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. I know PDOIS is running it’s activities.
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. I wish everything goes well at the constitutional review.
You are my Uncle you can tell me what to ask my other uncles at PDOIS. If it is Foroyaa I can give you a definite answer.
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.
Nyang
--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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 PMThank 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-----¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
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]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: In the matter of Femi Peters V. Inspector General of Police, Gambia.
To: [log in to unmask]">[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 ApplicationOverruled
Court Dismisses Darboe’s Application For Stay Of Proceedings On Femi Peters’s Criminal CaseBy Staff Reporter James Jammeh, BanjulThe 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.¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.htmlTo Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.htmlTo Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤