Dear readers:
Please, find below a summary of events regarding Dumo Saho's illegal arrest
and detention.
The summary was sent to me by a source familiar with the case; and needless
to say, I am sending it as received - UNEDITED!
Ebrima
___________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF EVENTS
The detention of Momodou Ousman (Dumo) Sarho
YEAR 2000
24th June 2000: Abducted from his family compound in London Corner,
Serrekunda, The Gambia, by three men in an ash-coloured vehicle (BMW; BJL
3716A). Mr Sarho was allowed to inform his mother that he was being arrested
and taken to Banjul. One of the men was later identified as one Alhaji Moor,
son of late Peterson Jobe.
On the same evening Banjul Police Head Quarter denied any knowledge of Mr
Sarho – including having him under custody. Attempts to reach the NIA
(National Intelligence Agency) for confirmation was fruitless during the
whole weekend.
June 26th, 2000: The NIA denied having detained Mr Sarho. A formal
complaint, reporting Mr Sarho as abducted/missing, was submitted to Banjul
Police.
June 27th: Amnesty International – Gambian branch office was informed.
June 30th: An open letter to the Attorney General of The Gambia was
submitted to his office. Copies were distributed to the local newspapers, as
well as human rights organisations both locally and internationally.
July 10th: African Commission of Human & People’s rights was notified.
July 14th: The State (Inspector General of Police, NIA and the Attorney
General) represented by one lawyer Wowo was called to answer to the Banjul
High Court on the matter of Modou Sarho’s arrest and detention. In their
affidavit they then admitted having him and that he was suspected of
planning to overthrow the government by force and to have attempted to kill
the head of state in order to seize power. The state further claimed that it
would have detrimental effects to both the investigation and the public if
Mr Sarho and his co-suspects were released. Ruling in the case was scheduled
to July 18th.
July 14th: Mr Sarho, together with 5 others, were taken to Kanifing
Magistrate were they were said to be suspected of treason on two accounts:
1) March 1999 – June 2000 having planned to overthrow the Gambian government
by force.
2) March 1999 – June 2000 having attempted to kill the president of the
Gambia.
The prosecutor further explained that:
a) She was aware that treason was a too serious crime to be heard by the
Magistrate
b) She had not been given enough time to go through the evidences.
c) Provided she found the evidences binding, she promised to file charges in
the High court on Monday July 17th.
d) She further appealed that the suspects should be kept in remand, since
"treason is not a bailable offence"
The magistrate ruled that the suspects should be kept in remand and
complimented the prosecutor for her intention to file charges expeditiously.
No lawyer to assist the suspects was present at the hearing.
July 18th: In Banjul High Court, Judge Mam Yassin Sey, ruled in the case of
Mr Sarho’s arrest and detention, that it was clearly against the
Constitution and laws of the Gambia as well as the African Charter of Human
Rights. She explained that Mr Sarho’s basic human rights - granted to him in
the Constitution - had been seriously violated. She further stated that, had
it not been for the magistrate ruling from Kanifing, of which she were not
aware at the time of the hearing, she (Judge Sey) would have ordered for Mr
Sarho’s immediate release.
The state explained that they intended to appeal the ruling.
July 18th: Mr Tambadou, lawyer, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for
Interior, appealing for a permit to visit Mr Sarho in his place of
detention. Referring to the serious crime of which Mr Sarho was suspected,
Mr Tambadou emphasised the need for legal counselling.
July 27th: A second open letter was addressed to the Attorney General of the
Gambia.
August 19th: The Secretary of State for Justice during a Press Conference
on the issue of illegal detention of Mr Dumo Sarho and others, said that:
"Those who expect to enjoy the rights guaranteed in democracy must play by
the democratic rules. No one expects government to treat anyone, bent on
under-mining its very existence as if he only committed a minor traffic".
And he added that due to the nature of the case, families and lawyers have
been denied access to the detainees.
October 19th: A motion was heard by Justice Kabalata in the Banjul High
Court, regarding the right to file an appeal against the ruling in Kanifing
Magistrate, although the stipulated time for filing an appeal was overdue.
No representative for the state was present and the hearing was adjourned
for 30 minutes, while attempts were made to call a representative. Since no
one appeared, Justice Kabalata decided to proceed and finally ruled that Mr
Sarho’s legal representatives should be granted the right to appeal against
the ruling of Kanifing Magistrate in the High court,
October 25th: An appeal against the ruling in Kanifing Magistrate was filed
at the High Court in Banjul.
October 30th: The lawyers, Mr Tambadou and Emanuel Joof, were informed by
the High court, that the State, referring to the fact that they had not been
represented at the hearing on October 19, objected to the ruling. The matter
was therefore scheduled to be heard again, on November 15th 2000. (The
objection was finally recognised and the right to appeal was withdrawn).
Throughout this time, neither the lawyers nor any family member, had access
to see Mr Sarho. His place of detention was not known. Direct approaches to
the Police HQ, the NIA HQ and the Mile II prison, by both family members and
the lawyers were all met with denials. Repeated attempts to seek audience
with the Attorney General for clarification on the matter were fruitless.
The Ombudsman was contacted but explained since the matter had reached the
court level there was nothing he could do.
November 16th: It was the first time it became public knowledge that Mr
Sarho was held at Mile II prisons and his wife was allowed to visit him.
December 19th Modou Sarho was brought to court together with six others
(Ebrima Barrow, Ebrima Yarbo, Momodou Marenah, Lt Lalo Yaiteh, Lt. Omar
Darboe and Abdoulie Sanyang).
They were accused - between the months of March 1999 and June 2000 – of:
1) conspiring to overthrow the government of The Gambia by force
2) attempting to kill the head of state Yahya Jammeh
3) preparing to overthrow the government by unlawful means
4) attempting to overthrow the constitution of The Gambia in order to
overthrow the government.
The hearing was adjourned until January 11.
Note: Most of the accused persons had never met each other before their
arrest. It has also become clear that Mr Sanyang, who was arrested long
after the others and throughout held at the NIA, has been free on bail since
December 19th.
************************************************
YEAR 2001
11th January, 2001: The hearing proceeded. The only thing discussed was the
issue of trial by judge versus jury. Adjourned until February 5.
February 5th: Still no conclusion on the procedures. Adjourned until
February 20th
February 20th: Still no conclusion on the procedures. Adjourned until March
6th.
March 6th: Adjourned until March 12th due to "Tobaski".
March 12th: Justice Grante declares that a single judge in High Court has no
jurisdiction to hear the treason trial, and referred the case file to the
chief justice to assign three judges to proceed with the trial.
June 2001: From what we have heard, three High Court judges have been
appointed - Grante, Kabalata and Janneh – two of which seem to be still
awaiting the renewal of their respective contract. As a consequence, no date
has yet been set for the next court hearing.
October 3rd: The trial was resumed. One of the accused – Mr Abdoulie Sanyang
– did not appear in court and the judge decided to adjourn until November
27th . He also revealed that a resent amendment in the constitution had
reduced the available modes of trial to two: by one judge or by judge and
jury so he suggested that the accused should go back to discuss their choice
with their respective lawyers.
November 27th: All the accused persons appeared but this time the judge
failed to appear and the case was adjourned again without a fixed date.
December 5th: This time the prosecutor failed to appear as well as Mr
Abdoulie Sanyang. The defence lawyer Mr Sillah suggested that Mr Sanyang had
possibly not been properly informed.
December 12th: The Director of Public Prosecutions informed the court that
he had decided to drop the charges against Mr Abdoulie Sanyang, who was
absent. The other accused took their plea and the case was again adjourned –
this time until December 19th.
December 19th: The prosecutor failed to appear and the case was accordingly
adjourned until Jan 9th 2002.
***********************************************************
YEAR 2002
9th January, 2002: The prosecutor presented two additional charges, endorsed
by the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Joseph Joof. Both concerns
"Concealment of Treason" and states that the accused persons have neglected
to inform any proper authority of their intended coup. Since one of the
defence lawyers – Mr Sillah - was on sick leave, the case was adjourned
until January 23rd.
January 23rd: Due to absence of the Judge (sick leave) the case was again
adjourned, this time until February 7th.
February 7th: Defence lawyer Mr Sillah was still sick and the case was
adjourned until 5th March.
March 5th: The Judge informed the court that the state had made a request
for the transfer of the matter to another judge (the acting Chief Justice
Okai Itam) in the High Court of Banjul. The Director of Public Prosecution
forwarded no reason for the request. The Judge, Justice Wallace Grante had
no objection to the request but gave assurance the accused persons would be
informed in due course when the case is reassigned to another judge. No new
date was decided upon .
April 2002: "New Judge for Dumo Saho and Co treason case. The Chief Justice
of The Gambia, Muhammad Arif has assigned the treason case involving Momodou
Dumo Saho and five others to the Nigerian born
judge, Ahmed Belgore of the High Court in Banjul. Our sources disclosed
that the date for the commencement of the case had not been fixed."
(from The Daily Observer, 11/4 -02)
Oct. 10th: The trial resumed under Judge Belgore. The accused were given
opportunity to plea and they all pleaded "Not guilty". In spite of the DPP
who requested time to take his vacation dates were scheduled for the
hearings to proceed (Nov. 21st and Dec. 2nd - 3rd ). After that the case
was adjourned.
Nov 1st: Mr Ebrima Barrow was picked up at the Mile II prisons, presumably
by the NIA (National Investigation Agency). He was not returned up to Nov.
21st.
Nov 21st: Court resumed. Mr Barrow also turned up, escorted by an unarmed
policeman. He started by telling the judge that he wanted to change his plea
from last time. His lawyer, Mr Ousman Sillah protested and explained both to
Mr Barrow and to the judge that he had been trying during the preceding week
to see Mr Barrow in Mile II but to no avail. Mr Barrow then explained that
he did not want to have a lawyer but the judge told him that with the
serious crime he was charged with he must have consultations with a lawyer.
Mr Barrow then appealed for the State to appoint another lawyer for him
which was granted.
The DPP also took the opportunity to appeal for the main witness, Mr
Fransisco Caso, to be heard in chambers, referring to the safety of the
witness. The lawyers present protested and said that Mr Caso has up to now
never showed any worries about his safety since he is moving around freely
in all parts of the society. The case was adjourned until December 2nd.
Dec. 2nd: No hearing due to the absence of Lawyer Ousainou Darboe who had to
answer to charges in another trial.
Dec. 3rd: No new lawyer appointed for Mr Barrow, but it had come to the
attention of the judge that Mr Barrow had been kept outside Mile II prison
during the last month so he ordered the accused Mr Barrow to be brought back
to the prison and he also promised to call Mr David Colley, the prison
commissioner, to answer for his reluctance to protect the accused. Case
adjourned until Jan 14th and 15th .
*******************************************************
YEAR 2003
14th January 2003: The commissioner of Prisons, Mr David Colley, appeared in
court to answer to charges of "Contempt of Court" regarding the handing over
of the detainee Mr Barrow. Questioned by the judge on who had come for Mr
Barrow, Mr Colley answered that the prisoner was handed over to one police
inspector BS Jobe for interrogation at the Banjul Police Station.
Mr Barrow's new lawyer , Mai MK Fatty protested that the court was not told
the truth and that the his client stated that he was released to an NIA
(National Intelligence Agency) senior officer, Fransisco Caso and two other
military men. (One Gambian newspaper - Independent - reported that Mr Barrow
had been picked up at around 3 am, i.e. in the middle of the night.) Mr
Colley also explained that it has been the practice of the prison
administration to release a detainee to the police when needed for further
investigation.
The Director of public prosecution told the court that the prison
commissioner had not been aware that doing such an act was wrong and argued
that the commissioner did nott do it intentionally. Finally the judge
Justice Belgore stated that although he was convinced that the commissioner
had not told the truth, he would discharge but reminded that a repeat of
such an act would not go unpunished.
An application from the DPP to allow the prosecution witness Mr Fransisco
Caso to give his testimony in camera was turned down by the judge after a
short brake. Mr Caso was not to be found and finally the judge ordered that
the DPP should make sure that they all could proceed the following morning.
Jan 15th: The DPP, Mr Agim, revealed that the prosecution witness Mr Caso
was absent and appealed that the court would stand down to find out why. Two
hours later Mr Agim informed the court that he had been informed by an
investigation officer that Mr Caso could not attend as his wife was said to
be comatose at the hospital and he therefore asked for an adjournment to
enable Mr Caso to testify.
Defence lawyers argued that the accused persons should be released, with
regards to the long time they have already spent. In reply, DPP Agim told
the court that the two-and-a-half year-delay is not to be seen as
unreasonable.
Ruling is scheduled for Jan 16th 2.30 p.m.
Jan 16th: Due to an unforeseen last-minute change in the hajj-flight which
the judge was supposed to attend, the time for the ruling was changed to
12.30. Only the prison authorities and relevant lawyers were informed.
Justice Belgore informed the audience that he had decided to give the state
a last chance to produce their witness. New dates for the hearing: February
25th and 26th.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
