As Gov't Justifies Darboe's Arrest And Detention Defense Counsels React to the State The Independent (Banjul) NEWS November 29, 2002 Posted to the web November 30, 2002 By Pk Jarju Banjul A team of defense counsels representing the UDP leadership has strongly reacted to the Attorney General's Chamber's justification for the arrest and continuous detention of Ousainou Darboe and three others by the state. The AG Chambers in a press release stated that the arrest and continuous detention of members of the UDP leadership was in accordance with the result of an amendment to Section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2002, which states that all persons charged with murder and other similar offences for which the penalty is life imprisonment or death are not entitled to be granted bail unless where the trial has been unreasonably delayed. Reacting to this, the team of defense counsels expressed outmost surprise to the arrest and detention by the state especially when they were being connected with the murder case of June 17, 2000 in Basse during a skirmish between APRC and UDP supporters. According to the defense, the attempt to justify the arrests on the basis of the CPC Amendment Act 2002 is unfortunate because the act is inconsistent with or in contravention of section 19(4) of the nation's constitution, which states that 'where any person is brought before a court upon suspicion of him or her having committed or being about to commit an offence, he or she shall not thereafter be further held in custody in connection with . that offence save upon the order of a court'. They further argued that judicial matters are squarely in the hands of the courts and not the National Assembly as enshrined in section 120 (2) of the constitution. As a result of this they argued that matters of criminal liability and punishment are judicial matters. The defense stated that in the appeal by the state against the bail granted to the accused persons by Justice Kabalata on June 21, 2000, the Court of Appeal expressed concern that the liberty of Mr. Darboe and his co-accused would be interfered with if the court were to rule in favour of the state in the appeal. The defense added that during the hearing of the case, the learned Director of Public Prosecution DPP Chief Akomaye Agim gave the undertaking that the liberty of the accused would not be interfered with, which was recorded by The Gambia Court of Appeal in their judgment. The Defense quoted Court of Appeal records as declaring 'that the learned DPP has in keeping with his status as an officer of the court assured us that the respondents would not suffer any negative consequences as a result of this judgment. So be it.' In view of recent developments regarding the accused, the Defense stated that the learned DPP a member of a honourable profession must be embarrassed by the arrests and detention following the judgment, which is unfair to him. They refused to accept that he has any hand in the arrests. 'Maybe those who ordered these arrests are not aware of the judgment of the court of appeal' the Defense stated. According to the defense since the Kabalata ruling granting Mr. Darboe and his alleged conspirators bail, the murder case has been listed and called in the High Court over ten times with them always presenting themselves during all phases of the trial. They added that the denial of bail when it should be granted amounts to imposing a punishment on the person or persons refused bail. 'The only consideration for bail is whether the accused will present him or herself for his or her trial' the Defense indicated. They added all other factors are offshoots of this consideration and that the legal presumption entrenched in the constitution is 'that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty after a due process of the law'. The Defense lamented that even if the CPC Amendment Act of 2002 was not offensive to the fundamental rights provisions of the constitution, applying it to a two year old murder case would be giving it retroactive effect and thereby prejudicing or depriving the persons accused of rights vested in them, namely that they could be granted bail by the courts. This they added would also offend against section 100(c) of the constitution. Meanwhile a suit filed at the High Court by defense lawyers seeking the unconditional release of the UDP four was Tuesday not entertained by Justice Abdukarim Savage on the grounds that the substantive case is before another Judge (Justice Tahir). He added that if he proceeded with the case and make a ruling, it would have effect on the substantive case before Tahir. Justice Savage noted that as the judge assigned to hear matters touching on the liberty of people for the week, he could only be at liberty to hear the matter if Tahir is beyond the jurisdiction of the country. 'Handling this matter now would set a dangerous precedence in the country's judicial history' he lamentably observed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~