Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 43/2007, 16 - 17 April, 2007
Editorial
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE GAMBIA
On 10 April 2006, Lamin Fatty, a reporter of The Independent Newspaper was
arrested by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and detained for 63 days
contrary to the requirements of the constitution that a detainee must not be
held for more than 72 hours without being taken before a competent court of law.
Lamin Fatty has been charged with false publication contrary to the Criminal
Code (Amendment) Act 2004 and if found guilty is liable to a fine of between
D50,000 and D250,000 or imprisonment for a minimum period of one year in
accordance with the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2005.
On March 27 2006, the editor-in-chief of The Independent newspaper, Musa
Saidykhan, was arrested on 28 March 2006 and detained for 21 days. The General
Manager Madi Ceesay was arrested and detained for 22 days. The premises of The
Independent has been inoperative since 28 March 2006.
Apart from The Independent, the only private radio stations that have been
broadcasting local news items – Citizen FM and SUD FM remain closed without
any court order.
Section 25(1) (a) of the Constitution stipulates “freedom of speech and
expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.”
Section 207 (1) of the constitution also states “Every person shall have the
right to freedom and independence of the press and other information media
are hereby guaranteed.”
The constitution even gives the media responsibility to scrutinize the
government. It states in Section 207 (3) “The press and other information media
shall at all times, be free to uphold …… the responsibility and accountability
of the Government to the people of The Gambia.”
See next issue for continuation
FATOU JAW MANNEH’S TRIAL
APPLICATION FOR VOIR DIRE OVERRULED
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
In the trial of Journalist Fatou Jaw Manneh at the Kanifing Magistrates
Court, on Friday, the court turned down an application by the defence for a trial
within a trial on the grounds that the accused faced “mental torture at the
time her statement was being taken.” This matter arose when the prosecution
attempted to tender the cautionary and voluntary statements of the accused.
In his testimony before principal Magistrate Buba Jawo, of Kanifing
Magistrate Court, the first prosecution witness (PW1) name withheld, told the court
that he was asked to obtain a cautionary statement of Mrs. Manneh. He said he
introduced the independent witness by the name Babucarr Khan to the accused
person. He said that was done in English and Wollof languages. “That she need
not say anything if she wished to, but if she says anything, it can be used
against her as evidence in court, which she agreed to,” he said. He said that
she wrote her own cautionary statement and she went over it. He said that he
later realized that she left two other issues which they were discussing
earlier. He said he gave her another cautionary statement to allow her to touch
on those issues. He said that an independent witness was introduced again and
that she agreed. He indicated that she wrote her statement and signed it. He
also said that the statement was signed by the independent witness and
himself with his name and signature on it. He noted that a charge was preferred on
the voluntary statement and that there was a portion on it which asked the
accused whether she agreed to the charges against her. He said that she told
him that she did not agree to the charges but that she would like to consult a
lawyer or seek opinion or consult her family. He said that she also put it on
the second statement that she would like to reserve her statement. He said
that he obtained two voluntary and two cautionary statements from the accused
person. He said that when the accused was being cautioned the independent
witness was present.
The prosecution wanted to tender the statements, but was objected to by
defence counsel. Counsel Jobarteh said that the statements are cautionary in
nature and was indeed recorded on the 29 March 2007, from an accused person who
was supposedly invited for discussions and questioned by a group of men
unknown to her. “Any reasonable person wouldn’t believe that.” Jobarteh said that
the most peculiar thing about the story is that the witness indicated that
the accused said “I need to consult a lawyer or a family “and that the other
thing is” “I reserve my opinion.” Jobarteh said that there was clear
indication that the accused was denied her constitutional rights to secure a lawyer
or a legal representation of her choice. Mr. Jobarteh said that the witness
has told the court that the accused wrote her own statement but at the bottom
of the statements which indicates the name of the recorder what is there
cannot be associated to his client. He said that there is no signature on the
statement to authenticate it. He added that the cautionary statement was recorded
by a detective officer of the NIA who put his name on it and not the accused
person as the recorder. “Under this circumstance, we are applying for the
statement to be rejected or order be made for a voir-dire (trial within trial)
to test the voluntariness of the statements.” With regards to the argument he
made, he said the point is clear. He said the court would have difficulty on
the voluntariness of the statements. “You provided an independent witness
and denied the accused to consult a lawyer, we indicated that the accused was
invited for a discussion and questioning and was kept over night without
arresting her and continued questioning her for nearly a week, it is not possible
to have a voluntary statement from her.” He also said the period which she
spent at the NIA was not an invitation because she had stayed up to the point
when her bag was searched and nothing was found on her. Jobarteh said his
client was denied access to her family members and a lawyer and she was infact
held incommunicado. He then asked: who is the independent witness, where did he
come from, his occupation, did he show his identity card to the accused
person to show her who he was? He said he is sure that his client was not
tortured physically but maybe tortured mentally. “I’m challenging the voluntariness
of the statements in a “voir-dire.” We don’t know whether the statements
were obtained under duress, threats and promises,” he concluded.
The state counsel, Emmanuel O Fagbenle Submitted that the said documents
sought to be tendered are relevant under the Evidence Act, with respect to
section 31 of the Act. He said that the evidence before the court is that the
accused wrote the statement with her own hand writing. He added that the fact
that the document was not authenticated is not a reason. “The fact that there is
nothing to show that the accused was given an opportunity to consult a lawyer
cannot be found on the face of the document sought to be tendered. It is a
matter of evidence which cannot be rejected. I therefore urge this court to
overrule the objection made by the defense counsel.”
In delivering the ruling, Magistrate Jawo, said that the ground for a “
voir-dire” is overruled. He said that the defence should have laid a foundation
for a “voir-dire.” He added that the “voir-dire” must be based on suspicion
of duress, torture or threat. “Consequently the document sought to be tendered
is hereby accepted as an exhibit. He overruled the idea of “voir-dire”
(trial within a trial). The statements were all admitted in evidence and the
court was adjourned till Friday 20 April 2007.
Court Overrules Defence Objection
Magistrate Buba Jawo of Kanifing Magistrates Court, on Wednesday 11th April,
overruled the objection raised by the defence counsel, Lamin Jobarteh, on
the lack of jurisdiction of the court to hear the case on the ground that
offenses committed outside The Gambia cannot be tried by Gambian courts.
During his objection, Counsel Jobarteh told the court that the counts did
not contain the name of the person or to whom the interview was granted. He
asked, where the individual whom the interview was granted was and where the
accused person was when she granted an interview. He also asked: Where was the
publication done and who published the article?
Mr. Jobarteh said that they have been denied actual information about the
whole case. He cited section 110 of the criminal procedure code (CPC),
indicating charges and information. He also cited section 113 of CPC to back his
claims. “The concerns that we raised is that we have been denied the reasonable
information in the nature of the case,” he continued. “The publishing
newspaper must be stated and the person who published it. I therefore submit that the
charge sheet be struck out, for uncertainty and denying the defendant with
reasonable information,” he argued.
Mr. Jobarteh submitted that it is out of the question for the court to hear
the case, because the court lacks jurisdiction over it. He said that”
whatsoever the case, it is not a continuing offence which is said to have been
committed in any of the perimeters of the local limits of the jurisdiction of the
court.” Mr. Jobarteh stated that the accused could not be in the USA and
commit an offence in The Gambia and adding that “close the chapter in this case”
. He then cited Granvill Williams, on the terminology of the theory of
jurisdiction and venue and ambit of the criminal law. Jobarteh also cited section
58 which he said makes the matter very clear. He asks whether by referring to
local area limits the USA is considered to be within the local area of The
Gambia.”
“Most importantly, the charges are statute bound,” Counsel Jobarteh argued.
He referred to count one which states that the date of the Interview was on
the 23 October 2005 and then cited section 53(1) of Criminal Code which
states that the offence must be committed within duration of six months. He also
cited the case of one Omar Camara and the state and the case of IGP vs.
Ansumana Darboe. He said that those cases were presided over by Justice Yeboah. “I
therefore urged this court to dismiss the charges against the accused person
for duplicity, difficult informal procedure and uncertainty for failure to
provide reasonable information about the case”, Counsel Jobarteh concluded.
The state counsel, E.O Fagbenle argued that the charge sheet contained
sufficient information under the laws of The Gambia and that the court has the
right to hear the case. He said that under summary jurisdiction the charges are
clear to enable the accused to take her plea. He claimed that the charge
sheet contained all the required information and that firstly the accused person
was living in the USA but was presently present in The Gambia. He said that
there was a publication which is subjected to a publisher. He said, “it was
published in the internet which is a universal publication including the
Gambia. Articles posted at the internet are for the whole world and it remains at
the net continuously.” Mr. Fagbenle said that even though the alleged offences
are committed at the USA, it was committed by a Gambian citizen. He said
that the charge before the court is that the accused was responsible for a
publication of offensive words contained in a publication of a certain date. He
said that the contents of the publication are included in the charge sheet
which was read to the accused person. He said that taking a plea means two
things, whether the accused published it or does not publish it. He emphasised that
the name of the publisher is not the issue in the case. “The issue before
the court is whether the accused is responsible for the alleged offence or not.
The law did not require that every evidence should be put in the charge
sheet. I want to submit that section 113 of CPC exonerated the charge. There is
ample support in the charge sheet and there is no need for referral advice. I
therefore urge this court to uphold the charges and overrule the defence
objection,” he advised.
Defence counsel Jobarteh also added that, even though the alleged offences
were committed by A Gambian citizen outside the country, the accused must at
that time be an employee of the government. He said, “The internet was not in
The Gambia but that you have to click somewhere for it to go out into The
Gambia.”
When delivering his ruling, Magistrate Jawo cited section 69 of CPC, which
provides defects on the face of the charges cannot invalidate any proceedings.
He also ruled that the court have jurisdiction to hear the matter. He added
that the law states that, within six months of the arrival of the accused
person. “I therefore overrule the defence’s objection on the court’s
jurisdiction to hear the case.”
PRIVATE GROUNDNUT BUYER DRAGGED TO COURT
By Yaya Dampha
One Mr. Baba Sanneh, a private groundnut buyer, is currently standing trial
before travelling Magistrate Amadou Tony Baldeh at Bansang Court House. Mr.
Sanneh is said to be registered as a private buyer in the 2004 – 2005 trade
season and operated in the community of Kerr Njaka in Central River Region. He
is alleged to have owed farmers over sixty two thousand dalasis (D62, 000).
Mr. Baba Sanneh is charged with obtaining goods by false pretence contrary
to Section 288 of the Criminal Code, which provides for a maximum penalty of 3
years.
Giving evidence before a crowded court, on Thursday Mr. Baba Sanneh said he
was registered as a private buyer in 2004 – 2005 trade season in different
communities including Kerr Njaka. He said he had asked one Mr. Ada Jaye who is
the President of the Farmer’ Association whether they can work with him. He
said they agreed on a bonus of D200 to the Kafoo for each tonne they brought
to the depot to meet their expenses at the Kafoo level including salaries. He
said his Secretary one Mr. Kejera informed him that the total purchase was
179 tonnes 817.5 kilo grammes. Mr. Sanneh noted that he had discovered that
the receipts brought to him showed that the total purchase was 174 tonnes 0.4
kg. He said the commission for the society is D34,000 total expense was
D1,409,724. He said there is a difference of five tonnes seven hundred sevety-seven
point five kg (5 tonnes 777.5 kg).
During cross examination he told the court that all the receipts delivered
to him by the farmers were destroyed by the rains. He denied that he asked Mr.
Kijera the Secretary to be buying nuts on credit basis. He further said
buying on credit basis is a common practice. When asked about his payment
vouchers he said most of the papers are at the GGC depot in Banjul.
Magistrate Tony Baldeh asked him to bring all the documents by the next
sitting. The matter is adjourned indefinitely.
NDAM WITHDRAWS FROM NADD
The Secretary General of the National Democratic Action Movement (NDAM), Mr.
Lamin Waa Juwara, has written to inform the general public of their
withdrawal from NADD Alliance with immediate effect.
The Secretary General in his letter dated 4th April to the NADD Executive
said he is directed by the NDAM Executive Committee to write and convey their
decision to withdraw from the NADD Alliance. Mr. Juwara, who thanked the NADD
Executive for the solidarity during their stay together as a team, asserted
that they (the NDAM) do not rule out the possibility of any alliance in the
future. He, however, said for now they strongly feel that it is prudent to go
it alone.
The Independent – Closed For a Year
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
Last month marked a year since the closure of The Independent Newspaper, a
private bi-weekly.
Madi Ceesay, the Paper’s Managing Editor at the time of its closure and
president of the Gambia Press Union (GPU) told Foroyaa that as at now he does not
know who is exactly responsible for the closure of the paper.
“Since we (staff of The Independent) were rounded up on the 27th of March,
2006 the police occupied the place. I cannot have audience with any authority
in the police,” Ceesay said.
After spending three weeks in custody, he said, he was told by officials of
the police, the military and the National Intelligence Agency that he is
allowed to resume work, but that he should serve as a partner in development with
the government.
:But unfortunately he said it is never the case. After that release, “I
attempted to open the newspaper, but it was shut down by the police,” he claimed.
Mr. Ceesay further said that he had attempted to meet the then Inspector
General of Police on several occasions, but his attempts bore no fruit.
He also said that the closure of the media organisations in the country is
not painting a good image of the country as freedom of expression and the
press is a prerequisite for any healthy democracy.
However, the police spokesman Superintendent Famara Jobarteh told Foroyaa on
Thursday that he knew nothing about the closure of The Independent.
VICTIMS OF APRIL 10 AND 11 SEEK ASSISTANCE
By Madiba Singhateh
It has been seven years since the April 10 and 11 2000 student riots took
place. Some injured students are still suffering from the injuries they
sustained from gunshots. Reports have it that such students are in desperate need
for treatment.
One of them Abdoukarim Jammeh, said he, Sainey Senghore and Yusupha Mbye are
among survivor victims. When Abdoukarim came to our office on April 10, he
said he had come to remind Gambians and non-Gambians alike that they need
help. He said helping them as Gambians is like helping their sons and brothers,
since they too are Gambian youths. He said students had nothing in their hands
expect a pens and books but yet soldiers killed some land made others like
him disabled. He said Gambian people should commemorate this day and recognise
it as a day of national mourning and holiday. He said it was on that day
that many warned students were killed. He went on to say that they would
appreciate assistance from Gambians here and abroad as they need overseas treatment
to better their lot.
Abdoukarim Jammeh who was shot in his left knee now uses a walking stick. He
said Sainey Senghore is suffering from an injury from a shot in the leg and
Yusupha Mbye has been handicapped, if not paralysed in a similar
circumstance. They all need help.
Abdoukarim said he went as far as Dakar but his health problem has not been
solved. He claims to have all his medical records and reports that indicate
he needs overseas treatment. Abdoukarim said before being discharged from the
hospital he had been admitted for three months in the hospital. Those who
wish to assist this young man can contact him by telephone on 7016186.
KAWSU CEESAY’S TRIAL
Did The Chairman Approve?
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
Did the Chairman approve the order made by the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr.
Kawsu Ceesay, to Code Incorporate, a Canadian company, for the supply of
electrical materials to the IEC? This was an issue in the testimony of a former
member of the Commission, Mr. Sulayman Sait Mboob at the trial of Mr. Ceesay,
charged with forgery, at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, 11
April, 2007.
The prosecution witness Sulayman Sait Mboob said this under
cross-examination by Musa Batchilly, counsel for the defence. Mr. Mboob, also a former
Secretary of State for Agriculture, told the court that the accused person was
instructed to look for the invoices following a decision by commission members in
a meeting.
Mr. Mboob said that the accused person Ceesay, initially got an invoice from
Code Incorporate of Canada and later on brought another invoice from Land
Trade.
He said that he had discussions with the then Chairman, Ndondi Njie and the
accused person concerning Code Incorporate. Mboob agreed with the defence
that he will be surprised to learn that the ex-chairman, Ndondi Njie denied
having discussion with the accused person.
At a commission meeting Mboob said, both the accused person and the
ex-chairman were arguing on the approval of the buying of the electoral materials
from Code Incorporate.
Formerly, he said, there was no system of procurement at the IEC, until the
arrival of the then chairman, Mr. Njie who introduced a procedure for
procurement.
Testifying earlier, Mboob said he was working with the IEC from July 2005 to
August 2006 and identified the accused person, who he said was the Chief
Electoral Officer. During that period he said Ndondi Njie was the chairman of
the IEC.
Mboob narrated that he knew the Canadian Company, Code Incorporate through
correspondence between the accused person and the company. According to him he
was told by the accused person that Code Incorporate was engaged in the
supply of electoral materials to the commission.
He said that all the correspondence by the accused person were for the
placing of an order for the supply of electoral materials.
Code Incorporate was demanding payment for the order placed by the accused
person, he said, while the then chairman of IEC, Ndondi Niie was disputing the
approval of the order.
At a commission members’ meeting, Mboob said, which the accused person and
the director of administration attended, both the IEC chairman and the accused
person were asked to prove their case.
The accused person insisted at the meeting that the chairman gave him a
verbal approval to make the order, he said. But on the other hand, Mr. Njie
denied ever giving Mr. Ceesay the approval to place an order for the supply of
electoral materials from Code Incorporate.
Testifying further, he told the court that at the commission’s meeting Mr.
Ceesay was asked to show a written document or a witness to prove that he was
given approval. He said the accused person never provided these. Mr. Mboob
also told the court that he himself did not see any approval on the supply of
electoral materials.
The new procedure at the IEC initiated by Mr. Njie requires that a
requisition form need to be filled in by the officials making the request, he told the
court. The form, he said, is to be signed by the head of department or the
most senior person in that particular department. The form will then be sent
to the IEC Chairman to approve it which depends on the amount involved.
Under the Gambia Public Procurement Authority (GPPA) rules, he said, if the
amount involved in the procurement qualifies for a tender, the official
making the procurement has to make three invoices from different companies.
He attested that he has neither seen Mr. Ceesay filling in the requisition
form nor seen any document purporting the approval of the order by Mr. Njie.
The accused person is expected to re-appear before Magistrate Babucarr Secka
on April 24 for continuation.
LANCE CORPORAL YANKUBA JARJUE PASSES AWAY
By Yaya Dampha
Lance Corporal Yankuba Jarjue of the guard battalion (Gambia National Guard)
Fajara Barracks passed away on Thursday 12 April 2006. A brother of the
deceased called this reporter early Thursday to inform him of the death of L/CPL
Jarjue.
Lance Corporal Jarjue was admitted at the Shell Ward of the Royal Victoria
Teaching Hospital (RVTH) in Banjul since last December. The diagnosis was
hepatoma (B) and the medical board recommended overseas treatment for him. He had
since then been seeking for assistance from any Good Samaritan.
Late last month, family members contacted this reporter to carry a story on
him so that he may have assistance. Our reporter contacted the Army Public
Relations Officer who also said they are trying their best to take Jarjue
abroad. He said their problem is that the army does not have their own budget, so
they have to rely on the Department of State for Defence.
Since then the 23 year old army officer was every day expecting to go abroad
until he met abroad his last breath on Thursday 12 April 2007.
He graduated from the University of The Gambia this year with a major in
economics.
Lance Corporal Jarjue was given a military salute (a twelve gun fire) at his
home village in Makumbaya, Kombo North.
FOCUS ON POLITICS
THE 1977 ELECTION DUST, SETTLED
With Suwaibou Touray
We have been focusing on the history of The Gambia from pre-independence to
post-independence era. Earlier on, we have shed light on the events leading
to the 1977 General Elections. Let us start from where we have stopped.
As the dust was settling down and the opposition was trying to make sense of
all what was happening, with the cries for foul play and intimidation of
opponents up to the point of using pistols, by cabinet ministers in remote
villages. The PPP was painting everything rosy. For example, the Information and
Broadcasting Services booklet described the period as thus; The Gambian
politics is respected by its tranquil nature, especially at times of general
respect for law and order, and the people’s abiding inclination to remain peaceful.
It opined that this was what had brought about years of political stability
and progress which it said the president had himself attributed to. The
information booklet whose author was not mentioned went on to assert that “The
climate of political tolerance” had in turn, contributed tremendously to the
development of Gambian democracy. It further concluded that all political
parties campaigned vigorously and freely in the elections. The Progressive
Newspaper reporter opined that the opposition filed candidates in all the 35
constituencies just for the sake of it.
The May 1977 general elections were held as scheduled. The ruling People’s
Progressive Party filed candidates in all the 35 constituencies. The National
Convention Party filed 31 candidates. The National Liberation Party coalition
filed 5 candidates. The PPP won 27 seats, the NCP 5 seats and the U.P/NLP
came out with 2 seats clearly paving way to Jawara’s PPP to form a government.
The state of the parties before and after the elections was as follows;
1962 1966 1972 1977
PPP 22 24 26 27
UP 9 8 3 2
NCP - - - 5
Mark you by 1977, the seats in parliament were increased from 32 to 35
seats. There were only two independent candidates in the 1977 general elections,
Mr. Omar Mbake and Mr. Lamin Waa Juwara, each of whom did not link themselves
to any of the contending presidential candidates. They also did not win their
seats although I have noted from records that Mr. Waa Juwara had polled
almost neck and neck with the PPP candidate Mr. Saikou Sabally, who had won. It
was also observed that even though Mr. Juwara had not linked himself with Sir
Dawda at the time, his relation as claimed by him as nephew was said to have
helped him greatly. It was also noted that when the PPP campaigners on the
ground in Sabach Sanjal constituency noticed that public opinion was on the side
of Mr. Juwara, they had to call the president himself to intervene which he
did, which helped Mr. Sabally to win. It was equally noticed that Mr. Juwara’
s win would have been a forgone conclusion if Mr. Pap Cheyassin Secka and Mr.
S.M Sabally under the NCP had not stood there at the time. Sir Dawda now
Alhagie Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara was sworn in as president. Mr. Sheriff M. Dibba
then became leader of the opposition in the 1977 House of Representatives.
History has also recorded that Mr. Kukoi Samba Sanyang also stood as a
candidate in the 1977 general election for Eastern Foni under the banner of the
NCP.
The NCP won Bakau with Bakary B. Camara, a very dynamic character,
Serrekunda West with Mr. Gibou Jagne, who left the U.P, Central Badibu with Mr. S.M
Dibba albeit with a lower margin, Lower Badibu with Mr. Foday Makalo and
Illiasa with Mr. Fodeba B. Jammeh.
Two bye-elections ensued all of which were won by the PPP increasing their
majority from 27 to 30 seats in parliament. They were Mr. J.R Forster of
Banjul Central and Mr. Momodou M. Taal of Banjul South. As far as the Local
Government was concerned, the President reserved the power to dissolve them when
and how he wished. The PPP simply left the laws governing councils as the
colonialists coined it. This was why Sir Dawda dissolved the Banjul City Council
who were directly elected by the people and appointed an interim committee to
run the affairs of the capital. He did this on the pretext that the previous
council had proved unequal to the task in 1970. Banjulians complained and made
protestations to no avail.
According to the Government owned Information and Broadcasting Booklet, it
was not until mid 1979 that elections for Councils were allowed so that Banjul
City Council had elected representatives as well as a mayor, Mr. Salieu Foon.
The Kanifing Urban District Council was then attached to Brikama Area
Council, but by 1979, it has been made completely independent of Brikama Area
Council.
Earlier on in the column, I have mentioned the fear that Gambia may or may
not be one party state after the 1977 elections. Many questions were raised to
that end but Sir Dawda eventually clarified his government’s policy on it;
saying things would be left as they were, meaning a multi-party state. But
went on to add that, “Unless the electorate themselves decide the question,
meaning refusing to vote for a single opposition to the house of parliament.
According to the information booklet on the 15 years of independence, the
electorate despite giving increasingly overwhelming majorities in the House of
Representatives to the ruling PPP, it has shown a reluctance to endorse a one
party house.
Economically, the PPP felt comfortable at least as far as their propaganda
was concerned. They had struggled a lot to make the people believe that The
Gambia was a country that was not given a chance to survive economically as an
independent nation. The National Media which was reserved for the PPP and its
government, alone continued to show what they considered as impressive. They
used to cite investments in the fields of transport (GPTC) and
communications, in Agriculture and Social Services. The first ten years was cited as been
years of growth and consolidation when according to the Information Booklet,
the goal of economic viability loomed larger on the horizon but was
accomplished successfully and the decision to become independent has proved to be the
correct thing to have been done in 1965.
The economy by 1977 was not in good shape if we are to look at it from an
objective point of view. Groundnut was the mainstay of The Gambian economy
since pre-independence, but the production of groundnut in 1977 was only 82,221
tons and only about 22,000 tonnes was actually bought from the farmers. If one
compared this figure with that of say 1964/65, production was at 90,953 tons
and more than 33,000 tons was actually bought from farmers. It was even
highest in 1973/74 when the farmers produced 136,000 tons.
Secondly if one observe and compare the Imports, Exports and the balance of
visible Trade, one would come to notice that Gambia was importing more from
the outside than it was exporting. For example, 1964/65, imports amounted to
D25,182 but exports stood at D23,747. So the deficit or balance of visible
trade was only D1,436. If that is compared to 1977/78, when imports stood at
D209,094 and total exports stood at D80,329, the deficit rose to the
astronomical sum of over D127,800 dalasis. Mark you this was at a time when the dalasi
was linked to the British pound, so it was very strong.
So as you can see, for both groundnut production and exports, Gambia was
experiencing short falls. This had become the trend since then.
Despite the economic reality, Government was bent on proving to the people
that it could solve the rising demand of education in the country. Jawara had
also promised in his campaign that he was going to eradicate unemployment
when he wins the 1977 elections. “There will not be a single boy and girl who
will be without something” he was heard saying. Many began to see the fruits of
education, Western education for that matter. The fear of one’s child being
transformed or converted to Christianity was being eroded and the need for
education rising.
So what did it do? It encouraged a new philosophy called “Tesito,” meaning
to tighten our belts, which literally means to struggle. So people in many
rural villages began to struggle to build Makeshift structures and called them
schools. But Government does not have the required trained or even untrained
teachers to cope with the problem.
This was also done with a new regulation making education free but
non-compulsory. So many children flocked to school but learning materials and even
furniture were not sufficient, thereby forcing parents to make their furniture
and buy books for their children. This was the first time people see children
carrying stools and chairs to schools. The economy was showing signs of
collapse forcing the government to take more loans making the little country more
and more indebted.
Since investments in the industrial sector were almost non existent, the
army of the unemployed was also swelling mainly by school leavers and dropouts.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY RATIFIES THE
GAMBIA-VENEZUELA AGREEMENT
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
Deputies at the National Assembly in a special session on Thursday, April
12, unanimously ratified the Framework Agreement on cooperation between the
government of the Gambia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Moving the motion before the parliamentarians, the Secretary of State for
Higher Education Mr. Crispin Grey- Johnson, said the agreement was signed last
year when the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez attended the African Union
Summit held in The Gambia.
Mr. Grey-Johnson also said that the agreement is a testimony of the good
will of the two countries, adding that it is aimed at strengthening relationship
in the areas of agriculture, health, education, petroleum, energy and
infrastructure.
The motion was seconded by the member for Kombo North, Adama Cham. The
cooperation stipulated in this agreement will be carried out in the following
development sectors: energy, economy, agriculture, social, education, cultural,
military and any other sector that may be agreed upon by the parties.
The parties shall adopt complementary legal instruments, which included the
following; the objectives to be attained or reached, the work agenda, the
obligations of each party, the financing and the bodies responsible for their
implementation.
The agreement also states that both parties shall promote cooperation
between the institutions, public and or private enterprises in their respective
countries, as well as, the participation of civil society, in conformity with
their respective internal regulations.
For the implementation and follow up of this agreement, the parties shall
create a Joint International Committee, which shall comprise representatives of
both governments. It shall be presided over by the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs of both countries and shall meet every two years, alternatively in the
Gambia and Venezuela, at dates to be agreed upon by the two parties.
According to the agreement, the joint committee will establish working
groups in different fields of cooperation. The agreement is valid for a period of
five years, renewable automatically for the same period unless one of the
parties provides notification in writing, through diplomatic channels, six
months in advance of its intention to denounce it. And the denunciation will be
effective six months after the date of the notification. It was signed in the
Gambia on July 2nd, 2006.
COUNSEL CROSS EXAMINES ASP CEESAY IN JOURNALIST FATTY’S CASE
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
During cross examination, Defense Counsel, Lamin S. Camara, asked ASP Ceesay
whether he personally investigated Samba Bah and obtained a statement from
him. ASP Ceesay replied that he investigated Mr. Bah but did not obtain a
statement from him but that he instructed that order. He said that Mr. Bah did
not complain personally to the police but that during their investigations, a
statement was obtained from him. Ceesay indicated that he met the accused
person at the police headquarters but that he could not tell when and how many
times he met him. Ceesay added that he cannot remember who arrested the accused
person. He said that a cautionary and a voluntary statement was obtained
from the accused by Sergeant Lamin Cham. He said he did not remember when and
where the statement was taken. He said that he instructed the arrest of the
accused person but that he was not present when a statement was obtained from
him. When asked where the accused person was detained after his arrest. He said
that he knew he was detained at the police headquarters in Banjul. He added
that at one time, he knew that the accused person was taken to the NIA but
cannot tell who took him there. “I’m putting it to you that the accused person
was detained for 63 days” said Camara. “I can’t remember that” said
Ceesay. Mr. Ceesay indicated that Samba Bah did say that he knew the accused person
was the author of the story. He was then given the statement of Samba Bah to
read where Samba indicated that the accused person was the author of the
publication. He said that he could not find that in the statement. He asserted
that he cannot remember seeing the accused person in his office on May 11 and
in June 2006. He added that he could not see any date on the column of the
independent witness on Exhibit B. “Would you be surprised to know that there
was no independent witness when Exhibit B was taken” asked Camara. “As far as
the procedure is concerned all statements must be taken in the presence of an
independent witness. To what I belief, there was an independent witness
present. He said that he is very sure the matter was handled by a competent
officer. Mr. Ceesay was given the Independent Newspaper to read at the bottom of
the page where the name of the publisher of the paper was mentioned. He read
that it was “published by the Independent Media Company Limited” and the
printer as “Eagle Publishing Services” Camara asked, “Is it correct that Exhibit
A is not published by the accused person.” Ceesay replied, “It was not
published by the accused person but by the Independent Media Company Limited.” He
added that Exhibit A1 (newspaper) contained a rejoinder captioned “I am not
arrested,” adding that was also published by The Independent Media Company
Limited.
ASP Ceesay agreed that there is no name of a reporter on that caption, (“I’
m Not Arrested”), but he said that near that caption there is a name of one
Sulayman Makalo near it. Camara told the witness that he is referring to the
caption “I am not arrested.” Ceesay said, “there is no name under that
caption.” Camara asked him to read the caption by Sulayman Makalo, which he read as
thus; “Mickey Mouse statements.” Camara asked whether the statement, “I am
not arrested is a continuation of the “Mickey Mouse statement.” Witness said
they are not but they are all on the same face of the newspaper. Camara then
asked him whether the caption “foil coup looms” was also written by
Sulayman Makalo. Witness said, it could be because there is no name of the reporter
on that page except Makalo and Gaye.” “Is any person by the name Samba Bah
arrested in connection to the coup?” ASP Ceesay said, “Yes but not the former
SoS but a private soldier.
Counsel Camara told the court that they are ready to open their defence by
the next one witness that is the accused himself. He told the court that, he
wanted to submit a no case to answer. So far the prosecution has closed their
case.
INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE SPEAKS OUT
By Annia Gaye
Pa Sainey Jallow, the defeated independent candidate for Serrekunda East on
the 25 January National Assembly Election has stated that, National Assembly
members (NAMs) are elected to serve the interest of the people in the country.
Mr. Jallow was speaking in an exclusive interview with Foroyaa on Tuesday 10
April 2007. He noted that the National Assembly is a forum where all
Gambians cannot sit and discuss issues and come to conclusion. And that’s why a body
is elected to represent the people and also serve their interest. He further
noted that the National Assembly is a lawmaking body and urged NAMs to make
good laws in order to benefit the nation. He mentioned that the whole work of
the National Assembly lies in the hands of the old ones who have been
serving for five years. He said lots of promises have been made by the NAMs but
only hoped that they would meet expectation; “if not 90%” but at least 75% and
urged them to deliver in favour of the people. He said that although he lost
the election, the struggle would continue.
Gratitude
He congratulated people who have supported him morally and financially in
the election. He expressed his gratitude to the committee who selected him to
stand as an independent candidate for Serrekunda East as well as the campaign
committee, who he said have been helping him tirelessly. He thanked the
entire media fraternity who were disseminating information to the people and said
journalists are the promoters of politicians and others in the world. “I hate
somebody who embarrasses a journalist,” he concluded.
URR NAMS AND COUNCILLORS COULD NOT MEET
By Lamin Fatty
Reports have it that the proposed meeting organised by the National Assembly
Members and the Authorities of the Basse Area Council in URR, in an effort
to discuss the issue on their decision to sell the Trust Bank Complex in
Basse, did not take place because councillors failed to turn up.
According to sources neither the chairman nor the Local Government Officer
could be seen at the scheduled meeting. Speaking to this reporter at his Basse
residence, Honourable Sellu Bah, member for Basse, said that five NAMs
attended the failed meeting, namely Honourable Sidia Jatta, Hon. Bekai Camara. Hon.
Mama Kandeh, Hon. Abdoulie Kanaji Jawla and Sellu Bah him -self. He pointed
out that Hon. Netty Baldeh and Hon. Saikou Suso, member for Kantora who was
one time a vice chairman at Basse Area Council were the two NAMs who did not
attend the meeting. He stated that there are plans to convene a meeting to
which the entire general public will be invited. He promised to shed more light
on the outcome of the meeting.
When contacted, the NAM for Wuli West Hon. Sidia Jatta also said that the
proposed meeting was boycotted by the council members; that the NAMs went to
the proposed meeting because they wrote to the council Authorities that they
were to have a meeting and since they never said that they were going to
boycott the meeting they went ahead with it. He said they are National Assembly
Members and the National Assembly is an over sight institution, meaning they can
challenge any state decision. Asked what step is next, the member for Wuli
East said they are going to wait until all the NAM’s in URR meet, and then
they will see what steps to take about the issue.
Readers could recall that authorities at the Basse Area Council were
supposed to have a meeting with the NAM’s in URR about their alleged decision to
sell the Trust Bank Complex in Basse which is owned by the council. However the
meeting was not possible since the Authorities failed to attend.
COURT MARTIAL
DEFENCE FAULTS PROSECUTION’S CASE
Lamin Camara, counsel for Captain Bunja Darboe, Captain Abdoukarim Jah,
Captain Pierre Mendy and Lieutenant Momodou Alieu Bah has faulted the prosecution’
s case in the on going court martial.
The learned counsel has urged the court to acquit and discharge his clients
on all the charges preferred against them for the prosecution’s failure to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Camara’s submission is contained in a
written address filed at the court martial.
Camara indicated that the prosecution called ten witnesses to prove the
charges leveled against the accused persons. He said in a criminal trial of this
magnitude and gravity, the law had laid down some minimum benchmarks which
have to be met in order to secure a conviction.
For Captain Bunja Darboe, he said the law requires that for count one to be
sustainable against him. The elements, in fact all the ingredients will have
to be proven. He further submitted that the court requires that there must be
cogent evidence to show that Captain Darboe (the first accused) counseled or
procured people to commit mutiny. In his view, there is no iota of evidence
from all the prosecution witnesses that any mutiny was in the offing. He
noted that section 35 (1)(3) is not the offence creating section for the charge
as stated in count one and is therefore not sustainable. According to him, the
definition of mutiny is contained in section 2 of the Gambia Armed Forces
Act.
On count two, the learned counsel submitted that the statement of offence in
count two is not in consonance with the particulars of offence.
“the reason is that in count two, the first accused person (Bunja Darboe) is
charged with three others for the offence of causing or conspiring with
others to cause mutiny contrary to section 4 (7)(b) of The Gambia Armed Forces
Act. On the other hand, the particulars of offence are a narrations that
explain the offence of conspiracy to o
_________________________________________________________________ Don't just
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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]
|
