Has Gambian life become this cheap or the gods have gone crazy?
Lang Tombong and 7 others-  Death sentence for" two counts of treason"
Amadou Scattred Janneh and 4 others-  two life sentences for "sedition"
Ousman Jammeh - 3 yrs in jail for "economic crimes"
Cham and Minteh - Life sentence for "robbery with violence"

And that this  Mikailu fellow participated in all the above, first as
DPP and now a Judge, is a story that no one can beat.

Malanding


    Mobile phone thieves jailed for life

Africa <http://observer.gm/africa/news> » Gambia
<http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/news>
Monday, July 02, 2012

The High Court in Banjul, presided over by Justice Abdulahi Mikailu
Friday convicted and sentenced two men, Mustapha Cham and Saikou Minteh
to life imprisonment for the offence of robbery with violence contrary
to Section 272 of the Criminal Code, Laws of The Gambia.


On count one, the particulars of offence stated that Mustapha Cham and
Saikou Minteh on or about the 25th February 2012 at New Jeshwang in the
Kanifing Municipality, whilst armed with offensive weapons robbed one
Ebou Njie of his Nokia mobile phone along with an Africell sim card and
a Qcell sim card after subjecting him to assorted acts of violence.


On count two, the particulars of offence also stated that the duo on the
same day and place, conspired to rob with violence one Ebou Njie of his
property which was carried out pursuant to the said agreement.


The accused persons pleaded not guilty to both counts and the
prosecution called three witnesses and tendered six exhibits; the
accused persons gave evidence in their defence but did not call any
witness and tendered no exhibit and at the end of the case for defence,
both parties waived their right to address the court.


The prosecution's case was succinctly summarised in PW2 Ebrima Njie
alias Ebou Njie's testimony, who revealed that he is a watchman and that
on the 25th February 2012 whilst at his work place (a shop) he saw the
1st accused on top of a fence trying to jump over. He said that he came
out and when the 1st accused sighted him, he hurriedly came down from
the fence/wall and took to his heels.


PW2 told the court that he pursued the 1st accused and apprehended him.
He said that as he held the 1st accused, the 2nd accused came and
stabbed him [PW2] on the neck and the hand with a broken bottle. As the
altercation ensued, the 1st accused took out a knife and stabbed PW2 on
the neck but the knife could not penetrate. Consequently PW2 brought out
his mobile phone in order to call his friend who was at the shop but the
2nd accused snatched the mobile phone from his hand and ran away.


The 1st accused was subsequently taken to the Police Intervention Unit,
Westfield by PW2 with the help of two gentlemen. PW2 Ebou Njie further
testified that when he was confronted with the accused persons at
Kanifing Police Station, they both admitted robbing him of his mobile
phone. The knife allegedly used on him by the 1st accused and mobile
phone, which he identified, were both admitted in evidence as exhibits E
and F.


Under cross-examination, PW2 told the court that the 2nd accused
snatched exhibit F when he was trying to make a call and that he
sustained injuries from the stab inflicted on him by the 2nd accused.


In his defence, the 1st accused Mustapha Cham testified that he a petty
trader, trading in perfumes. He told the court that on the 25th February
2012 at about the time for Muslim early morning prayer, he and the 2nd
accused Saikou Minteh left Jokor Night Club and whilst on their way
home, they met PW2 Ebou Njie at Jokor -- Cooperative junction who told
them that he saw someone trying to jump over the fence at his work place.


The first accused said he told PW2 to leave him alone but PW2 continued
to drag him. During the ensuing fight, the 1st accused saw PW2 with a
knife, which he tried to take from him in order to defend himself and as
a result he sustained injuries on his middle finger and forehead and
also on his left arm.


He said that as the fight continued, PW2 shouted for help and a crowd
gathered and started to beat him because PW2 was shouting 'thief,
thief'. Consequently the 1st accused was taken to PIU and then to
Kanifing Police Station from where he was later escorted by the police
to fetch the 2nd accused. The 1st accused denied robbing PW2 and said
that he did not attack him with a knife or used the knife to rob him of
the mobile phone.


In his defence, the 2nd accused Saikou Minteh testified that on the 25th
February 2012 whilst they were going home after leaving Jokor Night
Club, PW2 Ebou Njie suddenly attacked the 1st accused and tried to drag
him into a compound. He intervened by pulling the 1st accused from the
grip of PW2 who was holding a knife which the 1st accused tried to
snatch away but got himself injured in the process. He said that as the
altercation ensued, PW2 shouted for help and a crowd gathered and some
people in the crowd started beating the 1st accused.


The 2nd accused further testified that he tried to explain to the crowd
that they were just from Jokor Night Club going home but someone amongst
the crowd hit him on his forehead and he consequently ran away to his
residence and went straight to bed. He told the court that he was later
woken up when he saw the 1st accused and some police officers and was
subsequently arrested and taken to Kanifing police station. The 2nd
accused denied knowing anything about the robbery and said that he did
not take a knife to rob PW2 Ebou Njie.


In delivering judgment, Justice Abdulahi Mikailu disclosed that for the
prosecution to secure conviction there must be evidence to prove the
existence of a thing capable of being stolen, that such a thing shall be
in the possession of PW2; that the accused used or threatened violence
to PW2 with a view to dispossessing him of the things; that the accused
dispossessed him of the thing; that the accused person intended to
obtain or retain the said thing.


Justice Mikailu further disclosed that there is ample evidence presented
by the prosecution which establishes the existence of a mobile phone the
subject of the alleged robbery adding that it is not in dispute that
exhibit F (mobile phone) belonging to PW2 was recovered from the 2nd
accused. He averred that in exhibit A and C the accused persons gave
graphic account of what ensued between them and PW2 on the 25th February
2012.


The Judge further averred that in exhibit A, the 1st accused stated
thus: "I was at Cherno Mback's house sleeping and later my friend Saikou
Minteh came and woke me up and when I woke up I agreed with him to go
and do something so that we can have money for breakfast and some other
things. From Cherno's house, we went to the Cooperative area along the
street, we met up with the complainant who was talking on phone, I first
confronted the complainant and told him to stand and my friend Saikou
told him to hand over his phone to him.


We all strongly hold the complainant; Saikou Minteh stabbed the
complainant with a broken bottle. I was having a knife but didn't use it
against the complainant. I was only threatening him with the knife I
have. My friend end up taking the mobile of the complainant and ran away."


Justice Mikailu disclosed that it has long been established in a string
of decided authorities that; where a confessional statement is direct,
positive and unequivocal as to the admission of guilt by an accused
person, the statement is enough to ground the conviction of the accused
person.


He further disclosed that the law is clear that a free and voluntary
confession of guilt, whether judicial or extra judicial, if it is direct
and positive and properly established, it is sufficient proof of guilt
and it is enough to sustain a conviction so long as the court is
satisfied with the truth of such a confession.


The judge therefore declared that he hold as a fact that the accused
persons used actual violence to dispossess PW2 Ebou Njie of his mobile
phone (exhibit F).


On the offence of conspiracy, Justice Abdulahi Mikailu noted that there
must be an agreement of two or more persons i.e. there must be a meeting
of two or more minds. That the persons must plan to carry out an
unlawful or illegal act, which is an offence; that one person cannot
commit the offence of conspiracy because he cannot be convicted as a
conspirator. That bare agreement to commit an offence is sufficient. He
revealed that both accused persons confessed in exhibit A and C how they
planned and agreed amongst themselves to commit the offence in count one.


The presiding Judge then read the contents of both exhibit A and C and
stated that the accused in company of each other went to the scene of
crime, both participated in dispossessing PW2 of exhibit F after
subjecting him to various acts of violence. Hequoted PW2 as saying that
he testified that the 1st accused threatened or even stabbed him with
knife but it could not penetrate. The 2nd accused in turn stabbed him
with bottles and went away with exhibit F (mobile phone) which was found
with the 2nd accused.


Justice Mikailu pointed out that the necessary inference that can be
deduced from these chains of unbroken evidence is that the accused
persons were on the day in question on joint criminal enterprise to
steal as conceived by them in exhibits A and C. Hetherefore revealed
that he was satisfied that the prosecution has proved all the essential
ingredients in both count one and count two and they were found guilty
on both counts.


In handingdown the sentence, Justice Mikailu disclosed that he has taken
into account the record of previous conviction put forward by the DPP
with respect to the 1st accused. Hepointed out that he had also taken
into account the nature of the charge which is assuming a greater
dimension in recent times, adding that the court is supposed to be the
last hope of the common man.


The judge remarked that the court has therefore a constitutional
responsibility to protect the society from grievous crime such as the
one committed by the accused persons. Each of the convicts was sentenced
to life imprisonment on count one and on count two, each of the convicts
were further sentenced to seven (7) years term of imprisonment without
an option of a fine. Justice Mikailu ordered that the sentences run
concurrently. He also reminded them of their right to appeal.

Author: *Sidiq Asemota*


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤