Mr. Sallah,

I was making comments buttressing some of the points Hamjatta made to Cherno
Baba, but as usual, you have to find something in my comments that either
questions my integrity, or my seriousness. I've not accused you of anything
you're not guilty of. The Koro Ceesay murder case, and your support for the
terribly flawed Constitution were the main issues we wanted you to tackle.
Instead, you started shoving PDOIS's political diary since the coup at us.
Why would you volunteer information that was never requested at all
-chronological or whatever? What could be more rope-a-dop than that? I was
at a loss about whether I was dealing with a Muhamed Ali, or an expert at
the foxtrot.

I do have some issues about your Koro explanation, but I wanted to give
Hamjatta the courtesy of replying first, since the piece was lobbed at him.
But it seems that you're eager to hear from me directly, so here we go.

On Koro, several points. You keep deliberately confusing issues for what, I
don't know. First, you're lashing out at "hypocrites" who are talking now,
but were quiet in July 1995. But this was a time when no other politician
but yourselves were able to address issues in the media the way you see it.
You had Foroyaa which was no longer an Organ of your party, but a
full-fledge newspaper. The others were anything but politicians at the time.
Darbo was still a full-time  lawyer, Amat Bah was a private citizen, Dibba
and Andrews Camara were for all intents and purposes out of the loop. So
were the PPP people. So what would you have done differently if you were in
their shoes? Go to Radio Gambia and announce your skepticism of the govt.'s
story on Koro? Interrupt the eulogy by Edward Singhateh and tell the crowd
that "they" killed Koro? Force the Observer newspaper to print a piece
accusing the govt. of the murder? What would you do? You're blaming
everybody now for not speaking when no one but yourselves had the means to
speak out at the time. Where is your sense of fairness Mr. Sallah? I'm
beginning to question whether you have any.

And just as you're unfairly blaming your co-opponents of the govt. for not
speaking out during a period when they were forbidden to do so, you're
outraged that people have a problem with your half-baked investigation into
Koro's death. Why is it half-baked? Because it's fundamentally flawed, and
it's little wonder that you arrived at a flawed conclusion. We'll see.


First, you started the investigation on a false assumption: "What is the
most reliable source of getting to the fact?" you asked. "The most reliable
source is the eye witness. The person who sees and testifies what he or she
has seen enables us to know the truth at first hand." Then you went on about
hearsay etc, etc. Believe it or not Mr. Sallah, eyewitness testimony is not
as reliable as you think. If you have several eyewitnesses who give
identical versions of what they've seen (the chance of which diminishes
exponentially as the number of witnesses grow,) you're in luck. Otherwise,
you'll have to look elsewhere. Looks like you had hit a dead end because you
couldn't find a single eyewitness.

However, being that this is the dying days of the twentieth century, there
is something called Forensic technology. The Gambia doesn't have it, but all
the govt. had to do was ask the UN or some advanced country. That would have
established beyond doubt how Ousman Koro Ceesay's life ended.

So, instead of going to the scene looking for an eyewitness(es) you really
would have helped matters if your reporters could shield off the site, and
call on the govt. to invite the UN or some other body to conduct a thorough
SCIENTIFIC investigation. If the govt. refused, that would confirm some
things for people. Whether you know it or not, whoever killed Koro, and left
his body on that site left his/their own imprints at the scene. They call it
DNA, the genetic material that uniquely establishes our identities. And
you'll be amazed at the type of DNA material you can leave at any spot just
by stopping there. The science is so advanced now that they can use your
skin flakes to tie you to a crime scene!

But, in your view, you had to have an eyewitness. On the outskirts of
desolate Jamburr, in the middle of a rainy night, you were looking for an
eyewitness to a crime? And you're surprised that no one came forward. Given
the political climate in Gambia then or even now, do you seriously believe
that any one who sees soldiers committing a crime will jump up and run to
reporters? Where is the realism here Mr. Sallah? This is exactly why I said
that you have a knack for believing totally ludicrous things. But the main
point is, in this age of LapTop Super computers, you're still using the
abacus! And you're blaming us who fault your conclusion? Let's look at that
conclusion for a minute.

Doubting the credibility of the lone witness who dared say the crime scene
was staged, you concluded: "So we either had to believe that the impact on
the wall was caused by a sledge hammer or the vehicle which had burnt and in
which Koro's body was found. With this situation, and in the absence of any
other information, we indicated in our issue that the facts we had pointed
to an accident- that we had only suspicion of foul play but no evidence to
substantiate it."

In truth, you didn't have enough evidence to either say that it's foul play
or that it's an accident. But, you lent credence to the accident theory
anyway. Is that because of political expediency? Your only evidence that it
was an accident was that your reporters saw glass near the bridge, and
eyewitnesses told you that Koro's car was near the bridge wall, and that it
had a dent. But no eyewitness saw the accident! (In any case, I'm assuming
that you don't watch any movies at all 'cause if you do, you'll be able to
tell make-belief from the real. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to
stage a "convincing" accident. Try reading some Ghanaian newspapers.
Rawlings' goons are masters at staging "accidents.")  But since you were
only looking for people who could give you first-hand information, I wonder
why you settled for second hand information?

This is ironical because in your opener, you said: "FOROYAA first heard
about Koro's death from two responsible persons. (Your words, my emphasis.)
They indicated that they have heard that soldiers had murdered Koro." It
would have been more prudent at that point for you to put some pressure on
govt. to either appoint an Independent Investigator or get some
International body involved. You decided to be Sherlock Holmes instead. Or
is it Hercules Poirot? In any case, the result as they say, is history.

So what do I think? I think your quixotic adventure has backfired. You were
well over your heads in this case. To begin with, this case stank to hell
from the word go. The fact that you've not been able to confirm the obvious
(Koro's leaving the airport after Jammeh left,) should have caused you to
invite more experienced hands. But, like many things you do, you pretended
that you have the competence to deal with a problem that is simply out of
your league. What do you know about a murder investigation? What do you know
about forensic technology? Do you have a laboratory where you can analyze
specimens etc? "NO" in all cases! But that didn't deter you. Instead, you
went ahead, came back almost empty-handed, and decided to give credence to
the option that seemed more politically expedient. You may deny this, but
the reaction of the govt. would have been a lot different if you had said
there seems to have been foul play, only you cannot prove it. So, like it or
not, the only thing your story accomplished is that it gave Koro's killers
comfort in believing that they've deceived you and the public.

You ask: "What did anybody do that was more than what we did? What is
anybody doing now that is more than what we did?" What ordinary Gambians did
at the time - as they're doing now, is to call for a real murder
investigation, not a hogwash. You on the other hand had lent credence to the
ridiculous notion that Koro had died in an accident, and then proceeded to
call for an inquest. No wonder people missed that qualifier in your article.
But there is a clear difference in what you V. what everyone else did/did
not do.

So, instead of playing naïve (acting outraged that people are "sullying"
your good name,) you need to accept the fact that you've jumped at a
conclusion that is not supported by the facts you've gathered yourself.  And
you could have easily put this whole thing behind you by telling your
readers that, you simply don't have enough evidence to go either way: It
could be a murder case, or it could be a genuine accident. If you had said
that, the storm that brewed over that unfortunate investigation never would
have. But instead, you revert to combat mode counter attacking anyone who
dares question your story. You live in a tiny country where presidents'
quarrels with their wives is next-day public fodder, and you're trying to
sell a spurious story that runs contrary to common sense, and you are
outraged that no one is buying it? And I'm the one who shouldn't be taken
seriously? Come on Mr. Sallah!

This whole case is one big tragedy. One family's sorrow has been turned into
a national obsession, and the reason is simple. The death of Koro Ceesay
symbolizes everything that is wrong with the Jammeh regime: the lack of
respect for the Rule of Law, the brutality, the megalomania, "we can do
anything we want with impunity." In short, the Untouchables Mentality. Here
is a very smart young professional, a member of the highest sanctum in
public life, and his life has been snuffed out for no reason.  And the
govt.'s reaction defies any perception of innocence. But you jumped into the
fray, and clearly muddled waters. Maybe it's not too much to ask that you
filter out the impurities. It's in your best interest to do that. What was a
rumor in July 1995 is now a clamor. And believe me, this case  will develop
into a crescendo that could bring down the Jammeh regime. If I were a
betting man, I'll tell you that the day Jammeh is kicked out, people won't
be talking about the sick economy, or the nepotism going on, they'll be
talking about Ousman Koro Ceesay! His name packs a punch because of what he
symbolizes. You owe it to his memory to write a retraction telling your
readers that you never really had enough evidence to support the theory that
Koro died in an accident. That should help your image or reputation. Merely
lashing out at those who question your investigative methods and conclusion
isn't helping. The more you delay, the more the damage to your reputation.
The choice is your's.

I'll reply to your piece this morning later.

Good day.

Saul.





>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: To Hamjatta: Halifamania
>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 11:54:18 -0000
>
>Saul,
>
>Your last piece to Hamjatta dated 18 December 1999 is making it very
>difficult for me to take you seriously. Initially, I had the intention to
>deal with all your concerns in a chronological order. This was dubbed as
>deviation tactics. I acknowledged your fears and then promised to dea
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------