Hamjatta,
I am on my way to a 15 days countrywide tour. I do not have time to read the
mails. However, I consider it absolutely essential to refer to the Indemnity
provision for further clarification.
Paragraph 13, sub-paragraph (1) of the Transitional and Consequential
Provisions states that: +ACI-No member of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling
Council, any person appointed Minister by the Armed Forces Provisional
Ruling Council, or other appointees of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling
Council shall be held liable either jointly or severally for any act or
omission in the performance of their official duties during the
administration of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council.+ACI-
Here, it is absolutely clear that the indemnity provision covers actions
that are connected to the performance of the official duties of the persons
covered during the administration of the Armed Forces provisional Ruling
Council. No one could be considered indemnified if there is evidence that
one has murdered a Secretary of State.
In fact, the indemnity provision goes further to stipulate the conditions
which provide immunity to the members of the AFPRC or their appointees.
Paragraph 13, sub-paragraph (2) reads: +ACI-After the coming into force of this
Constitution, it shall not be lawful for any court or tribunal to entertain
any action or take any decision or make any order or grant any remedy or
relief in any proceedings instituted against the Government of The Gambia or
any person acting under the authority of The Gambia, or against any person
or persons acting in concert or individually to assist or bring about the
change in Government which took place on the twenty second day of July 1994,
in respect of any act or omission relating to, or consequent upon:
+ACI-(a) the overthrow of the government in power before the formation of the
Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council+ADs- or
+ACI-(b) the suspension or abrogation of the Constitution of The Gambia 1970+ADs- or
+ACI-(c) the establishment of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council+ADs- or
+ACI-(d) the establishment of this Constitution.+ACI-
There is nothing under this indemnity provision which nullifies the
Coroner's Act. In fact, Schedule 2, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1) asserts
that all laws, including decrees, will have effect with such modifications,
adaptations, qualifications and exemptions as may be necessary to bring into
conformity with the provisions of the constitution. This is precisely the
reason why any detention of a person beyond 72 hours without court
intervention is unlawful as prescribed by section 19 of the constitution
whilst the during coup, under decree 45, a person could be detained
indefinitely.
Paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1) reads: +ACI-Where any matter that falls to be
prescribed or provided for under this Constitution by an Act of the National
Assembly or by any other authority or person, is prescribed or provided for
by or under any existing law (including any Decree) or is otherwise lawfully
prescribed or provided for immediately before the coming into force of this
Constitution, that prescription or provision shall, as from the coming into
force of this Constitution, have effect with such modifications,
adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it
into conformity with this Constitution as if it were made under this
Constitution by an Act of the National Assembly or, as the case may be, by
the other authority or person.+ACI-
This clear confirms that the Coroner's Act is in full force.
Hamjatta, the reason why I said that we will not engage in wild goose chase
is simple. You and Saul accused me of pretending to be an expert
investigator and has failed to consider forensic evidence.
In my piece on Koro Ceesay, I refuted your allegations by confirming that
there were no such pretensions+ADs- that we never assumed the posture of
experts+ADs- that we had in fact followed the matter to its logical conclusion
where we confirmed the conducting of a post-mortem by an expert medical
practitioner.
In fact, this medical practitioner is Dr Oldfield. He is the same medical
practitioner who conducted post-mortem on the late Matarr Sarr. Even though
there was a dispute as to whether Matarr Sarr committed suicide, which was
the position of the State, or was killed by a police bullet, Dr Oldfield
confirmed that he was killed by the bullet of the security forces. We have
no reason to question to question the competence and integrity of such a
person. This is precisely the reason why we recommended a Coroner's Inquest
so that the person who presides over the matter would be able to call such
competent persons to give evidence. This is all I have been saying. I hope
it is clear that a Coroner's Inquest can still be held. This is the right
step to take. I will get to you in two weeks time so that all the other
clarifications will be made.
Halifa Sallah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
