D.P WEBSITE FEED US WITH CURRENT INFORMATION ON GAMBIAN POLITICS, UP-TO DATE FACTS/FIGURES ON ELECTIONS, THE PARTY ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THIS CASE ETC
|
Edited by - kobo on 23 Feb 2010 21:36:10 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 20:58:19
|
Thanks Kobo.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 21:39:43
|
| Reap what you sow! |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Mar 2010 : 17:02:03
|
Any UDP information bureau/website documenting and keeping track of this VIP POLITICAL TRIAL Credibility of UDP should be question Lawyer is busy in court but what about information/UDP propaganda organ UDP appear to be detached from Femi's case and doing nothing to dessiminate information or provide relevant updates
Relevant updates from The Point Newspaper Lawyer Darboe urges court to declare Femi Peters not liable under http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/lawyer-darboe-urges-court-to-declare-femi-peters-not-liable |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
mavaric
Turkmenistan
94 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 00:04:15
|
| that's harsh.. |
Edited by - mavaric on 02 Apr 2010 00:05:34 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 11:12:02
|
Very sad day. But I saw it coming. What I didn't see
coming was UDP with its broad base support going back
home, sit down and have Peters serve his time in jail.
Just didn't see that one coming... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 02 Apr 2010 11:13:15 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 12:40:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by mavaric
that's harsh..
Not only harsh but also perverse. Mr Peters was not even charged for holding a rally without permit but holding a procession and use of a loud speaker. He may have signed the UDP permit application for a rally but he is in no way connected to a procession. No evidence was adduced in court to suggest that he had used a loudspeaker. Therefore, the elements of the crimes have not been proven beyound reasonable doubt.
I find it laughable for the prosecution to have said that not all the elements of the crime has to be proven beyound reasonable doubt, and also that a procession and rally are the same. God knows where he got that from but looks like none of that mattered to the presiding Nigerian magistrate.
Like Kay, I too saw it coming when the magistrate started to disregard the basic tenets of fair hearing such as the right to adequate legal representation and judicial conventions.
Mr Peters was forced to enter his defence without his lawyer. In the end he was hopeless and decided to rest his case.
The magistrate should refused to stay proceedings being the case being heard at a superior court. This is against judicial conventions.
I think Mr Peters was only seen as a soft target otherwise, why didn't they charge Ousainu Darboe. He is the leader of the party and he even used a louderspeaker to address the rally. They didn't choose Mr Darboe because they know that will put them in the spotlight of the international community.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 02 Apr 2010 13:11:59 |
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 02 Apr 2010 : 12:40:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
Very sad day. But I saw it coming. What I didn't see
coming was UDP with its broad base support going back
home, sit down and have Peters serve his time in jail.
Just didn't see that one coming...
With all respect, Kayjatta, what do you want UDP supporters to do about this? This should concern all Gambians across all spectrum of every divide. We are in this together and the earlier we realize that the better it is for everyone. Such things have happened too often: So many political and other figures have been victims of selective and barbarian justice in Gambia and still Gambian people (not UDP, not NADD, not any party)stand by and look.
Maafanta was right! |
Tesito
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
