Battle for the Integrity of The Trial

 

By Fabakary B. Ceesay

 

Foroyaa has decided to separate this portion of the report on the trial from the main one to enable our readers to know how lawyers struggle to defend the integrity of a trial. In this case the defence is trying to convince the court that the Director of Public Prosecution should recuse himself or withdraw from the case.

 

Lawyers Pap Cheyasin Ousman Secka and Sheriff Marie Tambedou, the Counsels defending General Lang Tombong Tamba, Brigadier General Omar Bun Mbye, Major Lamin Bo Badjie, Lieutenant Colonel Kawsu "Bombarde" Camara, Ex-Deputy IGP Modou Gaye, Gibril Ngorr Secka, Abdoulie (Lie) Joof and Yousef (Rambo) Ezziden, have accused the Director of Public Prosecution, (DPP) Richard N. Chenge of engaging in professional misconduct by interfering with the first prosecution witness after the Court sitting, while the witness is still testifying under evidence in chief before the Court.

 

On Tuesday 23rd March 2010, Lawyer Secka told presiding judge Justice Emmanuel Amadi of the Banjul High Court that on Monday 22nd March 2010, after the Court session, he and his learned friend Sherrif Tambedou had cause to visit the office of the DPP to discuss the health condition of Abdoulie Joof. Mr. Secka indicated that to their dismay they found the witness (PW1) Mr. Ebrima Marreh with the DPP interfering with him. Secka posited that PW1 is the witness of the Court and not the DPP. He added that the witness, until he is cross examined and re-examined, remains the witness of the Court. He added that the first prosecution witness remains the witness of the Court until he is discharged by the court. He asserted that it is unlawful for any body to interfere with the witness at the moment, adding that that act of the DPP is unprofessional.

 

 

Lawyer Secka stated that in the indictment, PW1 stated in his statement that he was called by the DPP on three occasions. He said that the accused persons are standing trial on one of the most serious criminal charges against them. He asserted that what he and Tambedou saw on Monday should be a cause for concern to the Court. "We want the DPP to recuse himself (withdraw) from this case, with all due respect," said Secka.

 

Lawyer Tambedou supported his application for the DPP to withdraw from the case. Lawyer Hawa Ceesay Sabally said she was not with her colleagues when they found the witness with the DPP at the Attorney General Chambers as they claim. She asserted that she has no reason to doubt her colleagues. Lawyer Sisay Sabally said if what her colleagues said is confirmed by DPP that the witness was in his office after the case, "I will ask him to recuse himself from the case". Mrs. Sisay Sabally indicated that the witness has indicated in his statement that he was invited by DPP on 8th February 2010.

 

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Mr. Richard N. Chenge told the Court that he did not call the witness to interfere with him, adding that he can interview his witness at any time he wants to do so. DPP Chenge argued that this is the first time he hears such in The Gambia; that one cannot interview his witness. He added that to interview a witness is a normal routine.

 

Mr. Secka argued that one can only interview your witness before the trial starts. He added that once the witness took oath before the Court one cannot interview him even if he spends hundred days in the witness box. Looking at the trial judge, who was only looking without taking notes of the arguments? Mr. Secka said, "My lord, I can see that the court is not taking notes. This is a matter that we cannot just leave like that". Justice Amadi frowned and said, "DPP, the witness has not completed his evidence in chief. Why do you have to interfere with him". DPP Chenge stood and said what the defence lawyers are saying is totally misguided. He said, "If they do not want to represent the accused persons, then we look for other lawyers to defend them. I have rights to interview my witness at any time. This is a useless argument; the Court should not listen to it".

 

Mr. Secka told the court that the DPP does not know what professional misconduct is by insulting them in Court, but added that they will accept his insults. Justice Amadi intervened and warned the DPP not to use that language again in Court. Justice Amadi said, "DPP, this is not the language of the Court. I want you to apologize and withdraw that statement right now".

 

DPP Chenge said, "I am sorry for that statement and more so you are my senior. I also withdraw that statement". Lawyer Hawa Sisay Sabally posited that the matter is a cause for concern to interview the witness who is still in the box giving evidence. She added that the witness only mentioned her clients name when he was invited by the DPP. She argued that the DPP is not an investigator, but only a prosecutor. She noted that since the witness has taken oath no one should tamper with him in whatsoever manner.

 

Justice Amadi then asked Lawyer Secka whether he did ask the witness what he was doing at the office of the DPP. Mr. Secka said he did not do so, because it could be rude. He asserted that to even signal the witness in the box is contempt. He added that prosecution does not mean you have to convict them at all cost. He said that is against professional conduct.

 

DPP disagreed with the defence and said the defence misconceived the difference between interviewing and interfering with the witness. He denies interfering with the witness at any stage. Mr. Secka stood and challenged the DPP that he should not even invite the witness to his office. Justice Amadi ruled that he has noted all the concerns and asked both parties to forget that topic. He ruled that if what the defence says has happened, and it will lead to miscarriage of Justice, then they will know. He said that his hands are tied and he is in a dilemma. He added that by asking DPP to step down means aborting the proceedings. He said he never faced such before.

 

Mr. Secka also raised the issue of giving adequate time and facility to accused persons to prepare their defence. He cited section 24 (3) of the 1997 Constitution. He argued that the accused persons are still being denied access to their family members to discuss with them about their defence. He added that even their wives are not allowed to visit them. He stated that it is the duty of the Court to help the accused persons to have access to their families.

 

DPP Chenge argued that all those are tactics by the defence to delay the case. Justice Amadi said the Court cannot just write an order like that. He said the matter is not worthy to write a direct order to the prison authorities. Justice Amadi indicated that the accused persons are human beings and Gambians indeed. He added that their wives are their best assistance in any way and should be allowed to visit them.

 

Mr. Secka said the prison authorities insisted that they do not have any order from the Court to allow the accused persons to have access to their family members. Mr. Secka added that the prison authorities said they are yet to receive a remand warrant from the Court, before they could allow family visitors.

 

Justice Amadi ruled that a warrant has to be brought to him for him to sign it. He added that when he was magistrate at Brikama the police always bring warrant for him to sign.