Jokor night club????? of all places.
Haruna. Thanks Kukeh for sharing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Malanding Jaiteh <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 11:27 am
Subject: [G_L] Crime and punishment, what does it say about us?
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 » Gambia
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 interfaceat: 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-lTo contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:[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.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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤