We publish a rejoinder by Sam Sarr below:

Re: Halifa Sallah faces plotting, spy charges
In your Weekend Observer edition of March 13-15 2009, you published an article on page 10 with the caption, “Halifa Sallah faces plotting, spying charges”.

In the article, the author wrote: “Halifa Sallah appeared in court on Wednesday on charges of plotting against the government and spying, and was immediately returned to jail as he could not post the D1 million bail he was given.” The author further stated: “When the case came up for hearing, Magistrate Kayode Olajubutu of the Brikama Magistrates Court told the main accused person that he had been charged with spying, illegal assembly and intended sedition.” These statements need clarification.

In the first place, Halifa Sallah is not charged with “plotting against the Government”. In fact there was no conspiracy charge against him. This is the first point to note.

He was also not charged with “illegal assembly,” which is not the same offence as “control of procession”.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code Act does not know the offence of “intended sedition”. What it knows is “seditious intention” which is defined in section 51 of the Code.

For the benefit of the reader, Halifa Sallah is charged with the following offences:
1) Spying: It is alleged that on March 7, 2009, at Makumbaya Village in the Western Region, Halifa Sallah obtained confidential information which he knew is directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.
2) Control of processions: The allegation is that on 7, March 2009, at Makumbaya Village in the Western Region, he knowingly and unlawfully held a procession without a licence issued by the Inspector General of Police.
3) Seditious intentions: It is alleged that on March 7, 2009, at Makumbaya, in the Western Region, Halifa Sallah, with intent to bring hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the Government, unlawfully assembled the people of Makumbaya Village in order to collect information that would bring hatred, contempt or excite disaffection to the Government of The Gambia.

Still on the issue of the charges, the author also claimed that Magistrate Kayode told the defendant, Halifa Sallah, what the charges are. That is not correct. As usual, it was the clerk who read out the charges one by one, asking Halifa Sallah on each occasion to take a plea.

The author also referred to Halifa Sallah as the “main accused person”, which gives the impression that there is more than one accused person. I am of the opinion that the author did not witness the proceedings of March 7. I will advise him as a fellow journalist to ensure that he/she gets his/her reports from the courts and avoid hearsay. This will facilitate the accuracy and impartiality of his/her reports.

On the issue of bail, the author said Halifa Sallah “could not post the D1 million bail he was given.” I don’t understand what the author is saying but for the purpose of clarity, it is important to note that a bail bond is simply an agreement to ensure that a defendant or a suspect makes himself/herself available when required. The case of Bangally Kone and others is a good example. When Bangally absconded, the surety (guarantor), one Yankuba Fatty, has been ordered by the court to meet the condition of the bail, that is, to pay D100,000, or be jailed for two years.

Hence being granted bail in the sum of D1 million simply means being set free, provided a surety or some sureties agree to pay D1 million if the defendant or suspect fails to appear, otherwise the surety or sureties will be jailed. Clearly then the sum of D1 million does not have to be paid. This is therefore not the reason for Halifa Sallah’s failure to meet the bail condition.

The problem is that Halifa Sallah could not get sureties to sign the bail bond. Apart from an Alkalo (village head) in the area, the Magistrate asked for two other sureties who must be either ex-Inspector General of Police or ex-Brigadier retired for at least eight years. Halifa knew that he could not possibly meet these bail conditions. He was of the opinion that this tantamount to denial of bail.

This is what led him to tell his sympathisers after the adjournment that they should go home. He added: “I am ready to suffer for others not to suffer, but what is going on must stop.”

Sam Sarr