What's going on here? No one is talking. Ron where you at?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Muhammed Lamin Touray <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:22:10
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Need for human right lawyers in the Gambia
To Remand a Person in Custody without Speedy Trial is a miscarriag
To Remand a Person in Custody without Speedy Trial is a miscarriage of JusticeAuthor: Publisher | Date: 11-09-09 | Topic: Editorial
It has come to our notice that one of the accused persons who has been detained in connection with the Babylon arson case has died while being remanded in custody at the Central Prisons at Mile Two.
Foroyaa is again calling on the Bar Association to assume its responsibility in being a primary association which is the most competent in promoting the proper administration of law and dispensation of justice. We are repeatedly told that some offences are not bailable. Foroyaa does not agree with this position. The Bar Association should challenge this position which has kept the accused person in prison until he died while being remanded in custody.
The Constitution has left the granting of bail to rely on the sole discretion of the Court. It has freed the hands of the courts so that they could protect the principle of presumption of innocence. Granting an accused person bail upon reasonable condition requiring him or her to appear for trial is in line with the principle that one is innocent until proven or has pleaded guilty. The Constitution has not tied the hands of the Court in any way to bar it from having the capacity to grant bail when the reasonable conditions are present for it to do so. The remanding of an accused person in custody without speedy trial constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice. The death of the remanded prisoner should be the basis to effect a review of the legal basis regarding certain offences as unbailable.
What then is the basis for arguing that all offences are bailable? First and foremost, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws or judicial precedents based on the ruling of superior courts become null and void if they are inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. This is clearly stated in Section 4 of the Constitution as follows:
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Hence it is clear that if any law states that an accused person cannot be bailed while the constitution maintains that he or she can be bailed, the law must become null and void. The question now arises: Is there any constitutional provision giving courts jurisdiction to grant bail in accordance with its own discretion, at all times?
The answer is in the positive.
Section 19 subsection (3) of the Constitution states that
“Any person who is arrested or detained –
b) upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence under the Laws of the Gambia, and who is not released, shall be brought without undue delay before a court and, in any event, within seventy two hours;”
Subsection (4) of section 19 of the Constitution adds:
“Where any person is brought before a court in execution of the order of a court in any proceedings or upon suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit an offence, he or she shall not thereafter be further held in custody in connection with those proceedings or that offence save upon the order of the court.”
It is clear from this that only a court could order the detention of a person who has been brought before it for trial.
In order to confirm that the Court has absolute discretion to grant bail, subsection (5) of section 19 adds:
“If any person arrested or detained as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is not tried within reasonable time, then without prejudice to any further proceedings which may be brought against him or her, he or she shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular, such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he or she appears at a later date for trial or proceedings preliminary to trial.”
It is therefore abundantly clear that the Courts have absolute discretion to grant bail. Hence laws which seek to tie the hands of the court in terms of the exercise of its discretion to grant bail are unconstitutional and should become null and void. The Bar Association should debate on such issues and take up cases in court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws.
Foroyaa sees the urgency for human rights lawyers to take their place in challenging laws and practices which impede the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. The dead prisoner could well be innocent. Who will raise him up from the dead to determine his innocence or guilt? We at Foroyaa are impressed by Sam Sarr’s performance in Court. Since he has not been standing for elections we are contemplating a plan to send him to spend few years to become a legal practitioner to come and join those who undertake the responsibility of becoming human rights lawyers. All those who agree with us and are willing to contribute to a fund to make this possible and facilitate enrolment in a law school in Ghana should contact the Foroyaa office for further exchanges on the matter. We have seen the need to diversify our talents and prepare the ground to build a new Gambia. We are also training the young editors so that they could fully take over the running of Foroyaa as
soon as possible so that some of us could devote ourselves, hundred percent, to the promotion of Agenda 2011. Those who are of the opinion that Sam should stay to build up Foroyaa as an alternative outlet for the voice of the people may also render their advice. We are public figures and are fully committed to doing what is in the enlightened interest of the people.
This article comes from FOROYAA Online
http://www.foroyaa.gm
The URL for this story is:
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3353
To Remand a Person in Custody without Speedy Trial is a miscarriage of JusticeAuthor: Publisher | Date: 11-09-09 | Topic: Editorial
It has come to our notice that one of the accused persons who has been detained in connection with the Babylon arson case has died while being remanded in custody at the Central Prisons at Mile Two.
Foroyaa is again calling on the Bar Association to assume its responsibility in being a primary association which is the most competent in promoting the proper administration of law and dispensation of justice. We are repeatedly told that some offences are not bailable. Foroyaa does not agree with this position. The Bar Association should challenge this position which has kept the accused person in prison until he died while being remanded in custody.
The Constitution has left the granting of bail to rely on the sole discretion of the Court. It has freed the hands of the courts so that they could protect the principle of presumption of innocence. Granting an accused person bail upon reasonable condition requiring him or her to appear for trial is in line with the principle that one is innocent until proven or has pleaded guilty. The Constitution has not tied the hands of the Court in any way to bar it from having the capacity to grant bail when the reasonable conditions are present for it to do so. The remanding of an accused person in custody without speedy trial constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice. The death of the remanded prisoner should be the basis to effect a review of the legal basis regarding certain offences as unbailable.
What then is the basis for arguing that all offences are bailable? First and foremost, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws or judicial precedents based on the ruling of superior courts become null and void if they are inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. This is clearly stated in Section 4 of the Constitution as follows:
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Hence it is clear that if any law states that an accused person cannot be bailed while the constitution maintains that he or she can be bailed, the law must become null and void. The question now arises: Is there any constitutional provision giving courts jurisdiction to grant bail in accordance with its own discretion, at all times?
The answer is in the positive.
Section 19 subsection (3) of the Constitution states that
“Any person who is arrested or detained –
b) upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence under the Laws of the Gambia, and who is not released, shall be brought without undue delay before a court and, in any event, within seventy two hours;”
Subsection (4) of section 19 of the Constitution adds:
“Where any person is brought before a court in execution of the order of a court in any proceedings or upon suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit an offence, he or she shall not thereafter be further held in custody in connection with those proceedings or that offence save upon the order of the court.”
It is clear from this that only a court could order the detention of a person who has been brought before it for trial.
In order to confirm that the Court has absolute discretion to grant bail, subsection (5) of section 19 adds:
“If any person arrested or detained as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is not tried within reasonable time, then without prejudice to any further proceedings which may be brought against him or her, he or she shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular, such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he or she appears at a later date for trial or proceedings preliminary to trial.”
It is therefore abundantly clear that the Courts have absolute discretion to grant bail. Hence laws which seek to tie the hands of the court in terms of the exercise of its discretion to grant bail are unconstitutional and should become null and void. The Bar Association should debate on such issues and take up cases in court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws.
Foroyaa sees the urgency for human rights lawyers to take their place in challenging laws and practices which impede the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. The dead prisoner could well be innocent. Who will raise him up from the dead to determine his innocence or guilt? We at Foroyaa are impressed by Sam Sarr’s performance in Court. Since he has not been standing for elections we are contemplating a plan to send him to spend few years to become a legal practitioner to come and join those who undertake the responsibility of becoming human rights lawyers. All those who agree with us and are willing to contribute to a fund to make this possible and facilitate enrolment in a law school in Ghana should contact the Foroyaa office for further exchanges on the matter. We have seen the need to diversify our talents and prepare the ground to build a new Gambia. We are also training the young editors so that they could fully take over the running of Foroyaa as
soon as possible so that some of us could devote ourselves, hundred percent, to the promotion of Agenda 2011. Those who are of the opinion that Sam should stay to build up Foroyaa as an alternative outlet for the voice of the people may also render their advice. We are public figures and are fully committed to doing what is in the enlightened interest of the people.
This article comes from FOROYAA Online
http://www.foroyaa.gm
The URL for this story is:
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3353
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3353
To Remand a Person in Custody without Speedy Trial is a miscarriage of Justice
Author: Publisher | Date: 11-09-09 | Topic: Editorial
It has come to our notice that one of the accused persons who has been detained in connection with the Babylon arson case has died while being remanded in custody at the Central Prisons at Mile Two.
Foroyaa is again calling on the Bar Association to assume its responsibility in being a primary association which is the most competent in promoting the proper administration of law and dispensation of justice. We are repeatedly told that some offences are not bailable. Foroyaa does not agree with this position. The Bar Association should challenge this position which has kept the accused person in prison until he died while being remanded in custody.
The Constitution has left the granting of bail to rely on the sole discretion of the Court. It has freed the hands of the courts so that they could protect the principle of presumption of innocence. Granting an accused person bail upon reasonable condition requiring him or her to appear for trial is in line with the principle that one is innocent until proven or has pleaded guilty. The Constitution has not tied the hands of the Court in any way to bar it from having the capacity to grant bail when the reasonable conditions are present for it to do so. The remanding of an accused person in custody without speedy trial constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice. The death of the remanded prisoner should be the basis to effect a review of the legal basis regarding certain offences as unbailable.
What then is the basis for arguing that all offences are bailable? First and foremost, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws or judicial precedents based on the ruling of superior courts become null and void if they are inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution. This is clearly stated in Section 4 of the Constitution as follows:
“The Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Hence it is clear that if any law states that an accused person cannot be bailed while the constitution maintains that he or she can be bailed, the law must become null and void. The question now arises: Is there any constitutional provision giving courts jurisdiction to grant bail in accordance with its own discretion, at all times?
The answer is in the positive.
Section 19 subsection (3) of the Constitution states that
“Any person who is arrested or detained –
b) upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed, or being about to commit, a criminal offence under the Laws of the Gambia, and who is not released, shall be brought without undue delay before a court and, in any event, within seventy two hours;”
Subsection (4) of section 19 of the Constitution adds:
“Where any person is brought before a court in execution of the order of a court in any proceedings or upon suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit an offence, he or she shall not thereafter be further held in custody in connection with those proceedings or that offence save upon the order of the court.”
It is clear from this that only a court could order the detention of a person who has been brought before it for trial.
In order to confirm that the Court has absolute discretion to grant bail, subsection (5) of section 19 adds:
“If any person arrested or detained as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is not tried within reasonable time, then without prejudice to any further proceedings which may be brought against him or her, he or she shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular, such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he or she appears at a later date for trial or proceedings preliminary to trial.”
It is therefore abundantly clear that the Courts have absolute discretion to grant bail. Hence laws which seek to tie the hands of the court in terms of the exercise of its discretion to grant bail are unconstitutional and should become null and void. The Bar Association should debate on such issues and take up cases in court to challenge the constitutionality of such laws.
Foroyaa sees the urgency for human rights lawyers to take their place in challenging laws and practices which impede the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. The dead prisoner could well be innocent. Who will raise him up from the dead to determine his innocence or guilt? We at Foroyaa are impressed by Sam Sarr’s performance in Court. Since he has not been standing for elections we are contemplating a plan to send him to spend few years to become a legal practitioner to come and join those who undertake the responsibility of becoming human rights lawyers. All those who agree with us and are willing to contribute to a fund to make this possible and facilitate enrolment in a law school in Ghana should contact the Foroyaa office for further exchanges on the matter. We have seen the need to diversify our talents and prepare the ground to build a new Gambia. We are also training the young editors so that they could fully take over the running of Foroyaa as
soon as possible so that some of us could devote ourselves, hundred percent, to the promotion of Agenda 2011. Those who are of the opinion that Sam should stay to build up Foroyaa as an alternative outlet for the voice of the people may also render their advice. We are public figures and are fully committed to doing what is in the enlightened interest of the people.
This article comes from FOROYAA Online
http://www.foroyaa.gm
The URL for this story is:
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3353
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
|
