|
Uncle, that is what the POA is saying. That before one uses sound amplifiers you must be granted permit
to do so.] Dad Modou.
Thank you so very much Dad.
So the permit is actually for the PA system and not for the rally or is it for both you think? It may be helpful if
you can share the exact language in the POA dealing with rallies and PA systems if you can. Thank you.
[So asking what a political rally is without a PA System can be answered by you my good uncle.] Dad Modou.
That was a rhetorical question. It was meant to get at the very essence of the permit requirement if the purpose
of a political rally is to reach a wider audience than a boardroom conference. Therefore unless the POA
describes what a PA system consists of, we can take it to mean any voice amplification mechanism intended
for an audience within a reasonable proximity of the rally.
[What I can tell you is that discussing this topic further will not help the UDP vis-a-vis the situation it finds it’s self
presently.] Dad Modou.
Hmm!!! "The situation UDP finds itself in"???? Dad this is the second time so far you share this fear of yours;
That discussing what is already in the public domain may unduly malign the case of Femi Peters V. IGP-Gambia.
I want to assure you that if you stay within the contours of my queries, you have nothing to fear. I take it you are
with your UDP coleagues and that the situation UDP finds itself in presently is PDOIS' situation too. Or do you
not think it to be??? Neansmoins, just stick with me. One way you can unduly malign the case of FP V. IGP-G
is when you waylay into waxing philosophical about extraneous issues such as inter-party this and sovereign
that. Just stay with me baby. I fail to see your concern for someone who thought the UDP should have dared
the police and security and hold last week's rally. Just stay with me. Please.
[Maybe you can help me with that of the APRC, if you had asked about the other parties only I would have given
you an affirmative response.] Dad Modou.
I don't understand Dad. Let me bring you the questions again:
1. Has any of the other political parties (incl. APRC) ever held a rally Dad??????
This means that the political parties affected by the POA are: APRC, UDP, NRP, PPP, PDOIS, ndam.
So if you are only conversant with any one of these parties, then you answer for that party only. Some of our
coleagues here may be conversant with other parties and they are free to share info with us on those
parties. So forget about APRC if you are not informed on whether it had held any rallies before.
2. And did they use a PA system????
So whatever party/parties you answered for in 1 above, you will answer for in 2. if you know the answer. No
conjecture please.
3. And did they therefore apply for permit to hold such rally???????
Ditto as in 2 above.
4. Were any permits approved prior???? Do you know????
Ditto Dad.
[I know PDOIS is running it’s activities.] Dad Modou.
Ok Dad. I don't know what activities are. The question was specific as to rallies and PA
systems. Once we expand the scope of the 'situation UDP finds itself in' we risk
malignantly affecting the case FP V. IGP-G. So did PDOIS ever hold a rally before???
And so on to #4, referring only to PDOIS if you are not sure about any of the other parties.
[Since you are telling us that the UDP’s holding of a rally is tied to it’s court case then it is
better to wait to for the people's to get the rally they want.] Dad Modou.
You may have misunderstood me Dad. I did not say or tell you that "UDP’s holding of a
rally is tied to it’s court case". What I did share with you however was that the UDP's
cancellation or postponement of last week's rally was circumspect. It helped safeguard
the life and security of citizens who had intended to participate in the rally because as
Freedomnews shared with us, some security officials at the rally to maintain peace,
were armed. The presence of ARMED personnel at a political party rally risks escalating
otherwise benign activity into violent confrontation and one officer may make a mistake
and fire shooting himself or other in the foot. Secondly, the circumspect in the decision
to cancel is in deference to the magistrate and the courts. In law and jurisprudence, and
when you have a matter before a judge or magistrate, part of the synthesis he/she
undergoes is to determine intent and plausibility. So the IGP's spokesperson shared
with the magistrate that the reason the political parties are required to apply for permit
for rallies is because when two or more political parties hold a rally at the same time
and venue, there is likely to be violence. So even though the UDP was the only party
holding the rally, because of the presence of armed security officers, some of whom may
not know how to handle a gun, the UDP showed marked restraint by cancelling it. This
will inform the magistrate that the very premise of requiring application for permit is not
only flawed, it is the IGP's security personnel who instigate violences at rallys to prove
their own premise. And the case FP V. IGP-G regards FP using a PA system without
proper permitting. I think you understand now Dad. Just stay with me please. If there is
anything you don't understand in what I write, please ask me for clarification. Don't
assume what I say or share. Perhaps you can now see the wisdom in the UDP's
handling of "the situation it finds itself in presently".
[I wish everything goes well at the constitutional review.] Dad Modou.
Oh it will. The constitutional question has to be resolved for all citizens. Not just the UDP.
[You are my Uncle you can tell me what to ask my other uncles at PDOIS.] Dad Modou.
Well for starters, just ask them the 4 questions I shared with you above. This so that
we can get accurate answers. And not just divine answers. That will not be good.
[If it is Foroyaa I can give you a definite answer.] Dad Modou.
You did say Foroyaa is not only a newspaper, it is the organ of PDOIS. So I was thinking
if Foroyaa does not already have the answers, it can interview your other uncles to
share the answers with us, the people.
[The Inter Party Committee could provide us with the forum to deal with issues of such
nature without much trouble or going through the unpredictable court system.] Dad Modou.
OK. So until the inter-party Committee does, we will do what we can. I think the inter-party
Committee presumes several parties in dialogue and sharing information etcetera. And
that includes the APRC I suppose. So until they have an opportunity to convene on the
constitutional matter, we will work on our rights of peaceable assembly. What do you think?
If we have to wait for an inter-party Committee hell might freeze over. And the inter-party
Committee is a red-herring for indifference and disingenuity in this here matter. The supreme
court decides on constitutional matters for all and sundry, not just political parties. Right????
Later Dad. I was busy earlier that is why I was not able to review your response more
expeditiously. Thank you for your effort here. I encourage you to leave the inter-party
Committee to the parties. Meanwhile let us see if we can understand the POA dealing with
singular (not inter-party) party rallies and PA systems.
Your best uncle. Haruna.
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of Femi Peters V. Inspector General of Police, Gambia.
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 4:57 PM
Thank you Dad. This was valuable.
So no party needs to apply for permit to hold a rally unless they intend to use a PA system.
I say what is a political rally without a PA system? So in order for any political party to hold a rally, they must apply for permit.
Has any of the other political parties (incl. APRC) ever held a rally Dad??????
And did they use a PA system????
And did they therefore apply for permit to hold such rally???????
Were any permits approved prior???? Do you know????
I did not encourage any other political party to apply for permit for rally "Just to test waters". Why would anyone apply for permit for rally if you did not intend to hold a rally? That indeed would be childish and listless.
One of the reasons I suggested other political parties apply for permit is so they can hold a rally since the people will not benefit from a UDP rally until after Christmas. I wonder if the other parties hold rallies? If they don't it is understandable how this case can be viewed to be a uniquely UDP problem. And that does not help the UDP much in the constitutional revision.
You did good Dad. Let's keep this conversation going please and consult with PDOIS for information you do not currently have. I wish someone from NRP and PPP can advise us as to their disposition.
Thanx again Dad. And discussion of this constitutional matter will not affect the current UDP case at Kanifing court in any way. The citizens have been aversed by the state as it stands. We prosecute our cases here on Ellen for now. Don't worry one bit.
I think it is a great idea to revive the Inter-Party talks and commission. i encourage all parties to revive it. In the meantime however, we want to be able to peaceably assemble. For n'importe quoi.
Haruna.
----- Original Message-----
From: Modou Nyang < [log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA- [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 4:30 pm
Subject: Re: In the matter of Femi Peters V. Inspector General of Police, Gambia.
Uncle, the Magistrates dismissal of the application to put a hold on the case at his court does not in anyway affect the application at the High Court. That of the High Court is a constitutional matter which if granted closes the case altogether.
But I am not of legal mind and I am writing to state my take on your advice for the other opposition parties to apply for a permit to test the ground. First of all political parties have a right to assemble without a permit. The permit only comes in when they want to utilise instruments for sound amplification or hold procession that will obstruct traffic and/or cause public nuisance as par the Public Order Act is concerned. That is why it has become a tradition for police protection to be given once a permit is given to utilise public address system or the other aspects as required by the POA.
Therefore there is no need asking other parties to apply for permit. I read from Foroyaa calling on the Political Parties to work on rejuvenating the Inter Party Committee as a means of challenging the denial of permit to the UDP. I also learnt that Halifa has personally written all the Parties in that effect. I think that is a mature move to take and it will help determine whether it is government policy to ban rallies or that the IGP being negligent in his duties or simply has an axe to grind with the UDP.
Unless that avenue is utilised to the fullest as the one available means to stop this affront to the Civic rights of the people to freedom of assembly, it would be childish for another party to apply for a permit just to test whether it will succeed or not when it currently has no obstruction placed on its political activity. They should do so whenever they aim to hold a rally.
It is better to leave matters as they are presently rather than discussing them further to the detriment of the UDP.
Nyang
--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: In the matter of Femi Peters V. Inspector General of Police, Gambia.
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 7:27 AM
This does not say anything to me. Maybe JDAM can help us out. The Magistrates dismissal of Darboe's application does not seem to affect the case one way or the other. And the supreme court still has an opportunity to review the larger constitutional question. I know for a fact the IGP will be found wanting in proving his case against Femi Peters. Anyway, I yield for JDAM's review so far. This means the UDP will not hold any rally until after Dec. 22nd at least. I think PDOIS, NRP, PPP, or NDAM ought to apply for a permit for rally before Dec. 22nd. I don't know what will happen Dad, just do it men.
Haruna. Allez.
Courtesy: Freedomnewspaper.
Breaking News: Gambia:Court Dismisses Darboe’s Application For Stay Of Proceedings On Femi Peters’s Criminal Case
In Femi Peters Illegal Assembly Case, Darboe's Application  Overruled
Court Dismisses Darboe’s Application For Stay Of Proceedings On Femi Peters’s Criminal Case
By Staff Reporter James Jammeh, Banjul
The criminal trial involving Gambia’s firebrand politician Femi Peters suffered a major setback, as the court dismissed Lawyer Darboe’s motion for the case to be transferred to the superior court. Principal magistrate Joseph Ikapala of the Kanifing Magistrate courts overruled Mr. Darboe’s application for stay of proceedings, pending the determination of the legal contentions raised by him (Darboe) over the legality of the jurisdiction of the well publicized case. Mr. Darboe had earlier argued in court that the lower court does not have the jurisdiction over the matter at hand, but the presiding magistrate rejected his arguments-describing them as untenable.
In formally delivering his ruling, magistrate Ikapala said Darboe’s motion was not only defective, but untenable. He said the motion doesn’t have stamps and as such he was not keen at looking at it. The magistrate wondered if the said motion came from a proper custody, and thus dismissed it. He raises eyebrows over Darboe’s contention that his court lack the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Addressing a crowded court room, the presiding magistrate said in view of the above reasons, he has no alternative but to dismiss the defense’s motion. He then asked the prosecution to proceed with their case against Femi Peters. The magistrate said the prosecution is now free to call its witnesses. The case was adjourned to December 22nd for continuation.
The magistrate’s failure to accommodate Mr. Darboe’s request for stay of proceeding would likely to have an adverse effect on the current application before the high court. What this ruling means is that, Peter’s fate could be decided anytime soon. If the superior court rules that the lower court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, then there is bound to be a fresh trial all over again.
Mr. Darboe has not yet reacted to the latest court decision. Some UDP supporters told this reporter that they will continue to pledge their loyalty to the party no matter what. They said nothing would stop them from coming to court to register their solidarity with the embattled UDP Propaganda Secretary Femi Peters.
Mr. Peters is standing trial for holding unlawful assembly. The state accused him organizing a political rally without permit from the office of the Inspector General of police. The UDP argues that it had sought a permit from the police but was never approved. It resorts to defiance in exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of association.
|
|