Hamjatta,
In your memorandum of 21 December 1999, you raised four questions. The first
question is as follows: "What do mean when you say (that you) have new
evidence but is unwilling to go on a wild goose chase?"
The answer is simple. I had made it abundantly clear that FOROYAA, as a
newspaper, conducted an investigation into the death of Koro and published
the facts that we gathered. Contrary to the notion Saul has, our reporters
did see the transport with a dent. They did see a wall with the crack, and
which a building expert from Niumi helped us to measure, and found to be
3.7 metres long. It was made of 18 x 9 inches blocks. The crack penetrated
the other side of the wall. There were two blocks which were out of place at
the edge of the culvert. We did see what appeared as broken pieces of glass
of some sort. Our reporters did examine the inside of the burnt car after
the body was moved.
Some did say that a Mercedes Benz cannot catch fire. Others said that it has
an air bag which protects the driver from any injury. If this could be
confirmed by an expert, the possibility of accident being the cause of death
and burnt vehicle would have been easily dismissed. We contacted a Mercedes
Benz expert, one who had knowledge of the very Mercedes Benzes that the
ministers were driving. It was confirmed that they did not have air bags and
that they could catch fire.
We opened up opinions for the cause of the cracks on the wall and the only
person who accepted to go with our reporters to the scene indicated that the
possible cause could be a sledge hammer. Contrary to the notion held by
Cherno Baba, we did not indicate that Koro's transport was seen in the
vicinity. The information we received was that Koro had never gone to Kombo
South. We mentioned this in order to challenge the accident theory.
However, people volunteered information and led our reporters to Gunjur
"kenye kenye jaamengo" where the people in charge confirmed his appearance
there to ask for prayers for the country.
Bear in mind, Hamjatta, that we are just the editors of a newspaper and we
do not teleguide reporters. They were simply asked to search and gather any
piece of information they can find. These reporters even telephoned people
to check the resonance of their voices. We went very far and in fact did not
publish quite a lot of things we have done just to have an impression of
foul play, and as I have said in my memorandum no single person has given us
an information regarding foul play that we covered up. Needless to say, if
such a person existed at the time, he or she would have been exposing us by
now.
Our conclusion was that the matter was beyond journalists who rely on
information to publish; that the matter required professional handling. We
ensured that we went to the right places to confirm whether the professional
handling it required was in place. We discovered that it was in place. We,
therefore, did the only logical thing that could have been done and that is
to call for a Coroner's Inquest.
We, therefore, did not pretend to be competent to go into technical matters
such as forensic evidence. There were more competent people to do that and
as far as our inquiry revealed at the time the professionals did do their
work. What they found is what a Coroner's Inquest is designed to reveal.
In short, the reason why I am saying that we will not engage in any wild
goose chase is because of the fact that a post mortem examination of the
deceased person was already held by duly qualified medical practitioners.
This is why we indicated the following at the end of our effort as a
newspaper to publish what a newspaper can publish in good faith in the
public interest:
"Since FOROYAA cannot be a judge and cannot claim to have all the
information required to arrive at a definitive judgement, it calls on the
State to rely on the Coroner's Act Cap 7:04 to cause an enquiry to be
conducted."
This was our honest opinion, an opinion which was not conclusive but was
opening up for any fresh evidence.
Hamjatta, a Coroner has the power to receive evidence from a qualified
medical practitioner who has held a post mortem examination of a deceased
person. According to section 4, subsection (3) of the Coroner's Act
"Whenever a Coroner deems it expedient in order to discover the cause of
death or make an examination of the dead body of any person who has already
been interred, he may order such body to be exhumed and examined."
Hence, it is clear that the Coroner has authority to do what is necessary to
be able to acquire forensic evidence. The Coroner's powers extend to the
taking of action where a criminal offence is revealed during an inquiry.
This is stipulated in section 9, subsection (2) of the Coroner's Act:
"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."
Hence, it is clear that it is a Coroner's Inquest which should give rise to
the type of investigations that you are talking about and we have already
recommended for such an inquest to take place.
As far as we are concerned, even the present allegations of hitting with a
baseball bat and shooting in the head could be confirmed by a Coroner if the
results of the post mortem examination of the deceased are revealed.
What more can we ask for than a Coroner's Inquest, Hamjatta? I will address
the other questions if there are no further observations on this issue.
Ah! let me add here a very interesting provision of the 1997 Constitution
which, if implemented, would enable the country to have private prosecutors
instead of relying entirely on the State. Section 86 of the Constitution
indicates that: "An Act of the National Assembly may make provision for
private prosecutions." This is why it is important for Gambians to examine
who to elect to become their law makers. All these laws could be made to
ensure that the people are not helpless before the State.
Greetings.
Halifa Sallah.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 06:57
Subject: Re: Halifa's Reply to Hamjatta - (A Pox On Halifa's Semantic
Sophistry)
>Halifa,
> Allow me to inform you that at no point in time did your choice of
>language "impinge upon" my "self esteem." The streets of Banjul have taught
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
