Issue No. 30/2005, 18-20 April 2005



Editorial

Will Jammeh Follow Suit?

Will President Jammeh follow the footsteps of President Obasanjo of Nigeria by subjecting himself to scrutiny? According to reports, President Obasanjo has invited international independent investigators to investigate him and his family to see if they can find any evidence of impropriety.

In June 2004, President Jammeh by Legal Notice Number 8 of 2004 set up The Assets, Properties and Activities of Public Officers Commission otherwise known as the Paul Commission.

According to the Legal Notice “The Commission is authorized to:

(a) investigate the existence, nature, extent and method of acquisition of assets and properties and other related matters of all persons .including persons specified in the Scheduled hereto, who were or have been public officers within the period from22nd July 1994 to 2004 and to inquire into and investigate whether such assets and properties were acquired

(b) inquire into and investigate the activities of all persons referred to in paragraph (a) within the said period and ascertain:

 (i) whether they maintained or are maintaining a standard of living above that which was or is commensurate with their past or present official emoluments;

 (ii) whether they were or are in control of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to their past or present official emoluments; and

(c) furnish, in writing to the President, a report on the results of the inquiry, including a statement of the reasons leading to the conclusions of the Commission.

The following were to be investigated by the commission: “1. Ministers and Secretaries of State.

 2. Secretaries General, Office of the President; Permanent Secretaries, Deputy Permanent Secretaries, Heads of Government Departments (by whatever name called), Directors, Project Managers and Project Accountants

3.  Accountants General, Auditors General.

4. Managing Directors, Directors General, General Managers, Line Managers, Accountants, Principal Accountants, Financial Controllers and other individuals in Public Enterprises.

5. Individuals who have worked or are presently working in the Central Bank of The Gambia.

6. Officials of the Department of Customs and Excise.

7. Officials of the National Intelligence Agency.

8. Local Government Officers, including Mayors, Chairmen and Executive Officers.

9. Military Officers of The Gambia Armed Forces of the rank of Major and above

It is clear that the President is conspicuously absent from the list, even though he had said in an interview that he would be included. He has also not subjected himself to any other investigation. The existence, nature, extent and method of acquisition of his assets and properties and other related matters from July 22nd 1994 to 2004 have not been investigated. There has been no inquiry or investigation as to whether such assets and properties were acquired lawfully or otherwise. There has also been no inquiry into and investigation of the activities of Mr. Yayha Jammeh within the said period to ascertain whether he maintained or is maintaining a standard of living which was or is commensurate with his past or present official emoluments. Lastly, there has been no inquiry or investigation as to whether Yahya Jammeh was or is in control of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his past or present official emoluments. We cannot therefore say whether Jammeh is clean or not. He too
 cannot boast of his cleanliness.

If one examines the declaration of the assets nomination day during the 1996 election one would notice that the assets declared were scanty and did not include a single transport. But we have been seeing the President displaying wealth. He has also boasted that that his grand children will never be poor. If he faces any commission of inquiry or investigation that will be one of busiest because he has a lot to explain.

President Jammeh can indeed take an honourable step by following the footsteps of President Obasanjo. This will clear his name for posterity and win him the confidence and admiration of the people.



APRIL 10TH CASE  ADJOURNED TILL OCT.

The Banjul High Court, presided over by Justice Yamoa, recently adjourned the acrimonious civil suit, involving the State and Ousman Sabally, a teacher at the St. Augustine’s Senior Secondary School, who was allegedly beaten by state security agents during the April 10 and 11 violent student demonstration  which resulted the to gruesome destruction of lives and properties. The case has been adjourned to October 2005.

The case which was before Justice Abubacarr Tahir is recently transferred to Justice Yamoa by Chief Justice Alan Brobbey following the reforms that came into effect at the judiciary.

Ousman Sabally instituted legal action against the state after the Commission of Inquiry set up by President Jammeh to probe the April 10th  and 11th, 2000 student demonstration indicted the then Secretary of State for Interior, Ousman Badjie, and some security personnel working for the state.

The plaintiff is claiming five hundred thousand dalasis for damages and five percent as cost. The case has been assigned to different judges, namely Justice Timothy Kabalata, Justice Tahir and Justice Yamoa. It is purported that one of the Gambian judges was assigned to hear the matter, but he recused himself from hearing the case. Some analysts believe this case premeditated the state’s decision to enact the Indemnity Act which the Supreme Court ruled as retroactive and cannot bar litigants from taking the State to court on matters that happened prior to the enactment of the said Act. Readers would recall that Justice Hassan Jallow, a Supreme Court judge, was dismissed after the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Indemnity Act.



SEEDY FANNEH’S TRIAL

DARBOE MAKES “NO CASE” SUBMISSION

By Pateh Baldeh

Ousainou N. M. Darboe, counsel for Seedy Fanneh, who is currently standing trial at the Brikama Magistrate Court for allegedly insulting President Yahya Jammeh, on Wednesday made a no case submission in the ongoing legal battle involving his client and the state.

In his submission before His Lordship, Magistrate Bubacarr Jawo, Lawyer Darboe submitted that his client has no case to answer, while relying on Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Going further, Mr. Darboe submitted that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted themselves. He cited the evidence of the first prosecution witness, Inspector Omar Jawo, who he said told the court in his evidence that the accused ran away when his statement was being recorded by the police. According to Mr. Darboe, the first prosecution witness told the court that when he ordered the arrest of the accused, which was the time his statement was recorded. Analysing the evidence of the witness, Mr. Darboe submitted that Jawo had also informed the court that he (Jawo) was not there when the accused’s (Seedy Fanneh) statement was taken by his colleagues. He described Jawo’s statement as one that is “self-contradictory”. He (Mr. Darboe) asked how the witness could know that the accused escaped from
 custody without consulting his officers. Mr. Darboe submitted that Jawo had informed the court that the accused ran away before he was granted bail by the police.

The learned counsel read the evidence of the fourth prosecution witness, who Mr. Darboe said, had informed the honourable court that he could not recall when the accused escaped from police custody. Mr. Darboe said the fourth prosecution witness had informed the honourable court that he put the accused in a cell which was locked, while noting that the said cell was not broken. According to the defence counsel, the fourth prosecution witness had informed the court that he did record the statement of the accused, noting that the accused did not escaped during the said period. Showing the inconsistency of the fourth prosecution witness, Mr. Darboe said that the witness had informed the honourable court that he was on duty when the accused escaped over the counter of the Brikama Police Station. Going back to the evidence of Inspector Jawo, Mr. Darboe said that the first prosecution witness had informed the honourable court that the accused met them outside the Brikama Police Station and
 said that Yahya Jammeh is a senseless and foolish man before entering the said station; that in the evidence of Mr. Barrow, the accused had informed the honourable court that Yahya Jammeh insulted the Mandinkas but the Jarra West by-election taught him a lesson. Continuing his submission, the learned counsel said that Mr. Jawo had informed the honourable court that the accused entered the police station while insulting President Jammeh.

On the evidence of the third prosecution witness, Ndey Fatou Demba, the learned counsel said that Ndey Fatou had informed the honourable court that the accused met them sitting outside the police station and said that Kemeseng Jammeh has won the Jarra by-election and that President Jammeh was ashamed. According to Mr. Darboe, the third prosecution witness also informed the court that the accused came to where they were sitting and asked for the police, and went further to say that he was going to cut the penis of the police officers if they were not sleeping. The learned counsel wondered who among the witnesses was speaking the truth, noting that they were in court only to contradict themselves. Continuing his submission, Mr. Darboe said that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses only shows the harassment meted out to the accused. Mr. Darboe finally applied to the court to discharge and acquit his client.

At this stage, the prosecutor, 1674 Ceesay applied to the court for an adjournment in order to prepare himself to reply to Darboe’s submission. His application was granted by the court.



INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ON THE MOVE



By Bubacarr K. Sowe

The industrial tribunal which was provided for since 1990 but which was established not long ago is a now alive and kicking. It is meant to expidite cases arising from industrial disputes and it seems to be making headway in that direction. It is indeed not a place for the long winding arguments of legal counsels as in formal courts. Rather, the unions are more involved. Momodou F. Ceesay, a former employee of GACEM, would not say he is unhappy with the outcome of his case on the first day of his appearance before the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal, presided by Magistrate Richards. As plaintiff, Mr Ceesay was claiming against the defendant for damages on his wrongful dismissal. Following an out of court settlement, the plaintiff is to be paid an amount of two years’ salary.

The defendant entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff in which he (the plaintiff) was appointed as an electrician at the factory in June 1994.

The defendant, for unknown reasons, employed a Senegalese national, one Lamin Sanneh also as an electrician and accorded him rapid promotion who became a senior to the plaintiff in the electrical department of the factory.

The defendant proposed and recommended the plaintiff to further his education in electricity at Chamen Electrical Training Centre and paid only D9, 000 in the first academic year of 2002 and the defendant ceased to pay thereafter.

On the 3rd of May 2004, the plaintiff, while going to school was asked to report to the company in connection to why he failed to stay up to 11.00 pm, his closing hour. He claimed that one Mr. Williams threatened to inflict disciplinary measures on him after he had closed school that day. This subsequently led to his dismissal.



BABA JOBE’S APPEAL

Judicial sources have informed this paper that the High Court Registry will soon complete its assignment pertaining to the criminal appeal case involving the State and former Majority Leader of the National Assembly, Baba Jobe, who filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence on economic crime-related offences.

The appellant filed his appeal over a year ago after he was convicted and sentenced to nine years and eight months of imprisonment by Honourable Justice Paul of the Banjul High Court. This paper confirmed that the records of proceedings and the judgment in respect of the said case at the High Court have been typed by staff at the judiciary. However it is not clear when the record of proceedings and the judgment will be bound in a booklet form. But judicial sources have indicated that certain documents pertaining to the case will be photocopied and attached to the Record of Proceedings. After the binding of the documents, the defence counsel, together with the prosecution and the presiding Appeal Court judges, will be given copies to facilitate the hearing of the matter. The hearing of the matter was impeded by the lack of the aforesaid documents. However, even if work on the documents is completed, the case will not be heard now due to the lack of judges at the Appeal Court.



MC CHAM’S TRIAL

WITNESS CONFUSES COURT

The criminal case involving the state and Alhaji M. C. Cham commenced on Thursday before Magistrate Amina Saho with the first prosecution witness, Essa Sissoho, confusing the court. Alhaji M. C. Cham is charged with stealing and felony.

According to the particulars of offence, on or about the 4th day of January 2005 at No. 8 Charles Street in Banjul, the accused unlawfully broke into the house of one Essa Sissoho contrary to section 281 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10 Volume III, Laws of The Gambia 1990 and committed felony therein.

The accused is also charged with stealing contrary to section 252 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10 Volume III, Laws of The Gambia 1990.

According to the statement of offence, the accused stole four hundred grams of gold valued at one hundred thousand dalasis, cash amounting to nine thousand seven hundred dalasis, jewelries valued at five hundred dalasis, cloth valued at two thousand dalasis, one bag of colouring powder valued at five thousand four hundred dalasis and nine completed pieces of Malian dyed cloth valued at eighteen thousand dalasis, totaling One Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Dalasis from one Essa Sissoho.

In his evidence in chief, the first prosecution witness testified that he left Banjul to Bamako on the 10th day of December 2004 for a funeral. The witness said he is a tenant in one of Alhaji M. C. Cham’s compounds. He said he closed the door of his house and gave the key to one Alhagie Koulay Sillah (a friend), when he was leaving for Bamako. He said he had left money with his friend and instructed him to pay his house rent to the accused.

Continuing his testimony, the witness informed the court that he returned from his trip on the 25th February 2005 and met his room opened, and other tenants were inside the room. He said he enquired from the tenants about what happened and they told him that the accused gave them the house and took away all his properties. He pointed out that he did ask his friend whether he had paid the house on his behalf. He said the friend (Alhagie Koulay Sillah) informed him that he had given the house to other tenants. The witness added that his friend had informed him that the accused had told him (Sillah) that he broke into the house and took his (Sissoho’s) properties.

Mr. Sissoho said he later went to the Police and reported the matter to them, and they advised him to go to the rent tribunal in Banjul. He said he went to the rent tribunal and discussed the issue with one Abdou Jammeh.

“I didn’t go to enquire from the accused (MC Cham) because I was afraid of a fight” he remarked.

The witness pointed out that the Police gave him escort and asked them to enquire from Abdou Jammeh.

“Abdou Jammeh told the Police what he told me,” he said.

However, the witness did not tell the honourable court what Abdou Jammeh informed them. The witness noted that he did inform the Police that the accused broke into his house and took the following things: four hundred grams of gold valued at one hundred thousand dalasis, physical cash amounting to Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Dalasis, nine sets of tie and dye cloth valued at Eighteen Thousand Dalasis, his wives’ gold earrings, jewels valued at Three Thousand Five Hundred Dalasis. The witness said he made a statement to the Police.

Mr. Sissoho told the court that the accused never gave him notice and that he had been paying his rent regularly.

Defence Counsel, Ousainou Darboe took up from where the prosecution stopped. The witness told the court he is in business, but he does not pay tax. He said he has been doing business in The Gambia for six years now, but he has not been paying tax. He said he is in possession of his alien ID card. The witness said there was no light and water when he was moving into Mr. Cham’s house.

Mr. Darboe put it to the witness that he and Mr. Cham went to NAWEC because he (Sissoho) effected illegal connection in the premises, but the witness replied that he did not “steal current”. The witness denied Mr. Darboe’s charge that he was given notice by the accused and that he ceased to sleep in the room by the end of November. The witness said he received some of the things he left in his house from the Police. He said the quality of the gold he left in his house is twenty two carats. He said his family members gave the gold to his wife.

The witness said he had kept the gold in the cupboard inside his bedroom. Asked by Mr. Darboe whether the cupboard was locked, the witness responded in the affirmative, adding that it was locked with a key, and the key was kept inside the cupboard. Asked by Mr. Darboe whether the cupboard was damaged, the witness answered in the positive, adding that he kept the key inside the wardrobe. At this juncture, the Magistrate stated that she was confused. The witness said the Police had an inventory of everything that was missing in his house. Mr. Darboe sought to tender the inventory at this juncture. The prosecution did not object to the tendering of the inventory which was later admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit A. Mr. Darboe gave the witness the inventory and asked him to show him where wardrobe was outlined. After examining the list, the witness said cupboard was mentioned in number forty four of Exhibit A.

The witness said he kept the Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Dalasis under his clothes in his wardrobe. He said the money belongs to one Ibrima Sissoho who left it with him when he was traveling to Mali. Mr. Sissoho denied Mr. Darboe’s charge that the said story about missing properties is a ploy to get the money from the accused.

The witness denied Mr. Darboe’s claim that he had given the police the impression that he is a gold dealer and never told them that the four hundred grams of gold is jewelry for his wife.

Mr. Darboe applied for an adjournment to allow the witness to bring his alien ID card for the previous and current years. He also applied to the court for them to go and visit the said house the witness was occupying. The applications were granted by Magistrate Amina Saho. The case continues this week.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.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

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤