FOROYAA – BURNING ISSUES Issue Number 95/2003, 11-14 December, 2003 EDITORIAL No State Instruction For Seizure Of CFA and Properties Says SoS Interior Gambians are very dissatisfied with the rise in the cost of living. However no person should take the law into his/her own hands. If government is serious about price controls by might it would draft price bills and get it passed into law. It can then get the law enforcement agencies to ensure their implementation. However, to give the impression that security forces could get up and seize money and properties without any provision of law can only encourage impunity and alienation of such forces. This is neither good for their reputation nor for the maintenance of peace and security in a nation. This is why Halifa Sallah asked the following questions: "Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for the Interior indicate to this august Assembly whether there has been any instruction for any members of the Security Forces to seize CFA Francs from business persons as well as properties at established prices; if so what is being done with the money seized and what law is being relied on to make the seizures of property and arrests?" The Secretary of State for Interior gave the following answers: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member of the National Assembly for Serrekunda Central that there were no instructions to seize CFA Francs or force anyone to sell their properties. The Police received intelligence reports that some business enterprises were hoarding foreign currencies in their shops and as a consequence mounted an investigation to establish the veracity or otherwise of the said allegation, but when it was confirmed that the said foreign currencies were proceeds from their respective daily sales, the businesses concerned were advised to lodge their foreign currencies with the commercial banks." Conclusion Anybody who is aggrieved should contact Foroyaa so that the Secretary of State could be properly informed. What we need are strong consumer associations, which will negotiate with the businesspersons to establish reasonable prices. Such an association can even establish consumer cooperatives to contribute to purchase commodities for sale at reasonable prices. Democratic means should be used to protect consumer’s not brute force. Trial Of Baba Jobe & Others GPA MD Adama Deen Testifies After the lawyers had ironed out their differences and got over the preliminaries, the trial proper of Majority Leader Baba Jobe, the Youth Development Enterprise (YDE) and its Managing Director, Baba Kanteh resumed in earnest on Tuesday with the testimony of the first witness, Adama Deen, the Managing Director of Gambia Ports Authority. In his testimony, he told the court that Baba Jobe took out goods on behalf of YDE from the Banjul Harbour on 22 occasions but only made two payments. The practice, he said, is for the GPA to allow their ‘credit customers’, which includes Baba Jobe, to take out their goods and pay later. He acknowledged that he has been allowing Baba Jobe to take goods without paying the fees for the previous ones, contrary to their procedure. When asked why he did so he said that he simply continued a practice that he inherited. He told the court that the YDE has an outstanding amount of twenty-six, Read on for the details. The Charges The charges are as follows: Count One: Failure to pay port duties to the tune of twenty-seven million one hundred and sixty three thousand three hundred and ninety-five dalasis fifty-five bututs (D27,163,395.55), contrary to section 5(b) of the Economic Crimes (Specified Offences) Decree 1994. Count Two: Count two deals with evading the payment of port dues contrary to section 84 of the Ports Act. Count Three: Baba Jobe and Baba Kanteh have from 2001 to date caused economic losses of 70 million dalasis in import duties and others. Count Four: This count alleges that Baba Jobe is in breach of section 5(b) of the Economic Crimes (Specified Offences) Decree and section 6 of the Customs Tariffs Act. Count Five: This count alleges that contrary to section 291 of the Criminal Code, Baba Jobe had obtained credits of various forms totalling 70 million dalasis from the Customs Department under false pretence from 2001 to 2003; that payments were made in cheques. Count Six: Baba Jobe is accused of conspiracy to commit a felony by causing financial losses to GPA and the Customs Department contrary to section 368 of the Criminal Code. Proceedings of 8 December During these proceedings, the defence counsels, namely, Ousman Sillah and Mai Fatty for Baba Jobe, Lamin Camara for Baba Kanteh and Edu Gomez for YDE, all applied for an adjournment, noting that they needed more time to become au fait with the case. They submitted that they had not been served with the summary of the evidence, which is their right. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Akimoyae Agim, for his part, submitted that in the previous proceedings he had served Mai Fatty with a copy of all the information as counsel for all the accused persons. While acknowledging that Ousman Sillah, Lamin Camara and Edu Gomez are new to the case, he submitted that there should be proper transfer to the new counsels. He further submitted that there is no reason why the prosecution cannot put its witness in the box to give evidence. He therefore opposed the application for an adjournment. In his ruling, the trial judge, Justice Paul, ruled that Mai N.K. Fatty knows why the accused persons were charged. While overruling the application, Justice Paul decided to adjourn the case till the following day, Tuesday 9 December. Proceedings of 9 December 2003 Representation was the same as in the previous day. However, Lawyer Lamin Mboge did announce his representation of all the accused persons. At this stage, the prosecution called its first witness, Mr. Adama Deen, the Managing Director of Gambia Ports Authority. Testimony of Adama Deen Q; Name? A: Adama Deen. Q: Address? A: Kanifing East Estate Q: Occupation? A: Managing Director, GPA. Q: Do you know the accused persons? A: Yes. Q: How do you know the first accused? A: I know him as one of the most influential politicians, majority leader of the National Assembly and a businessman who ships several vessels of goods into the port. Q: What is his relationship with the GPA? A: He has been a credit customer for the past three years. Q: How does he become a credit customer? A: Whenever his goods arrive at the port, he comes to arrange for their release. Q: How many times? A: 22 times, from 2001 to 2003. Q: How was he able to do that? A: Since he is a credit customer when his goods come he comes to the GPA and negotiates for their release. Q: When goods come to the GPA, what is normally done before they are released? A: Certain payments, such as handling charges, stevedoring dues and other charges need to be paid. Q: How many times has he paid out of 22? A: Only twice Q: Why were you accepting to release his goods just like that without payments? A: This is the trend I met after I took over in February 2003. Q: Usually when was he supposed to pay? A: He should pay for the previous ones before the next consignment is released Q: Why do you continue to do the same with him even when he was not paying? A: Because he comes to plead. Q: As a credit customer does he have an account with you? A: Yes. Q: Under which name is the account? A: Y.D.E. Q: Can you explain how the two payments were effected? A: He made the first payment with regard to the consignment that came on board MV…. In which he paid D299,000 and the second time on MV Walnanela D623,000. On the second one he issued a cheque after wards he paid the amount in cash and withdraw the cheque. Q: How many cheques were issued by him? A: They were two, one for D623,000 and the second was for D2.2 million for clearing of the balance of the last MV Walnanela and other balances for those two shipments. Q: Where were those two cheques directed? A: Standard Chattered Bank. Q: Were you able to cash the two cheques? A: No Q: After this what did you do? A: The director of finance wrote to him on the 27th of September that they should do things rightly. Q: What role did the second accused play? A: As managing director of YDE, he wrote a subsequent letter on the 1st October 2003 to our letter of 27th September 2003. Q: Do you have a copy of your letter of 27th September? A: Yes. Q: To whom was it addressed? A: YDE. Shown a copy of the letter Mr. Deen confirmed it. It was tendered. The defence objected on the grounds that even though the document is admissible it cannot be tendered through Mr. Deen since he was not the right witness to do so. Secondly, they were not informed in the summaries of the evidence of Deen, that he is to tender any such document. They relied on section 24 subsection (3) and 175 of the CPC subsection (2) and (3). The trial judge overruled the objection. It was marked exhibit A. Secondly he was shown the reply written by the MD of YDE titled settlement of arrears and asked the sum involved? A: It is D26,193,241.30; that Mr. Kanteh had further asked for discount but it was not granted. Q: Was the first accused fulfilling his promises to pay? A: No Q: Are there any other correspondence between GPA and YDE on the matter? A; Yes there have been series of correspondence from the GPA to YDE and from YDE to GPA asking YDE to pay for the arrears. Q: Do you have their copies? A: Yes. Shown a copy of a letter dated 19th September 2003, he confirmed it. It was admitted and marked exhibit C. he was again shown a letter of the GPA’s demand for payment. It was confirmed and tendered but not objected to. It was marked exhibit D. another letter of demand dated 5th August 2003 was marked exhibit E. Q: Do you know Mr. A.R Bah? A: Yes he is my deputy. Q: Were you in office on the 8th October 2003? A: No. Shown a copy of a letter from the YDE objecting to the payment it was confirmed. It was tendered but not objected to and marked exhibit F. Q: Do you know why that Standard Bank cheque was later paid in cash and withdrawn? A: Yes. One of them, Mr. Baldeh told the director of finance that there was no money in the account. At this stage again a correspondence from YDE to GPA pleading a discount was shown to the witness and he confirmed t. it was tendered with no objection and marked exhibit G. he was then shown a Standard Bank cheque which was equally marked exhibit H. Q: Do you also have a copy of the withdrawal cheque? A: Yes. Q: How were you able to have it? A: The finance director photocopied it before its withdrawal. Q: Who signed it? A: the first accused. He was further again shown a photocopy of a bank cheque bearing only a signature and dated 14th September as the withdrawn cheque. Mr. Deen confirmed it and it was tendered without objection and marked exhibit I. Q: Can you tell the court why the first accused used a blank cheque? A: Normally clients who are credit customers are allowed to do so on postdated cheques. Then on the due date their total arrears with the GPA is filed in by the director of finance before the cashing. At 13:10 hours the DPP had applied for the case to be stood down for 30 minutes to allow him appear before Justice Belgore on matter connected to the 3 years treason trial. It was granted with no objection from the defence. Sitting resumed at 14:13 hours. Q: Can you tell the court why payments were not effected on the rest of the 20 vessels except those two? A: Despite several demanding letters from us indicating the astronomical nature of the indebtedness of YDE to GPA to no avail, then we wrote a letter to the secretary general’s office of the president. He advised us to stop the credit and introduce cash and carry. Mr. Deen said following this, when Mr. Jobe’s shipment arrived, he tried and was asked for payment before release. That the credit facility was no more. He made a payment of cash amount D299,000 in effect of the balance of those two shipments. Q: After this did you continue to effect any credit to him? A: Yes as his vessels continued to come even in my absence. Q: After these payments did he effect any payments in the last three years? A: No. Q: How do you come to know the second accused? A: The first accused introduced him to us on the 6th October. Q: After the 6th of October 2003, did you make any transactions with the first accused? A: Yes, this was when MV Cicab came. Q: After that, were there any other transactions? A: No that was the last one. Q: Have you got copies of the invoices that you sent to the first accused of what he owes to the GPA? A: Yes, the copy of the two booklets containing invoices and statements of account owed by the YDE to the GPA were shown to the witness, he confirmed them and they were tendered for identification purposes. There was no objection. The DPP then rose to change his mind and applied for the booklets to be admitted for evidence. Mr. Sillah then objected that the M.D is not the witness who should tender those summaries of evidence. Mr. Sillah indicated that the summaries in question do not in any way relate to his own summaries. He said the sections of defence No 16 earlier cited by the DPP cannot override section 4 of the 1997 constitution. He further cited section 24 subsection (3) of the 1997 constitution and added that it was also in the 1970 constitution legislated by parliament in 1982 developed section 175 CPC. He asserted that all are dealing with fair trial. He further read the third paragraph of procedures to criminal trial at page 330. Mr. Sillah further cited the case of Mai Kankan in the All Ghana Law report 1963. Mr. Mai Fatty for his part said he associated himself in toto with Mr. Sillah. He further argued that his grounds of objection are two. (1) The M.D is not the right person to tender those documents. He indicated that the CPA is a statutory body created by the Act that created the various positions from MD, finance director etc. he then asserted that the MD cannot therefore act for all other offices. Secondly he cited the Evidence Act section 94 and said among the documents tendered through the MD there is clear evidence in his own evidence that the finance director prepared them. On the fair trial, Fatty cited a Nigerian case. He asserted that the copies of the invoices, letters and cheques should have been provided to the defence even before the hearing starts. DPP for his part has argued the court to accept the documents as are of relevance to the court. That the matter is regarding admissibility, tat the defence have not shown any law on statutory law; that the MD is the superintendent of the activities of the GPA; that as the MD, he is supposed to know everything about the GPA. He asserted that it is ridiculous for a man to say God does not know certain things in the world. General laughter kan,kan,kang. The DPOP further submitted that the case of Mai Kankan earlier cited, does not apply to the present case; tat the reason are that the documents tendered in that case are not the same and the Ghanaian Criminal Act is different with our own section 175 of the CPC. Ruling Justice Paul overruled the objection on the grounds that the MD is the chief executive. That as chief executive, he is entitled to do and know everything about GPA. The matter is adjourned to 10th December, 2003. Issue Number 96/2003, 15-17 December, 2003 EDITORIAL Can An Accused Person Be Denied Bail? Many readers have approached FOROYAA to enquire whether an accused person can be denied bail for delaying a case. Our response is simple. A person holding judicial office has full control in handling a case. No person can delay a case without the complicity of the judge or the magistrate. What is expected of a person holding judicial office is to abide by the dictates of the constitution. The constitution states in section 24: "Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence" and "shall be permitted to defend himself or herself before the court in person or, at his or her own expense, by a legal representative." In fact a person who is charged with an offence that is punishable by death or imprisonment for life is entitled to legal aid and at the expense of the state. In short, where the liberty of the accused is at stake a competent judge or magistrate must even bend over backwards to ensure that the accused person is defended by the legal representative of his or her choice, so that justice is seen to be done. A court should proceed to hear a case without legal representation only if all reasonable means are exhausted to enable the accused person to be represented by a legal counsel of his or her choice. Competent judges enlarge the opportunity for the accused to provide a proper defence against the allegations made against him/her. This enables justice to be done and seen to be done. Halifa’s Letter to the Chief Justice On The conduct Of Judicial Officers Honourable Chief Justice, I am compelled by the dictates of conscience and public duty to address these concerns to you in particular and member of the bar and bench in general. The unpleasant exchanges between legal practitioners in our courts are a subject of mass coverage in our media. The people in the Gambia and the international community at large are standing in judgment. In short, while it is the duty of the judiciary to do justice, it is the duty of the public to pass judgment on whether justice is seen to be done. Honourable Chief Justice, it is my humble view that Justice is one of the fundamental pillars of a stable society. Once the pillar of justice crumbles the whole edifice of social order must crumble. How the judiciary can contribute to the consolidation of peace, security, stability and justice is of primary concern. Honourable Chief Justice, the members of the bench are the administrators of the law. They are responsible for the proper dispensation of justice. This is precisely the reason why the constitution has stated categorically what type of conduct is expected from the officials of the judiciary. Section 120, subsection (3) of the constitution states: "in the exercise of their judicial functions, the courts, the judges and other holders of judicial office shall be independent and shall be subject only to this constitution and the law and, save as provided in this chapter, shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority". Holders of judicial office should therefore be totally free from any fear or ill will. They should not be prejudicial in their conduct. Section 222 of the constitution subsection (8) adds: "A public officer who exercises judicial functions shall "(a) maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings before him or her; (b) be patient, dignified and courteous to all litigants, witnesses, legal practitioners and others in the exercise of such functions, and shall require similar conduct from his or her staff and others subject to his or her control". Honourable Chief Justice, hostilities being displayed during some of the proceedings do not accord with the dictates of Section 222 of the Constitution. Section 121 of the Constitution states: "The Chief Justice shall be the head of the judiciary and subject to the provisions of the constitution shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the courts". The mantle falls on you to ensure that "order and decorum characterise judicial proceedings and that judges are patient, dignified and courteous to all litigants, witnesses, legal practitioners and all others in the exercise of his or her judicial functions". In my view the duty of a judge is to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will. A judge should seek to guide an accused person to get proper legal counsel and should provide adequate time for him or her to prepare a defence. A judge should proceed with a case without counsel for an accused person only when it is reasonable and justifiable to do so in order to avert the derailing of justice. It is therefore hoped that you will have a word with all those who hold judicial office so that they carry out their duties in accordance with the code of conduct established by the constitution in order to protect the independence, dignity, integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary. To whom much authority is entrusted much patience, compassion, courtesy, good faith and fair play is expected. By a copy of this letter, I wish to call on all human rights organisations, the Attorney General, the African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to monitor the cases in our courts so that we can fairly appraise whether the holders of judicial office are performing their duties without fear or favour, affection or ill will, in accordance with the dictates of the constitution and the best practice of the legal profession. Gambia and the Gambian people deserve no less. While anticipating your maximum consideration of my concern I remain, Yours in the Service of the Nation, Halifa Sallah Minority Leader and National Assembly Member for Serrekunda Central. Baba Jobe’s Trial Part 2 The trial of Baba Jobe, the YDE and its Managing Director, Baba Kanteh gained momentum with the testimony of the first of prosecution witness, Mr. Adama Deen, Managing Director GPA on Tuesday 9th December. He testified that shipments of goods were released to Baba Jobe on behalf of the YDE, but only two shipments were paid for. The witness spent the whole day in the witness box. The case was then adjourned till the next day 10th December for continuation of examination in chief. We now present the proceedings of 10th December. Proceedings of 10th December, 2003, Testimony of Adama Deen Continuation Q: Did you tell the court that the first accused continued to make more transactions with the GPA even after 27st September 2003? A: Yes Q: What is the total outstanding between GPA and the first accused? A: As at date the total outstanding between the GPA and the first accused is D27.2 million. End of Examination Cross Examination Of Adama Deen By Ousman Sillah Q: Mr. Deen, when did you join the GPA? A: 2nd February 2002. Q: Where were you before joining the GPA? A: GPTC as MD. Q: From 2nd /2/2002 were you the MD of GPA to date. A: No. except from the 30th October to 1st November 2003. Q: What happened? A: I was terminated. Q: Why? A: I do not know. Q: Were there any reasons given? A: No. Q:Were you given a letter? A: Yes. Q: Then what happened on the 1st November 2003? A: I was reinstated. Q: Do you know why? A: No. Q: Was it by letter? A: Yes. Q:Do you know that GPA was established by a statute? A: Yes. Q: Do you know the statute? A: Yes, the GPA Act. Q: By that Act what is your role as MD? A: To operate and manage the affairs of the GPA on a daily basis. Q: How many departments are within the GPA? A: You have the directorate, administration, finance, harbour, ferries etc, etc. Q: Do you have a way book in all departments? A: No, normally letters are distributed by administration and finance. Q: So it means that all the various invoices you send out would be indicated in those books and are signed for? A: Yes. Q: Apart from administration and finance, is there any other department that deals with out going letters? A: Yes, the credit control office. Q: Is it correct that all heads of department can write letters and sign on your behalf? A: Yes. Q:Do they send you a copy? A: Yes. Q: Would you be able to make those way books available, can you send any of your surbodinates to bring them as we continue? A: The witness was silent. The DPP objected and said they will be able to do that,. Since the defence have all rights to apply for any document relating to the case they are free to check and list down all documents they may need with regard to the witness. The trial judge advised the defence to do so. It was agreed on. At this stage, Mr. Deen was shown a copy of a letter written to the secretary general by the GPA and asked who wrote it? A: Mr. Deen said Tambedou. Q: Who is he? A: He is the credit controller. Q: Who did you say is the director of finance? A: Mr. Samba. Q: Are there any other personnel that are usually involved in invoicing? A: Yes. Mrs. Sallah and Ya-Fatou Touray. Q: Have you told the court that your lawyer had written to the first accused? A: Yes. Q:Who is your lawyer? A: Alh. Abdoulie Drammeh. Q: Was there any reply? A: Yes. Mr. Kanteh replied to indicated a D100,000 module of payment monthly and a discount and we said No. Q:Do you have a copy? A: Witness was silent. Q: If you see the copy of the letter would you identify it? A: Yes. As counsel for the defence Ousman Sillah pointed out the letter to the witness, the DPP sprang to say that by the Evidence Act any document to be referred to or tendered through the witness has to form part of the evidence. He then objected that the letter be shown to the witness. He further added that since the letter is meant to contradict the evidence it was necessary to followed rule of law. For his part, Mr. Sillah submitted to the court that the objection of the DPP is no objection since he has not relied on any law. That it is the DPP himself that raised the question of the lawyer ‘s letter during his examination of the witness in his evidence in chief. Mr. Sillah the cited section 201 of the Evidence Act but before even he completed reading, the DPP agreed. Mr. Sillah asked the court to dismiss the objection which Justice Paul did. Ousman Sillah then proceeded to show the witness. Mr. Deen confirmed that it is the letter written on behalf of the GPA to the first accused Baba Jobe, copied to the secretary general, office of the president, department of state for communication, finance, interior, the managing director GPA. Mr. Sillah then applied to tender the letter through the witness, it did not meet any objection. It was admitted and marked exhibit L. Mr. Deen was asked to read the letter. The content advised the first accused to settle its dues of D26,193,241.30 to the GPA within 7 days without which they would institute civil proceedings against them in the high court. Q: Did he comply with the 7 days ultimatum? A: No. Q: Why did you not react by advising your lawyer to go ahead with the court action? A: Mr. Deen said this was due to the fact that we gave Mr. Jobe concession to come forward at least to make some payments. Q: Mr. Sillah again gave a copy of a letter written by Mr. A.K. Bah signed for the M.D. Q: Who is this Mr. Bah? A: My deputy, but when he wrote this letter I was not in town. Q: But you know about the letter? A: Yes. Like I said, this was the time we were trying to have concession, in terms of payments. The letter is dated 28th October 2003 it was tendered. It was admitted and marked Exhibit M. Q: Do you know that YDE is a corporate body with limited liability? A: Yes. Q: And you also know that it is unlawful to address the issues of a company with limited liability to an individual as an individual matter? A: Yes. But like I said all along I did not know that YDE was a company with limited liability. (There was general laughter and murmuring. Judge: Silence the court in progress). Mr. Sillah continued further to ask for Exhibits G, etc from the court clerk that were written by the YDE addressed to the MD. The witness was asked if the letter head bears limited liability? A: Mr. Deen answered in the affirmative. Q:Mr.Deen, do you have any qualifications? A: Yes. Q:What are they? A: I am an economist and I also have masters in transportation. Q: Mr. Sillah finally asked the witness Mr. Deen, Do you have any training or some form of training in the field of law as an economist? A: The witness remained silent for a while. Mr. Sillah repeated the question. Then Mr. Deen said no. There was general laughter and murmuring for some time with the judge calling for silence. At this stage the matter was adjourned till 18th December 2003 with the court advising the defence to list down all documents they may need in connection to the witness. He advised the prosecution to provide them with all documents. JUWARA’S DETENTION CREATES ROW NDAM Youthwing Leader Arrested The continued detention of the Leader of the National Democratic Action Movement (NDAM) Lamin Waa Juwara, created a row at the Banjul High Court on Friday between officers of the Police Intervention Unit and NDAM Sympathizers. The unprecedented development led to the arrest and sudden detention of NDAM’s Youth Wing Leader, Pa Manneh. When the case was announced on Friday, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Akimoyae Agim who appeared for the State, told the court that the Counsel for the accused, Borry Touray had served him with a motion; that the motion is dated 11th December 2003; and that he is going to file an affidavit in opposition to the motion. He said he wants to correct certain facts. He told the court that the state witnesses were present in court, but the defence are those dragging the matter. He urged the court to adjourn the matter till 19th December 2003. Borry Touray, Counsel for the accused told the court that he is applying to assume his representation for Juwara following his temporary withdrawal, which was granted by his Lordship, Justice Paul. "I will also wish to apply for a copy of the warrant which, was issued yesterday to the accused person. I wish to state that let Friday’s adjournment be for the motion. I would further apply for a typed record of yesterday’s proceedings. I was discussing with my client the issue of continuing to represent him. We have had a firm and concrete agreement on that and I have advised myself accordingly to proceed with the case", he remarked. The trial Judge, Justice Paul ruled that the Friday’s sitting would be to hear the motion filed by Borry Touray. He announced that the records of proceedings and the warrant issued for Juwara’s detention will be prepared and given to Borry Touray. Few minutes after the court rose, one of the Three Prison Officers who accompanied Juwara to the Court, urged the latter to follow them to Mile 2 Central Prisons. "You mean we are going back to Mile 2 Central Prisons? Some of his sympathizers insisted he would not return to Mile 2 Prisons. Juwara urged them to be patient, but his angry sympathizers would not listen to him. Tension began to mount up, but Neneh Cham, a Legal Practitioner, Omar Jallow alias OJ and others urged them to exercise restrain. Borry Touray, Counsel for Juwara spoke to them and later urged Juwara to wait for him. Touray and the Director of Public Prosecution Akimoyae Agim later met in the chamber of Justice Paul. Touray then tried to solicit Juwara’s release, but Justice Paul was said to be adamant on the issue. According to sources, he told Touray that he should have applied for bail in an open court. After about 45 minutes of calm, Touray who was waiting for the judge to issue him with the warrant that was issued to his client the following day, came out and urged the NDAM Supporters to allow Juwara to go back to Mile 2 Prisons. The NDAM Supporters complied and were only waiting to see Juwara off. A Senior Police Officer called Sanneh, later came and said he was going to arrest the NDAM Youth Wing Leader Pa Manneh. The latter asked the former why he wanted to arrest him. Lawyer Ousainou Darboe came in to talk to both Manneh and Sanneh, a Plain Clothes Officer came and shouted, "why are you wasting time with this man, take him away", he ordered. Four Officers of the Police Intervention Unit armed with baton grabbed him and took him to a standby vehicle. The members of the Police Intervention Unit who numbered about 20 came to the court after the first row subsided. A Plain Cloth Officer who exchanged words with NDAM supporters was said to have threatened NDAM supporters with a Pistol. NDAM supporters, who were now bursting with anger over what they described an unjustifiable detention, bitterly complained that they cannot understand why Justice Paul revoked Juwara’s bail application, eventhough the latter has never jumped bail and had never violated any of the bail conditions. Juwara was granted bail by Justice Ahmed Belgore of the Banjul High Court, but the case was transferred to Justice Paul. No reason was advanced for the transfer of the matter to Justice Paul. However, Juwara’s Counsel, Borry Touray temporarily withdrew from the case after he filed a petition to the Chief Justice complaining of what he described as the oppressive nature of Justice Paul, who he alleged would over rule him before having a gist of what he wanted to say. Justice Paul revoked Juwara’s bail on Thursday. _________________________________________________________________ Cell phone ‘switch’ rules are taking effect — find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~