AG's Statement Has No Basis in Law, Dumo's Lawyers Argue The Independent </publishers.html?passed_pub=The%20Independent> (Banjul) August 25, 2000 Alhagie Mbye & Amie Joof Banjul Lawyers defending Dumo Sarho, who was recently implicated in an alleged coup attempt, have said that the Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice, Pap Cheyassin Secka's statement to the press regarding the prolonged detention of their client 'has no basis in law.' Commenting on the case, the Justice secretary had told journalists at a recent press conference that 'the right to be brought before a court after an arrest within 72 hours under Section 19(3) of the Constitution is subject to Section 17(2) of the same Constitution. This means that all the human rights provisions in Chapter IV of the Constitution are 'subject to respect of the rights and freedoms of others and for the national interest." Challenging the validity of that statement, human rights lawyer and counsel for Dumo Sarho Emmanuel Joof on Tuesday told The Independent that despite the fact that Dumo is charged with treason, it was the constitutional right of his lawyers to have access to him. He added that 'therefore the Justice secretary's statement has no basis in law. This is totally contrary to the provisions of the law because the issue is access; it is our constitutional right to see our clients despite the fact that the charge against Dumo is treason or whatever,' Lawyer Joof argued. Lawyer Joof emphasised that they have also discovered that according to records, 'Dumo was not properly charged before the High Court' and therefore he and co-counsel Ba Tambedou cannot still have access to Dumo. He added that Lawyer Tambedou had written a letter to the Interior secretary on July 18th, copied to the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police requesting to see their client who had been held incommunicado and charged with treason, but that this letter bore no fruits. He said after almost three weeks, a reply to their letter was received from the Interior secretary stating that 'since the matter was in the hands of the court, he couldn't do anything about it.' The human rights lawyer said they were very unhappy with the reply because 'any person who is arrested can, within three hours, have access to a solicitor; that's what the law says in section 19, subsection 2 of the constitution.' Lawyer Joof insisted that the magistrate's court to which Dumo was reportedly taken was not the 'proper forum and did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter of treason.' He added that 'the magistrate made it categorically clear in her ruling of July 14th that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and that Dumo could only be remanded in custody on condition that he was brought before the High Court as soon as possible.' Mr. Joof noted that the prosecution also promised that by July 17th the accused persons would be brought before the High Court, but that 'according to our knowledge, that has not been done. Lawyer Joof said Dumo's lawyers are going to take further legal action against the IGP, the NIA, and the Attorney General. He indicated that the High Court ruling by Justice Mam Yassin Sey, also stated that the detention was unconstitutional and that since their client was 'improperly charged, our contention is that holding him is unconstitutional.' He strongly emphasised that Dumo should be given access to his lawyers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask] if you have problems accessing the web interface ----------------------------------------------------------------------------