(24).jpg)
DARBOEFEMI PETERS FATE TO BE DECIDED APRIL 1ST
AS DARBOE CALLS FOR THE FREEING OF HIS CLIENT
By Staff Reporter Fatou Cham, Banjul
After his unsuccessful attempt to convince a Kanifing court to acquit, and discharge his client Femi Peters, during a no case to answer submission, defense lawyer Ousainou Darboe, Friday reaffirmed his call for the politically motivated case to be thrown in the “dustbin” arguing that the prosecution’s case lacked merit. Mr. Darboe a former Presidential flag bearer for the opposition UDP said the burden of proof lies in the hands of the prosecution, and so far there is no evidence adduced in court to warrant the conviction of his client. Mr. Peter’s fate would be decided on April 1st when the court is expected to deliver a judgment on the high profile case. He has been accused of holding an unlawful procession—a charge he categorically denied.
In resting his arguments on state’s case versus Femi Peters, Darboe urged presiding magistrate Kayode Olajabutu to free his client in view of the prosecution’s inability to present a tangible evidence against Peters. Mr. Darboe noted that in any criminal trial the prosecution is duty bound to establish the burden proof, and that in the absence of such proofs, it would be hard to secure a conviction against any accused person.
Citing various legal authorities, Mr. Darboe invoked section 24, sub section {10} of paragraph {A} of the constitution, which according to the human rights lawyer clearly states that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
“All evidence must apply to the particulars as spelt in the charge sheet. In applying the elements in the particulars , all the elements should be proven beyond all reasonable doubts.” Darboe said.
Mr. Darboe reminded the presiding magistrate that in a situation where there is discretion, the exercising of such discretion is legally imperative.
In what appeared to be a legal lecture, Darboe went on to cite section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of The Gambia, which in his own words clearly states that the particulars of offense must explain the offense charged so that the accused person would know what he or she is charged with. He said there were inconsistencies in the particulars of offense filed by police in this case.
Lawyer Darboe submitted that the particulars of offence revealed that the rally was held by the political party and not the accused and this was confirmed by Pw1, and was recorded in his evidence in chief. He said the accused is not linked to any of the offence as far as the police indictments are concerned.
Mr. Darboe cited section 5 of the Public Order Act , which does not make the holding of a rally a criminal offence, adding that what makes it criminal is procession without a license . In other words, Darboe said the law does not prohibit the holding of a rally. He invoked sub section 2 of the Public Order Act, which says that the holding a procession without a permit is deemed as an offense, and is chargeable under the law.
He said no witnesses has stated in court that an order was issued and was disobeyed. He observed that even if the particulars of offence alleges that there was a procession “you do not have evidence adduced before the court to show that there was procession convened by the accused.”
“All the three witnesses of the prosecution stated that the accused was sitting and was not addressing any meeting. So if that was the case, I wonder how that can be a procession,” Darboe submitted.
Darboe said the prosecution was too hasty to file charges against a high profile member of his party without examining the legality of the charges. He said the prosecution failed to do its homework right, and is now paying the price of filing a defective, and an untenable charge. He said none of the prosecution witnesses testified in court linking Peters to convening an unauthorized procession.
Reading various provisions of the constitution in an open court, Darboe said section 25 of the constitution of The Gambia guaranteed every Gambian citizen the right to free assembly, and speech. He implores the court to denounce the prosecution’s attempts to infringe the rights of Gambians. He argues that the police which is entrusted to maintaining law, and order is violating the very laws of the law. He said there were instances in which the office of the IGP would not comply with court orders—a move he describes as a contempt to the legal system in this country.... www.freedomnewspaper.com
Haruna.