We think you guys are doing a fantastic job and it is with pain that we
register our disagreement with some of your assertions on this letter. We
believe that the opposition to this tyrannical regime should stick together
and support each other, because it is only through unity, that we will be
able to get rid of Yaya. However, we also believe that it is incumbent upon
us to step in and rectify any member of the coalition we believe is going
astray. By the same token, we invite every member of the coalition to point
out to us areas where we make mistakes that may negatively impact the
struggle.
We respectfully disagree with your some of your analysis of the statutory
provisions and your call on the chief justice to review the coroner's
findings. In an earlier posting, I narrated the powers of the coroner in
such an inquest. If one looks at that carefully, one will realize that the
powers of the coroner as far as giving redress to the families that lost
their children are minimal. The coroner can only determine the cause of
death and recommend the charging of the criminals. The ultimate decision to
render charges rest with the attorney general / director of public
prosecution. So even if the coroner does not charge someone, it is no big
deal. The fight should be with the attorney general to charge someone. What
you are advocating would just allow the government to engage in the
feet-dragging they have been engaged in since April 11. Let us assume that
the chief justice reviews Ousman Jammeh's finding and disagrees with them.
What do you want him to do? Tell Ousman Jammeh to conduct another inquest
and this time makes sure that he points out to Pap Cheyassin Secka who
should be prosecuted? This is the best we can expect from the chief justice.
I think you will even agree that this does not take us anywhere. We believe
that the way to go is to force Pap Cheyassin Secka to appoint the
independent prosecutor he promised, so that that prosecutor can investigate
the case and recommend the charging of the real culprits. The coroner's
inquest was only important for establishing that our children were
slaughtered by the soldiers and their guns. These findings should be given
to an independent prosecutor to take the case before the regular courts
where criminals are punished for their crimes. We do not want the case to go
back to Ousman Jammeh or anybody that cannot punish criminals.
I also hope that I misinterpreted your statement about people's expression
of doubt regarding the importance of the commission. Contrary to your
statement, we read in other Gambian newspapers that people think that the
commission is a gross waste of time. But I will even go further and state
that one does not need a poll to know that the commission is a waste of
time. What can they do? It goes without saying that if you have a commission
where government officials will come in and refuse to answer basic questions
or tell blatant lies, respectable citizens should condemn that commission in
no uncertain terms. If at the end of the day this commission cannot convict
and punish criminals, then it is a waste of time in my book. The fact that
terms of reference of the commission was not 'Gazetted', is neither here nor
there. The statutory provision you cited require that the formation of the
commission be publicized in the Gazette. It does not say that the terms of
reference be Gazetted. If I remember rightly, there was a press release to
the effect that the commission was set up. The public is clearly aware of
the formation of a commission to look into 'the public disturbances of  10th
and 11th April, 2000'. So whether this press release was publicized in the
Gazette or not is irrelevant. I hate to give this government some legal
pointers at the expense of a member of the opposition, but I have a deeper
purpose for giving you my opinion on this subject.
To recap, we think that another coroner's inquest, the chief justice's
review of the original inquest and the commission of inquiry are all time
wasters. The way forward is to get an international human rights activist to
come to The Gambia and prosecute this case after conducting his own
investigation. The more we prolong this with proceedings that do not spell
jail-time or firing squad for the culprits, we are just adding to the ordeal
of the families that lost their children and are being denied justice by
this government.
KB

>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: ON THE CORONER'S INQUEST AND THE COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:37:14 +0100
>
>12 June, 2000.
>
>
>Chief Justice,
>High Courts of The Gambia,
>Independence Drive,
>BANJUL.
>
>
>
>ON THE CORONER'S INQUEST AND THE COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY
>
>An effective system for the dispensation of justice must embody the
>existence of an impartial and independent tribunal or commission that looks
>into allegations of injustice with the view to facilitate redress.
>Injustice
>erodes confidence in public institutions. It creates distrust and promotes
>insecurity.
>
>Suffice it to say, when mechanisms exist for exposing and redressing
>injustice, public confidence is restored, distrust eradicated and security
>promoted. You would agree that injustice unredressed is justice denied.
>
>It goes without saying that the Coroner's Inquest had been presented to the
>Gambian people as a mechanism for pursuing the truth regarding the deaths
>of
>the students who fell on 10 and 11 April 2000. It is reported that the
>report of the Coroner has been submitted to the Attorney General's
>Chambers.
>The report is still not made public. What is difficult to comprehend is
>that
>the report is yet to reach your office.
>
>You would agree with us that when reports which have awakened such profound
>public interest gather dust on shelves, public confidence must become the
>casualty.
>
>It is rather surprising that the provisions of the Coroner's Act are yet to
>be followed to the letter. Section 9, subsection (2) of the Coroner's Act
>states categorically that:
>
>"Subject to the provisions of section 11 of this Act, if before or at the
>termination of any such inquiry a Coroner is of the opinion that the
>commission of an offence by some known person has been disclosed, he shall
>issue a summons or warrant for his arrest, or take such other steps as may
>be necessary to secure his attendance to answer such charge. On the
>attendance of the said person, the Coroner shall commence the inquiry de
>novo and shall proceed in the manner provided in Part VI of the Criminal
>Procedure Code for holding a preliminary inquiry into an offence."
>
>Subsection (3) adds that
>
>"If at the termination of the inquiry the Coroner is of opinion that an
>offence has been committed by some person or persons unknown, he shall
>record his opinion accordingly."
>
>Subsection (4) further states that
>
>"If at the termination of the inquiry the Coroner is of opinion that no
>offence has been committed, he shall record his opinion accordingly."
>
>What is of paramount importance is the role accorded to you as Chief
>Justice
>by the Coroner's Act. Section 9, subsection (5) asserts that
>
>"At the termination of the inquiry, the Coroner shall forthwith transmit
>the
>proceedings or a certified copy thereof to the Chief Justice."
>
>It is stipulated that the proceedings or a certified copy should be
>forwarded to you without any delay. This is the verdict of the law and it
>is
>incontrovertible.
>
>Section 10 accords you the powers of review. It states:
>
>"(1) The Chief Justice may examine the record of any such proceedings for
>the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or
>propriety of any finding or verdict and as to the regularity of such
>proceedings."
>
>Subsection (2) adds that
>
>"Where the Chief Justice, by reason of such examination, is not satisfied
>as
>to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or verdict he may,
>after affording the Attorney General an opportunity of being heard therein,
>exercise any of the powers conferred upon him by subsection (1) of section
>11 of this Act."
>
>Subsection (3) further states
>
>"Where the Chief Justice, by reason of such examination, is not satisfied
>as
>to the regularity of the proceedings, he may take such action not involving
>an alteration of the finding or verdict, as he may think necessary to cure
>such irregularity."
>
>It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the opinions of the Coroner are not
>final. The ultimate status of the proceedings are connected with, dependent
>on and determined by your review. You have the power, after affording the
>Attorney General an opportunity of being heard, to:
>
>  "direct an inquest to be reopened for the taking of further evidence, or
>for the inclusion in the proceedings thereof and consideration with the
>evidence already taken, of any evidence taken in any judicial proceeding
>which may be relevant to any issue determinable at such inquest, and the
>recording of a fresh verdict upon the proceedings as a whole;
>
>"quash the verdict in any inquest substituting therefor some other verdict
>which appears to be lawful and in accordance with the evidence recorded or
>included as hereinbefore in this section provided; or
>
>"quash any inquest with or without ordering a new inquest to be held."
>
>What is absolutely essential now is for the report to be forwarded to you
>for immediate review. The Coroner should transmit the proceedings or a
>certified copy forthwith to you for review.
>
>The law has made this a requirement because of the importance it gives to
>your independence and impartiality. This is engraved in section 120,
>subsection (3) of the Constitution which asserts that
>
>"In the exercise of their judicial functions, the courts, the judges and
>other holders of judicial office shall be independent and shall be subject
>only to this Constitution and the law, and, save as provided in this
>Chapter, shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other
>person or authority."
>
>It is anticipated that the appropriate measures will be taken with
>immediacy
>to protect the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the process as
>required of any instrument for conducting an inquiry into issues of public
>concern.
>
>Furthermore, we have received inquiries regarding the terms of reference of
>the Commission of Inquiry into the events of 10 and 11 April 2000, as well
>as its composition. We decided to contact the National Printing and
>Stationery Corporation to get a Gazette so as to find out what is legally
>prescribed as the terms of reference of the Commission. Unfortunately, we
>were told that a Gazette containing such terms of reference has not been
>published.
>
>In this regard, we do not consider it responsible to make any comments even
>if the intention is to make suggestions that are not designed to undermine
>the integrity of the Commission of Inquiry. The manner in which the inquiry
>is being conducted and the facts that are being reviewed are being followed
>with much interest. We are not receiving the type of doubts that were being
>expressed before regarding the significance of the Commission. However, the
>law is the law and due process of law must proceed in accordance with what
>is prescribed by law.
>
>The Commission of Inquiry Act states under Section 17:
>
>"All commissions under this Act, and all revocations of any such
>Commission,
>shall be published in the Gazette, and shall take effect from the date of
>such publication."
>
>Needless to say, Section 200 of the Republican Constitution makes provision
>for the establishment of Commissions of Inquiry. Section 200, subsection
>(1)
>(d) covers the mandate of your Commission. It reads:
>
>"The President may, whenever he or she deems it advisable, issue a
>Commission appointing one or more Commissioners and authorising such
>Commissioners to inquire into-
>"(d) any matter whatever arising in The Gambia in which an inquiry would,
>in
>the opinion of the President, be for the public good."
>
>This means that the President may appoint Commissioners to make inquiries.
>According to the Interpretation Act, such appointments are classified under
>subsidiary legislation which means "any proclamation, rule, regulation
>order, notice, by-law or other instrument made under any Act or by or under
>any other lawful authority and having legislative effect".
>
>Section 11 paragraph (d) of the Interpretation Act indicates:
>
>"subsidiary legislation shall be published in the Gazette and shall have
>the
>force of law upon such publication thereof or from the date named
>therein:...."
>
>It is, therefore, absolutely essential to ensure that the establishment of
>the Commission is Gazetted for public notice. In this way, the claims and
>counter claims can be objectively assessed and thus ensure a comprehensive
>understanding of the mandate of the Commission.
>
>While anticipating that you will give the opinions expressed their due
>consideration, we remain,
>
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>.......................................
>Halifa Sallah
>For: The Editorial Board.
>
>
>
>
>cc: Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice
>      Coroner, Coroner's Inquest Into the Deaths of 10 and 11 April
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------