 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Apr 2016 : 18:54:33
|
Lawyer Darboe, Party Executives Arrested amid Protest
By Kebba Jeffang
Foroyaa: April 18, 2016
Photo From right: Momodou Sanneh, Fakebba Colley, Lamin Dibba, Lawyer Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters and Aji Suwareh Bojang
 A detachment of fully armed security forces, comprising personnel of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) and state guards, on Saturday, 16th April, 2016 rounded up some executive members of the United Democratic Party (UDP), including its party leader Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, and party militants while they were marching on Kairaba Avenue to demand for Ebrima Solo Sandeng and others who were arrested.
Solo Sandeng, who was picked up with others by the security forces on Thursday, 14 April, 2016 at Westfield, is alleged to have died while being held by them.
Before the commencement of the procession at Lawyer Darboe’s residence on Kairaba Avenue before midday, the UDP leader told the journalists who were present that they are peacefully going to the PIU headquarters at Kanifing to demand for an explanation on the fate of their party members who were arrested and said to be held by them. He said they have advised all those taking part in the procession not to insult anyone, cause harm to people or destroy vehicles and property on the way.
Mr. Darboe said The Gambia is presently in a state of crisis, and the same applies to democracy and the rule of law. He said this event of 14th April had led to the arrest of several young people who were protesting for electoral reform at Westfield.
“My executive was never informed about what was planned and I understand that the other party leaders were not informed because we were likely to say no to it and they decided to go ahead and do what they wanted to do. Of course peaceful demonstrations are constitutionally guaranteed. They are rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and rights that are guaranteed are exercisable without permission from anybody, otherwise they become privileges. UDP as a party was not involved and was not concerned about what took place,” said the UDP leader.
Mr. Darboe said they later learnt that some of their party members were involved in the protest and as such they will not abandon them simply because it was organised without their consent. He said the APRC regime does not respect the rights of individuals.
“I’ve got impeccable information that these arrested people were taken to Mile 2 prisons; initially at the Police Intervention Unit headquarters in Kanifing and then taken to Mile 2 central prisons where they were picked out in numbers of five and taken to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) where they were subjected to the most brutal torture,” said Darboe.
He added that Solo Sandeng was in a state of comma but was not given any medical attention.
“By 10 pm at night, I got information that he died as a result of the torture. One would have expected that a postmortem would be carried out to determine the cause of the death…,” he said. “And as I talk to you now, I have information which we are watching that Fatoumatta Jawara is in a state of comma, in a very critical condition and she is between life and death, so is Nogoi Njie, the first vice president of the female wing, also in a similar situation,” said an emotionally charged Darboe.
The UDP leader said his party has the right to go about its political activities without hindrance. He said Solo Sandeng is the Steve Biko of the Gambia today. He said the UDP met on Friday and have decided that they will go out on Saturday and demand for Sandeng, either dead or alive. He said they will also demand for the release of other people who were arrested. He said in the process, they have asked all the deputies in the various positions in the executive to stay away as he (Darboe) and the others are prepared to join Sandeng that day.
“We are going to ask for Solo’s body either alive of dead and the rest of them to be released,” said Mr. Darboe.
When they started the procession, the UDP party officials who were in front of marchers included Lawyer Darboe, Modou Sanneh, former Minority Leader, Kemeseng Jammeh, former Minority Leader, Lamin Dibba, former National Assembly Member and Femi Peters among others. They were followed by some of the family members of Solo Sandeng, including his daughter, Fatoumatta Sandeng, among others. The marchers were chanting “Release Solo Sandeng and the rest of the Westfield protestors either dead or alive” and displaying placards and banners with similar inscriptions.
As the procession got near the Elton filling station or FIB building on the same road, a truck load of fully armed PIU personnel and soldiers maneuvered its way through the crowd from behind to be at the front where it stopped to barricade the marchers. Some security personnel were in front of the marchers and trying to stop them as they forged ahead.
However, reinforcements also started coming to the scene at the main Latrikunda-Kairaba Avenue junction with the arrival of more trucks and pick up vehicles carrying security personnel armed with riot gears such as helmets, shields, tear gas canisters, etc. All of a sudden, the situation descended into chaos as the marchers and security engaged in a scuffle which led to beatings with batons, rifle butts and the firing of tear gas by the security and stone throwing by marchers. The security started using force in arresting some of the marchers who were being physically assaulted and thrown into waiting trucks and pick up vehicles while chasing of others who ran into the adjoining side streets. In the process, many old and young men and women were arrested or captured, including by standers, pedestrians and those found selling or at their work places nearby, who were all whisked away.
The UDP executive members who were arrested and taken away included Lawyer Darboe, Momodou Sanneh, Lamin Dibba, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Fakebba Colley, Lamin Jatta, Junkunda Suso, Lamin Ceesay, Tapha Makalo, Fanta Darboe, Amadou Sawo and Kebba Khan.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2016 : 09:00:51
|
Lawyers File for Release of UDP Executive Members
By Kebba Jeffang
Foroyaa: April 20, 2016
Lawyer Antouman Gaye, who is leading a team of lawyers representing the executive members of the United Democratic Party From right Momodou Sanneh Fakebba Colley Lamin Dibba Lawyer Darboe Kemeseng Jammeh Femi Peters Aji Suwareh Bojang(UDP), including its leader Mr. Ousainou Darboe, said they have filed a case at the high court on Tuesday, 19 April, 2016 to secure the release of their clients.
The UDP executive members were arrested by the security forces on Saturday 16 April, when they engaged in a procession to demand for the release of the protesters at Westfield, including Mr. Ebrima Solo Sandeng, who was recently elected as the UDP National Organisng Secretary, alleged to have died in custody.
Since then the whereabouts of some of the protesters on Thursday, 14 April, and marchers on Saturday, 16 April, remain unknown to their relatives and the public as well.
Talking to this reporter, senior counsel Gaye confirmed that the case was filed. “Yes, we have filed the case today to secure their release,” he said.
He added that there are many lawyers in the matter because it is not only Darboe who is affected but several other party members.
Mr. Gaye also confirmed that “I have tried to see them as a lawyer but I could not access them and their whereabouts is also not known to me either,” revealed Gaye.
On when the process will commence, he responded that filing a case is a process and that a procedure has to be followed.
“As we have filed the case now, all the documents are in the court’s custody and in process it will reach the Chief Justice who will later decide which judge will take the matter,” said Lawyer Gaye.
The continuous detention of lawyer Darboe, UDP executives and militants have now exceeded the constitutional limit of 72 hours.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2016 : 09:17:38
|
State Charges 18 Westfield Protestors with 6 Counts
By Kebba Jeffang
ForoyaaApril 22, 2016
 At the high court in Banjul on Thursday, 21st April, 2016 presided over by Justice O. Ottaba, the state filed 6 count charges against Solo Sandeng 218 people that allegedly took part in the demonstration at Westfield junction on Thursday, 14th April demanding for electoral reform in the Gambia.
The state was represented by Saleh H. Barkum, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and others, whilst Lawyer Antouman Gaye and others appeared for the accused persons.
The accused persons all pleaded not guilty to single count charges that are levelled against them.
They included Lamin Sonko, Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Modou Touray, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Lamin Camara, Alhagie Jammeh, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Jatta, Lamin Marong, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yabo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, Bubacarr Touray, Saderr Secka and Alhagie Fatty.
The statement of offence on count one alleges that the 19 accused persons held an unlawful assembly contrary to section 70 of the Criminal Code Cap 10 Vol. 3 laws of the Gambia 2009.
The particulars of offence on the said count states that the accused persons on the 14 April, 2016 at Westfield, Kanifing Municipality and within the jurisdiction this honourable court with intent to breach the peace and provoke other persons to breach same unlawfully assembled in a manner that causes fear in the neighborhood and thereby committed an offence.
On count two, they are charged with ‘Riot’ contrary to section 69 and punishable under section 71 of the Criminal Code Cap 10 Vol 3 laws of the Gambia.
The particulars of count two state that the same people at the same place and time had assembled without a permit with intent to breach the peace and cause terror to the public and thereby committed an offence.
On count three, they are charged with incitement of violence contrary to section 59B (b) of the Criminal Code Cap 10 Vol3 laws of the Gambia 2009.
Its particulars state that the same accused persons, at the same time and place, published banners with statements calculated to lead to the destruction or damage to properties and thereby committed an offence.
Count four alleges that the accused persons were “riotously interfering with vehicles contrary to section 78 of the Criminal Code Cap 10 Vol3 laws of the Gambia 2009.”
The particulars of offence on the said count states that the same people at the same time and place and without a permit, did assemble in a manner that prevented the movement of vehicles around Westfield and thereby committed an offence.
The fifth count alleges that the accused persons were charged for “holding a procession without a permit contrary to section 5(5)(a) of the Public Order Act Cap 22 Vol 4 of the laws of the Gambia 2009.”
The particulars of the offence state that they held a public procession without a permit from the Inspector General of Police and thereby committed an offence.
On the sixth and final count, it is alleged that the accused persons disobeyed an order to disperse from an unlawful procession contrary to section 5(5) (b) of the Public Order Act Cap 22 Vol 4 of the laws of the Gambia 2009.
The particulars of offence on the said count state that the same accused persons had disobeyed the order of Assistant Commissioner of Police Abdoulie Sanneh and Superindent Momodou Sowe to disperse from their unlawful assembly and thereby committed an offence.
All the 19 accused persons denied any wrong doing after every charge was read out in court.
At this juncture, DPP Barkum applied for an adjournment.
However, Mr. Gaye informed the court that his colleague Amie N. Bensouda has some applications to make.
In her application, counsel Bensouda argued that in a criminal case, the DPP after plea taking should consider the bail of the accused persons instead of applying for an adjournment. She said some of the accused persons in this case are not applicants in the earlier bail application. She said as accused persons, they have the right to bail. She argued that the earlier application was made when these accused persons were not arraigned to take their pleas.
“All the charges against these accused persons are bailable and that most of them are misdemeanors. All the sentences of the charges are fines and not more than 3 years in jail. I see no reason why they could not be bailed. The accused persons were arrested on the 14th April for alleged offences. Today is 21st April which makes their detention exceeding the constitutional provision of 72 hours,” said Bensouda.
At this stage, the DPP rose to argue that counsel is making an application of bail instead of oral bail application.
However, the defence counsel denied that she is moving a bail application. She urged the court to let the oral application to proceed, adding that nothing prevents the court from granting her clients bail.
Again, the DPP said counsel should confine herself to an oral application and not to make a bail application.
Lawyer Bensouda argued that in a criminal case in every common law jurisdiction, the DPP is expected to consider a bail application after the arraignment instead of seeking for an adjournment.
“The only option for this court is to immediately grant bail to the accused persons,” submitted counsel Bensouda.
In objecting to such an application, DPP told the court that in the interest of justice, the bail application should be brought formally. He said it is the nature of the case that guides the court.
“It is common knowledge that this case is an issue of national security which could be at stake. We need facts to base on but without a formal application, we cannot have them. We therefore asked the court to disregard the oral application,” said DPP Barkum.
He further cited the case of Ousainou Darboe and 18 others indicating that that case has similar facts and application. He said court decided in that one that oral application cannot be made an order for a formal application. He said there is an application for bail in this case which is labelled as Ousainou Darboe and 36 others.
However, Mrs. Bensouda insisted that she has made no bail application in her submission but that the applicants are challenging the unconstitutionality of their detention without trial.
At this juncture, the trial judge decided to adjourn the matter for ruling on Monday, 25th April, 2016 at noon.
WHEREABOUTS OF FATOUMATA JAWARA NOT KNOWN
By Mustapha Jallow
Foroyaa: April 25, 2016
Fatoumata Jawara, a United Democratic Party (UDP) supporter who was part of those arrested on Thursday, 14 July, 2016, while protesting for electoral reforms in the country was not part of the UDP crew who were arraigned in court last week. The UDP executive members including its party leader Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and other supporters are currently facing six count charges before Justice O. Ottaba of the Banjul High Court. According to earlier reports by Foroyaa, Fatoumatta was not seen on the 20 and 21 April, 2016 during the first and second appearances of the defendants and her whereabouts at the time of going to press is still unknown to family members.
This reporter visited her residence in Tallinding and was told by family members that Jawara never returned home since she left the house on the day of the demonstration and they have not received any information about her.
‘‘We are aware that she was arrested with the other protesters and taken away but still now we do not know her whereabouts,’’ disclosed a family source.
According to the family, they went to the high court during the two sittings of the UDP case in order to see her but she was not among the accused persons in the dock. The Source added that the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital (EFSTH) was also visited to enquire if she has been admitted there but no positive information was given to them.
When asked whether they have taken any step in visiting the security detention centres in the country, the source indicated that they are yet to do so as they do not even know where she is being held.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2016 : 17:12:16
|
Darboe & Co case: State to ‘add names’ to the charge
The Point: Thursday, April 28, 2016
The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) S.H. Barkun yesterday informed the court that the state wants to add “additional names” to the charge sheet, in the criminal case involving lawyer Ousainou Darboe and eighteen others before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul.
When the case was called, DPP S.H. Barkun appeared for the state along with M. Koita and A.M. Yusuf, while the defence team was led by Senior Counsel A.A.B. Gaye along with A.N. Bensouda, Hawa Sisay-Sabally, S.M. Tambadou, O.M.M. Njie, Mary A. Samba, Rachel Y. Mendy, Neneh Cham, Musa Bachilly, Abdoulie Sissoho, Yasin Senghore, Hajum Gaye, M. Touray, Sagar Jahateh, and J.B. Sambou.
The accused persons are Ousainou Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yaya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Juguna Suso, Momodou L.K. Sanneh and Yaya Jammeh.
They were charged with five counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, and holding a procession without a permit.
The DPP in his submission said: “We had three witnesses in court my lord. However, we have just discovered that some names were omitted and because of that we intend to amend the charge to include those names in order not to go forward and backward at the same time.
“So we will prefer to have the charge amended and the names included before the commencement of hearing. For this reason, I am compelled by this circumstance to apply for another date for hearing.”
In response, senior counsel Gaye said: “My learned friend has not made himself clear as to what the names are for.”
The DPP again said the application was for additional names to be included in the charge sheet.
Counsel Gaye then said: “DPP has not told anything to the court that will warrant your lordship to adjourn the matter. I would have expected my learned friend to ask for a stand down for him to include the names he had in the bill of indictment.”
He added that the DPP had other options to himself, and there was nothing stopping him to file a separate indictment for them to proceed with the case.
“Your lordship will see that in the six counts there is no charge of conspiracy against the accused persons, which could have given the DPP credence on his application.”
Defence counsel Gaye further said the accused persons are not on bail, and if the DPP had to adjourn the matter, it means they are going back to custody.
“The court could stand down the matter, and let the DPP go and do what he wanted to do or he could let the matter proceed and amend later.”
Senior Counsel Gaye further adduced that if what the DPP was proposing to do was before the court, they could understand but he was just being speculative because there was nothing before the court, and in criminal trial “it is trite that nothing is taken for granted”.
It was the DPP who insisted that they come for hearing and they were ready to proceed, he added.
The trial judge then said he would adjourn the case until Thursday at 12 noon, since the DPP said 10 a.m. was not good for him.
Counsel Gaye then said: “We wish to apply for cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused persons, as well as all the exhibits that the state wants to use against them in court.”
The trial judge said it was as of right, and the DPP should make the documents available.
The DPP also said he would see what he could do, but senior counsel Gaye told the court the DPP should not say that because giving out the documents was not a matter of favour and grace, but a matter of law.
The DPP then said he would make the documents available.
Meanwhile, senior counsel Hawa Sisay-Sabally made an application with regards to the welfare of the accused persons.
“My lord made an order relating to the accused persons to be given medical care and to also have food from their families, as well as for their families and counsel to have access to them.
“We have been informed that the order has not been abided by, by the prison officials, and only their counsel have access to them.”
She added that the 15th accused person, Fanta Darboe, particularly, sustained severe injuries and her dress was not removed for three days, and had not received “any medical” attention.
“This court has made an order that they should receive medical attention,” she said.
“I will remind the court to look at the accused person; they are wearing the same clothes and no change of clothing is allowed and they are just remanded, and not convicts. These people deserve humane treatment to enable them stand trial, which is a constitutional right.”
She added that the court’s independence is guaranteed by the constitution and the court’s order should be complied with.
“Your order is being flouted,” she said.
“I just want to draw the court’s attention to the unfortunate incident that happened in court. It was lunch time and as we were about to give food to the accused, a security officer prevented us from doing so,” she said.
“Even the law allowed those remanded to receive food from private sources; so not only your lordship’s order is flouted but the section of the Prisons Act is frustrated too.”
She added: “The rule is that nobody should come to court armed, but the security [officers] are armed and they are not complaining; so why should they stop the accused from taking food.”
In response, the DPP said most of the allegations are not substantiated, and that he was urging them to comply with the rules and regulations of the Prison Services.
The trial judge then said it was important that somebody in custody be catered for medically, and ordered that they should be given medical attention.
With regard to the food, he urged both parties to work together in coordinating the process.
However, after more than 30 minutes of pushing and pulling between the security escorts and counsel for the accused persons, the accused were taken back to prison without food and the food catered for them was left behind.
Author: Halimatou Ceesay
Source : The Point |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2016 : 21:43:31
|
WHEN WILL THE MYSTERY SURROUNDING THE NON COURT APPEARANCE OF WESTFIELD ARRESTEES BE OVER?
Foroyaa Editorial. April 28, 2016
One of the burning issues which refuses to die away is the non- appearance of the Westfield arrestees in court.
Bail has been applied for the arrestees but people like Solo Sandeng, Fatoumata Jawara, Nogoi Njie and Fatou Camara are yet to appear in court as accused persons.
72 hours have elapsed making it mandatory for them to appear before the courts or are released.
It is important for the State to conduct investigation and provide correct report to the families.
It is the obligation of the State to protect accused persons so that they could appear before impartial tribunals to put up their defence without going through any form of punishment. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 10 May 2016 : 18:33:57
|
Court to rule on whether to refer counts 5 & 6 to Supreme Court In Lawyer Darboe and 18 others Trial
Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: May 10, 2016
Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court yesterday, 9 May, 2016 adjourned the criminalFrom right Momodou Sanneh Fakebba Colley Lamin Dibba Lawyer Darboe Kemeseng Jammeh Femi Peters Aji Suwareh Bojang
trial involving Mr. Ousainou Darboe, leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) and 18 others for ruling on whether the court should transfer counts 5 and 6 to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The other accused persons are Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yahya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudu Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Juguna Suso, Momodou L.K Sanneh and Yaya Jammeh.
When the case was called, Lawyer Antouman Gaye, who headed a team of defence lawyers, announced their representation for all the accused persons, while Hadi Saleh Barkun, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and a team of state lawyers appeared for the state.
In his reply to the application of the defence for the two counts to be referred to the supreme court, the DPP said at the last seating the defence counsel (Hawa Sisay Sabally) asked the court to transfer two out of the seven counts against the accused persons to the supreme court on the grounds that the two counts are predicated on the Public Order Act which was made in excess of the power vested on the National Assembly.
He said the second issue raised by the defence is that the said Act is not in harmony with section 25 of the 1997 Constitution. “My lord, the question before this court is not to determine the legislative competence of the National Assembly. The question before this court is whether the accused persons are guilty or innocent of the charges filed against them on the 28 of April 2016,” submitted the DPP.
He further submitted that the jurisdiction of this court has been conferred in this case by filing the bill of indictment and arraigning the accused persons accordingly. He said it should be noted that they were first arraigned on the 21 of April, 2016 and that their pleas were taken on that day, and that subsequently the prosecution amended the charge on the 28 of April, 2016 and that their pleas were taken again. “It is also noteworthy that no objection whatsoever was made as to the competence of the charges before their respective pleas were taken. That gave this court the jurisdiction to try the charges before it,” he argued.
The DPP continued: “By virtue of section 217 of the criminal procedure code, any objection of whatsoever nature to a charge should be made before the plea of the accused person is taken and where that is not done, it can be assumed that all is well and the defence is not objecting to the charge. Notwithstanding an objection was made on count 5 and 6 regarding the public order act on the grounds that it was made in excess of legislative powers of the national assembly which application was concluded with a prayer that ii should be sent to the supreme court for determination.”
He further told the court that another question to be asked is “how do we send a question for determination?” He cited section 127(1)
paragraph A-D and section 100 (a)(B) (c). He said the excessive powers of the National Assembly has to be explained in black and white before the court can act on such application and it is not a mere saying, adding that in other words, the applicant has to convince the court that a law has been made in excess and that that is what is lacking at this stage.
The DPP said the defence stressed that section 25 of the Constitution has been violated by section 5 of the Public Order Act.
“It is our submission that assuming section 5 of the Public Order Act is inconsistent with the 1997 Constitution that alone will not confine the Public Order Act being accommodated under section 100(2) (a) (b) (c). The only section that can be implored is section 4 of the constitution nothing more than that,” he added.
He therefore urged the court to refuse the application and allow them to proceed with the case.
In her counter reply to the points by the DPP, Defence Counsel Hawa Sisay-Sabally argued that it was never in their submission for the court to transfer counts 5 and 6 to the Supreme Court but they rather asked for a referral. She said they even went to the extent of formulating the questions to be referred.
On 217 of the CPC as cited by the DPP, Barrister Sisay-Sabally submitted that this section does not deal with constitutional issues. She said the particular section is not relevant to their application. She referred the court to Saho Vs the Inspector General of Police, an authority which made reference to the constitution. She said it is not right to say that it is only the Sabally case that has been referred to the supreme court but the Saho case was also referred.
Lawyer Sisay-Sabally argued that the constitution is not subject to be interpreted by the black law dictionary relied upon by the DPP. She said the language of the constitution is very clear and that section 100 referred to by her learned friend (DPP) does not create a category of cases to be transferred to the Supreme Court. She said section 25 of the Constitution falls under section 127(a) and therefore this court should determine section 5 of the Public Order Act. “It is my submission that that section is severally flouted,” she said.
Counsel Sisay Sabally added “The DPP did ask that excess legislative power has to be explained in black and white; it is not a mere saying, it came from the accused persons who are remanded in custody. Finally I urged this court using Attorney General vs Jobe to refer this counts to the Supreme Court for determination and disregard the entire arguments of the prosecution which are misconceived and not in line with the constitution,” submitted Sisay-Sabally.
At this juncture, the presiding judge adjourned the case to Monday 16 May, 2016 at 12 noon for ruling. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2016 : 11:52:37
|
UDP PARTY LEADER LAWYER DARBOE SENDS A MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION TO THE GAMBIA PEOPLE AND CONGRATULATES SIR DAWDA KAIRABA JAWARA ON HIS BIRTHDAY.
Fellow citizens, friends of The Gambia , I send you sincere greetings and profound appreciation on my humble behalf and that of my compatriots languishing in illegal detention as hostages of an unjust and cruel regime. From here within the borders of our beloved country and in the great cities of the civilized world, you have risen in solidarity to vindicate the basic principle that we the Gambian people categorically reject dictatorship and tyranny and will insist on getting the freedom and democracy worthy of our people. We thank all of you who value the blood and tears of our fellow citizens to prompt you to stand up and do your part to help this critical battle for the very soul and direction of our country. Together as we stand as a diverse but indivisible people , our patience , endurance and faith would be tested by the machinations and barbarism of a regime drenched in our collective blood. With your continuous help, I can assure you that the moral rectitude of our cause will by the grace of God help us reclaim our country and with it our dignity which the dictator has trampled on for too long. I urge all citizens to be steadfast , law abiding and fully engaged in this journey to make our Gambia free, democratic and safe for all its citizens .
Finally I extend warm birthday greetings to Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara , founding father of our modern Republic. Patriot and the consummate gentleman who exemplifies what is best in our people in integrity, compassion and fidelity to the rule of law. With his compatriots , he birthed , nursed and led an improbable nation to take its place in the global family as a respected and beloved member in good standing . We thank him for the foundations he laid, for the personal example set as a leader who was honorable and worthy of the good people whose mandate he freely and fairly sought . We pray for Allah to bless him and reward him abundantly for the grace and compassion he continuous to show our nation and its people.
Thank you and May God bless us all.
Lawyer Ousainu Darboe
Party Leader and Secretary General
United Democratic Party
Source: UDP |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
rassimian
United Kingdom
168 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2016 : 13:30:12
|
| I see these postings have been read 716 times by various people yet the only postings have been by Momodou. Where are the comments from Gambians!!? This is not some minor affair going on in the Gambia. It is about the behaviour of an autocratic, undemocratic Government headed by a despot, which is putting it mildly. I could say more but what is the point if no one is going to reply. Why are you bothering to read but not comment! As we say has 'the cat got your tongue' or are you just running scared !! |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2016 : 19:50:42
|
Judge declines hearing of Darboe & Co trial
The Point: Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul yesterday declined hearing the case of Ousainou Darboe and 19 others.
The accused persons on the amended charge sheet are Ousainou Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yaya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Jukuna Suso, Momodou L.K. Sanneh, Yaya Jammeh and Masanneh Lalo Jawla.
They are indicted on seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful and conspiracy.
When the case was called, DPP S.H. Barkun appeared for the state with the deputy DPP M.B. Abubacarr.
The defence team was led by Senior Counsel A.A.B. Gaye alongside A.N.D. Bensouda, Hawa Sisay-Sabally, B.S. Touray, L.S. Camara, O.M.M. Njie, M. Bachilly, S.M. Tambadou, Neneh Cham, Yasin Senghore, J.B. Sambou, C. Gaye, Dayoh Small-Dago, among others.
The trial judge then said: “I wish to decline of the proceedings of this matter and I refer the case file to the Chief Justice for re-assignment.”
It would be recalled that Darboe and Co were first arraigned on 20 April 2016 and they took their plea of not guilty on the same date.
The state amended the charge by adding a new name and a conspiracy charge on 28 April 2016, and the accused persons took their plea of not guilty again.
The defence counsel then filed a written bail application, which was dismissed on the grounds that it ‘lacks merit’.
After they were refused bail, the accused persons through their counsel asked the court to stay its proceedings on counts 5 and 6, which are about the Public Order Act and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.
The Director of Public Prosecutions objected to this on the grounds that the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the defence did not object before the accused persons took their plea, and urged the court to refused the application and allow the state to proceed with the case.
The trial judge was then expected to deliver a ruling on stay of proceedings on counts 5 and 6 yesterday, when he announced that he has declined to hear the case.
The bill of indictment on count one stated that the accused persons on 16 April 2016, at Kairaba Avenue, with intent to breach the peace and provoke other persons to breach same, unlawfully assembled in a manner that causes fear in the neighbourhood and thereby committed an offence.
Count two stated that the accused persons on the same date and place assembled without a permit with intent to breach the peace and cause terror to the public and thereby committed an offence.
Count three stated that the accused persons on the same date and place published banners with statements calculated to lead to the destruction or damage to properties.
Count four stated that the accused persons on the same date and place without a permit assembled in a manner that prevented the movement of vehicles around Westfield.
Count five stated that the accused persons on the same date and place held a public procession without a permit from the IGP and thereby committed an offence.
Count six stated that the accused persons on the same date and place disobeyed the order of deputy Superintendent of Police Musa Sanyang and other police officers, to disperse from their unlawful assembly, thereby committed an offence.
Count seven stated that the accused person on the same date and place conspired to incite violence which is an offence to the laws of The Gambia.
Author: Halimatou Ceesay
Source: The Point |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2016 : 15:04:33
|
Ousainou Darboe & Co appeal against High Court bail ruling
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and nineteen others yesterday appeared at the Court of Appeal in Banjul, appealing against the bail ruling of Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Court.
The Court of Appeal is presided over by a three-member panel of judges headed by the president, Justice Edrissa Fafa M’bai.
Darboe and Co. were indicted on a seven-count charge of unlawful assembly, riot, and incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful conspiracy.
The accused persons on the amended charge sheet are Ousainou Darboe, Kemeseng Jammeh, Femi Peters, Lamin Dibba, Lamin Jatta, Yaya Bah, Babucarr Camara, Fakebba Colley, Ismaila Ceesay, Momodou Fatty, Dodou Ceesay, Samba Kinteh, Mamudou Manneh, Nfamara Kuyateh, Fanta Darboe, Lamin Njie, Jukuna Suso, Momodou L.K. Sanneh, Yaya Jammeh and Masanneh Lalo Jawla.
When the case was announced, the state was represented by DPP S.H. Barkun and the defence team was led by Senior Counsel Gaye.
Senior Counsel Gaye then told the court that he wished to call upon lawyer Bensouda to address the court.
Addressing the court, Senior Counsel Bensouda craved the indulgence of the court for the appellants to be seated during the proceedings, which was granted by the court.
“The application before you is by way of a motion seeking a consolidation of 20 appeals seeking for interlocutory orders in which the appeal although several, arises from the same charges and ruling, and it is because they arise from the same ruling, and we are seeking to consolidate all the 20 in order to expedite the appeal,” she said.
She further told the court that she had consulted the DPP, and he said he have no objection to the consolidation of the appeal.
“I pray that same be granted as conferred by rule 35 of the rules of this court and make actions and orders as necessary.”
Responding to the application, the DPP told the court that he does not intend to oppose the application for the consolidation.
“In light of the application, and the fact that the state is not opposing, the application is hereby granted and the registrar of the court is ordered to consolidate the records,” ruled Justice M’bai.
The court gave three days to the defence team to file their briefs, and seven days to the DPP to respond to the appellant’s briefs.
One day was also given to the defence to reply on points of law.
The case was adjourned until 23 June 2016, for adoption of briefs.
It would be recalled that the appellants are challenging the ruling of Justice Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court, who was the then presiding judge in the case before he declined further hearing of the matter.
Justice O. Ottaba, in denying the appellants bail, had said: “In view of the facts, circumstances, peculiarities, nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and prima facie case against the accused persons, I therefore hold that this application lacks merit and hereby dismissed.” |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2016 : 14:50:13
|
Darboe & Co case: Defence team walks out of courtroom
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Thursday, June 09, 2016
 The defence team led by senior counsel A.A.B. Gaye yesterday walked out of the courtroom, in the Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and nineteen others case, after the court refused the defence application for a stay of proceedings on counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 pending a suit before the Supreme Court.
This happened after the ruling of Justice E.O. Dada of the Banjul High Court, refusing to stay its proceedings on counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, pending the determination of the suit before the Supreme Court.
Delivering her ruling on whether or not to stay proceedings pending the suit before the Supreme Court, Justice Dada said she had looked at the arguments before her from both counsel, and the question was whether there was merit in the application to warrant her grant the application for a stay of proceedings.
She said the main issue before her was for a stay of proceedings, pending a suit before the Supreme Court.
She said she had agreed totally with the applicants’ counsel Bensouda when she said the case of Karnagie Mineral was not applicable in the case.
“I, therefore, hold that the Karnagie Mineral case does not apply to this case,” she said.
She added that there was a similarity between the previous application on referral of counts 5 and 6 to the Supreme Court, and the one which was for stay of proceedings pending a suit before the Supreme Court.
She said: “The application before me now is for a stay of proceedings on counts 1, 2, 5 and 6; so while the first application is limited to counts 5 and 6, and the other is on counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, the applications are similar.”
She said the suit before the Supreme Court is a separate case and had no merit on the case in question, adding that, therefore, the filing of the application on a stay of proceedings before the court was “an abuse” of the court’s process.
“I, therefore, hold that this application lacks merit and not worthy of my consideration. This application is dismissed, and I call on the state to open their case,” she declared.
At that juncture, senior counsel Gaye applied for a stand down to talk to their clients, which was granted for 10 minutes without any objection from the state.
Upon resuming, senior counsel Gaye said: “My lady has given us 10 minutes of stand down to talk to our clients. We took our clients to another court-room, but unfortunately we were not able to talk to them because the security personnel were present, and could not leave us to talk to our clients. I believe that the right of every accused person is to be allowed to talk to his or her lawyer, and what happened earlier is a persistent denial of the accused person’s right to talk to his or her lawyer.”
He continued: “Not all the accused persons are illiterates, but some are and that is why we have to talk to them in the local languages. We want the court to order for the accused persons to be allowed to talk to us without the constrained presence of the security personnel.”
Delivering ruling on that, the trial judge said the law gives every accused person the right to legal counsel.
She said the application was not that they were refused legal counsel, but the presence of the security personnel, who are bound by duty.
“It is my view that the constitution which gives that right is silent on the issue of the security being present. I see nothing offending to talk to the accused persons in the presence of the security, since the accused are under the custody of the security. So the court has no hand in this issue,” she ruled.
“In light of the ruling, we have a motion pending before the Supreme Court, and now pending before this court is a notice,” lead defence counsel Gaye submitted.
“We urge your lordship to give due diligence and respect to the apex court of The Gambia and not to proceed with counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 until the apex court deals with this application. We are ready to proceed with the counts which are not affected,” he continued.
In reply, the DPP said: “We are objecting, because this is nothing more than the issue that had just been decided upon. This process filed in the Supreme Court is an afterthought. They ought to file it with the main process, which is the subject of the ruling the court just delivered and, even if they had filed it with the main process, it would not have been considered.
“If they are not satisfied with the ruling they can appeal; so I ask my lord not to be disturbed with this notice, because it is not an appeal and not an extension of the case at hand.”
“What is before my lord today is not an application? We are not bringing any application, but a notice. It is principle of law that when a matter is before the Supreme Court you have to stop proceedings of that matter,” counsel Gaye then told the court.
Delivering her ruling, Justice Dada said she had looked at the document, and needed not to look further.
She said she previously refused to stay proceedings on those counts.
“I shall not stay proceedings on these counts or any other counts before me,” she announced.
At that juncture, counsel Gaye said: “With the continuous persistent refusal of the accused persons’ rights, we are no longer taking part in these proceedings.”
Counsel Gaye and his team of lawyers then walked out of the courtroom, followed by the UDP supporters and family members leaving only the judge, the DPP and the accused persons with the armed security personnel in court.
The DPP then asked for an adjournment, for hearing to commence.
The matter was then adjourned until today for hearing.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2016 : 16:35:07
|
My conviction was predetermined, says Ousainou Darboe
The Point: Friday, June 17, 2016
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe yesterday told the High Court that his conviction was predetermined, in the case involving him and nineteen others, before Justice Dada.
He made this statement when asked to cross-examine the second prosecution witness after the witness finished his testimony.
Darboe said he would not associate himself with the proceedings.
Halifa Sallah, Sidia Jatta, Amat Bah, Hon. Samba Jallow and Hon. Momodou Bamba Gaye were in the courtroom to show solidarity with Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and the other accused persons.
When the case was called, DPP Barkum told the court that he was done with the second witness, Ebrima Camara, and further said that it was for the cross-examination of the second witness by the accused persons, who were unrepresented.
The other accused persons were also asked to cross-examine the second prosecution witness, but they all kept quiet.
Justice Dada said the silence of the accused persons indicated that they had no questions for the witness.
DPP Barkun then applied for the witness to be discharged, and he was discharged by the court.
Alhagie K. Manneh, the third prosecution witness, told the court that he lives in Banjul and is a police officer with the rank of sergeant 5241.
He is attached to the Major Crime Unit.
He adduced that while he was on duty on 16 April 2016, he was informed by his commander to join an investigation team at the PIU office for statement recording.
Mr Manneh added that he left for the place, and upon arrival the suspects were shown to him.
He further stated that their statements were recorded, adding that he recorded the cautionary and voluntary statements of Ismaila Ceesay, Mamudou Manneh and Fanta Darboe.
He adduced that he questioned the accused persons, adding that he read the cautionary and voluntary statements to them, while they spoke in the language they understood.
He said that Fanta Darboe spoke in English and Ismaila Ceesay and Mamudou Manneh spoke in Mandinka.
After recording the statements, he read them to them, he said, adding that they said what he recorded was true, and they thumb-printed.
He said he could identify the statements because there was space on which he signed.
The statements were shown to him to identify, which he did and confirmed that he was the one who recorded them.
DPP Barkun then applied to tender them.
The clerk went round and showed the statements to Ismaila Ceesay, Fanta Darboe and Mamudou Manneh and asked whether they had any objection to the tendering of the statements, but they kept silent.
The said statements were admitted by the court.
DPP Barkun stood up and said that was all for the witness.
Ismaila Ceesay, Mamudou Manneh and Fanta Darboe were asked whether they had questions for the witness, but they did not respond.
The other accused persons were also asked whether they had questions for the witness, and they said nothing.
DPP Barkun then applied to the court to discharge the witness since the accused persons did not have questions for the witness.
The witness was then discharged by the court.
Domingo Memba, the fourth prosecution witness, told the court that he lives at Churchill’s Town and is a police officer with the rank of ASP, attached to the Major Crime Unit. He is a station officer.
He knew the accused persons.
He adduced that on 16 April 2016, he was informed by his commander that lawyer Darboe and other accused persons gathered at the former’s residence at Pipeline to hold a conference.
He added that they were asked to investigate the matter, and that he interacted with one Samba Kinteh.
He stated that he recorded his cautionary and voluntary statements, adding that he read the cautionary statement to him in the language he understood.
He said he accepted the wordings and thumb-printed it.
DPP Barkun asked the witness whether he would be able to identify the statements, and he answered in the positive, saying he could identify it by his name and his signature. The statement was shown to him, which he identified.
The clerk again went to show it to Samba Kinteh and asked him whether it was his statement, but Kinteh did not say anything.
The DPP applied to tender the statements and they were admitted by the court.
The witness further told the court that during the course of their investigation, they were able to recover eight stones and five shields which were broken.
The said shields and stones were shown to him to identify, which he did.
He confirmed that he recovered them during the incident.
DPP Barkun then applied to tender the stones and shields.
The clerk asked the accused persons whether they had any objection to the tendering of the stones and shields, but they did not respond.
The said stones and shields were admitted by the court.
DPP Barkun then said that was all for the witness.
The clerk asked the accused persons whether they had questions for the witness, and they kept quiet.
The witness was discharged since the accused persons did not cross-examine him.
Lamin Cham, the fifth prosecution witness, narrated the same procedure when he recorded the voluntary and cautionary statements of Femi Peters and Lamin Njie.
The accused persons maintained their silence.
The case was adjourned until 20 June 2016.
Author: Dawda Faye |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2016 : 13:40:36
|
Darboe challenges court to explain ‘authority used to recall witness’
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Tuesday, June 21, 2016
 The leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, yesterday challenged the court to tell him what authority it used to recall a witness for cross-examination, after the latter had been discharged by the court.
Darboe made the request in the case involving him and nineteen others, before Justice E.O. Dada at the Banjul High Court.
Darboe also said he wanted the trial judge to tell him under which law, be it the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act that she based her discretion in recalling back a witness she discharged.
Darboe made this remark after the testimony of the sixth prosecution witness, Fatoumatta A. Bah.
After the testimony of the witness, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) S.H. Barkun applied for the witness to be discharged by the court without her being cross-examined, and the application was granted by the court.
After the DPP had called the seventh prosecution witness, who entered the witness box and was about to be sworn in, the trial judge asked him to step down and recalled PW6 Fatoumatta A. Bah.
PW6 then entered the witness box and the 1st accused, Ousainou Darboe, was asked to cross-examine her.
Darboe then said this witness had been discharged, and he did not know under what authority she was recalled for cross-examination.
The trial judge, however, proceeded to the other accused persons Kemeseng Jammeh, Yaya Bah, and Nfamara Kuyateh and asked them if they had any questions for the witness, but they all responded with silence.
The trial judge then said the reaction from the 1st accused, Darboe, was noted and overruled and, in the absence of any questions from the rest of the accused persons, the witness was, therefore, discharged again.
Testifying as the sixth prosecution witness, Sergeant Fatoumatta A. Bah attached to the Fraud Squad Unit at Police headquarters in Banjul, said she knew the accused persons.
She was assigned by her boss OC Fraud Squad to obtain statements from the 1st accused, Ousainou Darboe, 2nd accused, Kemeseng Jammeh, 6th accused, Yaya Bah and 14th accused, Nfamara Kuyateh alias “Balankang.”
“I first asked for their names. I read the cautionary wordings to them, then I asked them what happened. They explained and I recorded and then I signed with my name and rank. I read over to them what they narrated for their own understanding.”
She also said she recorded both cautionary and voluntary statements from them.
The statements were shown to her and she identified them, and the DPP applied to tender them in court.
The trial judge then asked the translator to show the documents to the accused persons. The 1st accused, Ousainou Darboe, was seated and did not look at the document, while remaining silent and the rest of the accused persons did the same.
“In the absence of any objection from the accused persons, the statements are hereby marked in evidence as exhibits,” said the trial judge.
However, Darboe protested that it was wrong for the judge to say in absence of any objection, because he did not react to the statement.
Testifying as the seventh Prosecution witness, Lamin Jammeh, a police officer attached to Fraud Squad Unit in Banjul, said he recorded the cautionary and voluntary statements of the 20th accused person, Masanneh Lalo Jawla at the NIA headquarters.
He narrated the same procedure in obtaining the statements. The statement was tendered in court and marked as an exhibit without the accused reacting to it. The accused was asked if he had any questions for the witness, but he remained silent.
The eighth prosecution witness, Omar K. Jammeh, also a police constable from Jambangjelly said he recorded the statements of the 18th accused, Momodou L.K Sanneh and the 19th accused person, Yaya Jammeh.
He also narrated the same procedure. The accused persons did not react to the statements, and they were tendered in evidence as exhibits. They also remained silent when asked by the court if they had any questions for the witness.
The ninth prosecution witness (PW9), Dodou Joof, in his testimony, said he is a first-class police officer from Mbollet ba.
He recorded the statements of Lang Dibba and Baboucarr Camara at the PIU in Kanifing.
He also took the court through the same process. The accused persons did not react to the statements, which were also tendered in court. They also remain silent when asked by the court if they had any questions for the witness.
The case continues today at 12 noon.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2016 : 13:04:09
|
Darboe & Co trial: State to decide whether or not to close case
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Wednesday, June 22, 2016
The state represented by DPP yesterday told the court that they were seeking an adjournment, to advise themselves on whether or not to close their case or bring up other witnesses, in the case involving the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) Ousainou Darboe and nineteen others.
The DPP made the application before Justice E.O. Dada at the Banjul High Court, after the testimonies of PW10 and PW11.
When the case was called, Saikou Bojang from Kassa Kunda and a police officer attached to Police headquarters in Banjul testified as the tenth prosecution witness (PW10).
He said he is a 1st class constable and could recognise one of the accused persons, Ousainou Darboe. The DPP then asked him if he knew one Lamin Jatta, and he said “yes”.
He said that on 16 and 19 April 2016, he was at Police headquarters in Banjul and was informed by his commander to go to the PIU in Kanifing to caution and charge the accused person.
Upon arriving, he was assigned to caution Lamin Jatta, adding that he read the cautionary wordings to him and he did understand.
He said he recorded his statement and read it all over to him.
The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them, and the DPP applied to tender the statement.
The accused person was asked if he had any objection to the tendering of the statement, but he remained silent. The statement was then tendered and marked in evidence as an exhibit.
The accused person was then asked if he had any questions for the witness, but he still remained silent. The witness was then discharged.
Sarjo Bah, the eleventh prosecution witness(PW11), in his testimony, said he recorded the statements of Fakebba Colley, Juguna Susso, Mamady Fatty, and Dodou Ceesay.
On 16 April 2016, when he reported to work at the Serious Crime Unit at Police headquarters, he was told by his boss to go to the PIU in Kanifing to obtain statements from the four accused persons.
Upon arriving, he called them one by one and obtained cautionary and voluntary statements from them.
Before taking their statements, he read the cautionary wordings to them and translated it into Mandinka to them, which they acknowledged. Some of them thumb-printed and others signed their statements.
After taking their statement, he read it over to them and they agreed and some of them thumb-printed whilst others signed.
The documents were shown to him, and he identified them and the DPP applied to tender them.
The accused persons were then asked if they had any objection, but they remained silent and the documents were tendered in court.
The four accused persons also remained silent, when asked if they had any questions for the witness. The witness was discharged.
The DPP then informed the court that he was applying for an adjournment, so they could advise themselves on whether or not to come up with another witness or close their case.
The case was then adjourned until Monday at 12 noon.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2016 : 20:23:16
|
By Suntou Touray
Proceedings today in court, June 27, 2016
The state has rest their case today in Lawyer Darboe and 19 others case. They brought in a police witness used in the past to testify again. This time using a point newspaper coverage of Darboe protest as part of the last evidence.
In the Solo Sandeng habeas corpus application the state blame communication problem. They claimed that they did not receive Sir Jeng's affidavit on time to proceed.
Darboe and co's case will resume on July 4, 2016 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11641 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Lawyer Darboe, Party Executives Arrested
