>From: "Amie Sillah" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Foroyaa Burning Issue
>Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:13:54 +0000
>
>
>
>FOROYAA NEWSPAPER BURNING ISSUE
>Issue No. 86/2005, 10-13 November,2005
>
>Editorial
>
>JAMMEH'S SPEECH AND THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL
>"The Need For An Independent And Impartial Daily Paper"
>The journalistic fraternity and sorority need to meet and discuss the need
>for an independent and impartial daily paper. It is a shame on any country
>in the world to lack an independent and impartial daily paper. Of course
>papers can be found in every country which may favour one side of the
>political spectrum. However, there must also be those papers which are
>committed to the dissemination of information in good faith in the public
>interest.
>Even papers which favour certain political interest do so not by being
>spokes person of the interest but by giving interviews and other columns
>for the free expression of view. However, in the main they disseminate the
>truth in good faith in the public interest.
>In short, if one reads the observer
>editorial of Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, one must stop to wonder whether
>the observer editors are truly honest and sincere to their profession. In
>short, president Jammeh accused the opposition of treachery by claiming
>that they are supporting war between Senegal and the Gambia. The opposition
>have given a fitting response accusing him of fabrication and threatening
>to call for his resignation or impeachment if he fails to apologise.
>Instead of publishing facts to confirm the president's allegations, the
>observer editors have jumped into conclusions that the president is right.
>This is outright betrayal of ethical standards of journalism.
>We hope our colleagues in the observer will revise their position and
>publish the letter of the opposition in full to compensate them for their
>misinformation.
>
>NADD RESPONDS TO JAMMEH
>Below is a copy of NADD's response to President Jammeh's remarks on Koriteh
>day while he was receiving Muslim religious leaders. In their response
>which was in the form of a letter, the NADD leaders gave President Jammeh
>an ultimatum- to either provide evidence to substantiate his claims or
>apologize.
>Mr. President, four characteristics are indispensable if a person is to
>qualify to be classified among a world leadership that is fit to govern a
>Nation in the 21st century, that is, clarity, honesty, magnanimity and
>humility.
>Mr. President, when the mind is barren of knowledge, the heart devoid of
>mercy, the personality starved of humility and the attitude stripped of
>honesty, a person in position of public trust must become arrogant, greedy,
>power hungry, pompous and revengeful. Such a person will not hesitate to
>kill for
>power and die for power. Under such a leadership, might must become right,
>the rule of law must become subservient to the rule of might and a culture
>of impunity must reign supreme over the culture of rights and justice.
>
>This is why the wisdom of the ages deems it incontrovertible that hunger
>for power corrupts and obsession with power corrupts absolutely.
>The objective of addressing this letter to you is simple. The Members of
>the Executive Committee of NADD held an emergency meeting to discuss the
>content of the speech you delivered in your meeting with the Muslim Elders
>on 3rd November 2005 after the Eid prayers, commemorating the end of the
>month of Ramadan.
>
>At the opening of the meeting the Chairperson of the occasion conveyed that
>their visit was customary and symbolic; That such visits to leaders at the
>helm of state affairs started 95 years ago. In short, it provides an
>opportune moment for elders to state their concerns regarding the relation
>between Government and the Governed and further accords them the
>opportunity to offer words of advice to promote sensitivity and
>responsiveness to the vital concerns of the people.
>
>It is amazing to the NADD Leadership, as it must be to every decent human
>being in The Gambia who heard your message, that you would transform such a
>solemn occasion into a platform to try to threaten, denigrate, castigate
>and ridicule the Opposition despite the religious leaders' passionate
>appeal for sincere efforts by ruling party and opposition to deal with any
>matter of immense National concern in a concerted manner.
>Your disrespectful and revengeful posture constitutes a betrayal of the
>expectations of your peace loving visitors, a violation of your oath of
>office not to act with "ill-will" and an affront to any sense of political
>decency your comments had infact outraged all Gambians and non Gambians
>alike who expect a higher standard of practice in governance from a person
>occupying the highest office in the land.
>
>Mr. President, I am requested by the NADD Executive Committee to catalogue
>the relevant portions of your speech which are fallacious in content and
>further signify a total disregard for the letter and spirit of the
>Memorandum of Understanding prepared under the auspices of the
>Commonwealth, represented by General Abdousalam Abubakar, which the
>representatives of all parties including your ruling party, helped to draft
>but which your National Executive Committee have so far failed to sign.
>This is what is delaying its coming into effect.
>
>
>First and foremost you claimed that the Opposition met in New York and drew
>the conclusion that they can neither win an election in The Gambia or
>orchestrate a coup d'etat; That they resolved that the only way to depose
>you is to provoke a war situation between Gambia and Senegal in order to
>destabilize and uproot your government.
>
>
>You alleged that the Opposition sent E-mails, faxes, reports and copies of
>government documents to the Senegalese authorities in order to generate and
>fan hostility between the Senegalese government and your regime.
>That the Opposition fabricated stories that most of the forces sent by
>Gambia to Sudan are from the MFDC rebels; that such rebels serve as State
>Guards; that they even stated that Salif Sarjo, a leader of MFDC was
>poisoned by you and taken to a doctor to be killed in 2003; that their lies
>became evident when Salif Sarjo spoke on radio in 2005. You added that the
>Senegalese forces were deployed at Selety near the border with Gambia while
>Gambian soldiers were busy playing football; that the alleged lies of the
>opposition almost brought about a war which you averted only because you
>exercised restraint. You claimed that even after making peace recently the
>opposition
>met to conoclude that it will not last. All these statements were designed
>to give the impression that the Opposition harboured bad faith.
>
>
>You made it categorically clear that such Opposition members and their
>collaborators do not deserve to witness the 2006 elections. You threatened
>a reign of terror on the opposition and their alleged collaborators in
>government after the Ramadan.
>
>
>You also strayed into the differences between Muslim's regarding the date
>for holding Eid prayers. You stated categorically that those who hold their
>prayers after the date approved by the Supreme Islamic Council will not see
>the light of the day.
>
>
>Many threats, including death threats were issued during your speech that
>could give you the image of a brutal dictator who is ready to arrest,
>detain, maim and kill those who disagree with him.
>
>
>Mr. President, during this era of democratization in our subregion many
>would have thought that you will honour the goodwill mission of the
>Commonwealth and concentrate on making peace with the Opposition by signing
>the Memorandum of Understanding and thus prepare the ground for a peaceful,
>free and fair presidential election in 2006.
>
>
>It is hard for the Executive Committee of NADD to believe that after
>displaying maximum political decency during the by elections of 29th
>September 2005from which we emerged victorious you could state without any
>semblance of guilt or equivocation that the Opposition is promoting war
>between Senegal and Gambia because of its fear that it cannot win a free
>and fair presidential election in 2006.
>
>
>We wish to assert with all the emphasis we can muster that your allegation
>against the Opposition are fabrications. They are based on fiction and not
>facts. Consequently, they cannot stand the test of truth and commonsense.
>Mr. President, the commitment of the Opposition to free and fair election
>is corroborated by the following indisputable facts.
>
>
>First and foremost, we in the Opposition have agreed to sign the Memorandum
>of Understanding binding political parties in The Gambia to International
>Standards of best practice in democratic political conduct in a multiparty
>system which is characterized by adherence to truth, fair play, tolerance
>and submission to the popular will when expressed by the ballot.
>It is in fact your party which has shown little commitment to such
>practices by procrastinating or delaying its signing of the Memorandum of
>Understanding.
>
>
>In the same vein, just before the recent by elections, the Opposition
>parties went to court to ensure that there is strict adherence to the
>electoral laws so that only people whose names appear on the registers of
>voters would be allowed to vote. Your party advocated for those whose names
>are not found in the register of voters to be allowed to vote. Who then is
>actually afraid of free and fair elections, the Opposition or your?
>
>
>Furthermore, since the Opposition Alliance emerged we have participated in
>10 by elections. The facts reveal that we are also leading in popular
>votes.
>In the light of such development, which person with commonsense could be
>made to believe that the Opposition parties met in New York to draw the
>conclusion that we cannot win an election and that we can only take over
>the helm of state by promoting war between Gambia and Senegal. This is
>utter fabrication. No such meeting took place anywhere on the face of the
>globe.
>
>
>Mr. President, we must therefore state in no uncertain terms that in making
>such a statement you are putting the office of president in disrepute, thus
>justifying the grounds for impeachment, as is the norm in any civilized
>democratic state.
>
>
>In our view, the office of the president is too high to be a source of
>unintelligent fabrications.
>
>
>In this respect you owe the Gambian people concrete evidence to back your
>assertions or extend your apology to the NADD Executive.
>We give you five working days to provide the evidence regarding the alleged
>meeting or apologize, failing which we have no option but to hold a press
>conference to denounce you and call for your resignation or impeachment.
>Bear with us as we move to the second point.
>
>
>Mr. President, you also claim that the Opposition met recently to declare
>that your recent agreement with Senegal will not last. This is utter
>fabrication. In fact, every careful analyst will not fail to observe that
>no member of the NADD Executive has issued any comment on the issue in the
>press. This is due to an executive decision to promote alternative policies
>as befits an alternative government and not simply comment on your
>initiative.
>
>
>Hence, instead of being prophets of doom who spend our energies to denounce
>you for wasting the precious resources and time of the Gambian people and
>create immense hardship by being adamant in maintaining the increase in
>ferry tariffs in the name of defending National Sovereignty and territorial
>integrity only to acknowledge later that you have erred by violating
>Article 6 of the Agreement on Road Transport of October 2004, between
>Gambia and Senegal.
>
>
>However, instead of castigating you for your display of mediocrity and
>incompetence in matters of foreign policy we did a detailed analysis to
>find out the source of your shortcomings, with the view to find a way
>forward in promoting a privileged relation between Gambia and Senegal that
>would be informed by the doctrine of two states one people.
>
>
>In our discussion on the border issue the NADD executive recalled the words
>of your then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Musa Bala Gaye, in
>response to a question raised at the National Assembly on 5th October 2005
>and compared it with extracts from the Communiqué issued on 21st October
>2005, during your visit to Senegal.
>His very words read:
>
>
>"Mr. Speaker sir, as the Honourable member may know, the border was closed
>by the Senegalese authorities in protest to the increase in the ferry
>tariff at the Barra/Banjul and Bambatenda/Yellitenda crossings. The Gambia
>has not at anytime closed its side of the border and has not prevented
>vehicles, whatever the type, to enter or leave Gambian territory.
>Consultations have been going on since the beginning of the problem with
>the Department of State for Foreign Affairs playing a lead role. This
>process is on going with the hope that Senegal would reopen its borders and
>all related problems resolved."
>
>
>Here your Secretary of State is attributing the border closure to the rise
>in ferry tariffs. Your government officials have vehemently maintained that
>the rise in ferry tariffs was irreversible because it was an act of
>national sovereignty.
>However, in the Communiqué of 21st October, 2005 it is categorically stated
>that
>"The President of The Republic of The Gambia has decided to suspend
>immediately the new ferry tariffs and to revert to the tariffs effective
>before 15th August 2005. The Gambia government will notify the government
>of Senegal of its intention to increase the ferry tariffs in conformity
>with the provisions of the agreement on road transport of 5th October 2004
>between The Gambia and Senegal."
>
>
>Mr. President, the text of the Communiqué confirms that you have accepted
>that you violated the agreement on road transport of 5th October 2004. In
>your interview on the visit you also stated categorically that your
>government violated Article 6 of the agreement on road transport.
>The Executive Committee of NADD therefore concluded that the foreign policy
>failure of your government arises from naked incompetence or lack of a
>comprehensive foreign policy blue print to guide your relation with Senegal
>in particular and other states in the subregion like Guinea Bissau. This is
>what is responsible for your 180 degrees twist in foreign policy between
>5th October 2005 when the secretary of state answered the question at the
>National Assembly and 21st October 2005 when you visited Senegal.
>
>
>It goes without saying that the Executive Committee of NADD did not stop at
>identifying the shortcomings of your government we proceeded to examine the
>ingredients required to develop foreign policy options for a country.
>
>In our view, it is important to take note of the idiosyncrasies of the
>leadership in each country in our subregion to determine whether they are
>prone to domination or cooperation.
>
>
>Secondly, it is necessary to look at the interest of each country in our
>sub-region as regards The Gambia, to determine whether such interests are
>based on the collective interest of the two peoples or the interest of few
>groups in any given country.
>Thirdly, it is necessary to determine the principles of the ruling parties
>in each country to determine whether a given party is committed to the
>principles of the African Union in general and democratic principles at
>home. Such analysis would have enabled a genuinely democratic government in
>The Gambia to determine the foreign policy options of your government
>towards Senegal in particular and other countries in our sub-region in
>general.
>
>
>The lack of coherence in your foreign policy with Senegal is attributable
>mainly to your claim that you have no advisers. This claim implies that you
>have no policy think tank. Hence your officials are likely to recommend
>what pleases you. Hence instead of controlling circumstances you are
>controlled by them. This is the dilemma of your government.
>Mr. President, compared to the myopic attitude you attribute to the
>Opposition as being mere prophets of doom, the NADD leadership had gone as
>far as to assert that in our relation with Senegal we must be guided by the
>principles of African Unity and the goals and Programmes of African
>Integration. This vision goes beyond the concept of relying on sovereign
>national interest as the determinant of external relation to advocate for
>the principle of collective sovereignty.
>
>
>This vision will help us to map out all the sovereign interest of the two
>countries and then determined how they could be assimilated into the
>collective interests of the two peoples. This is the way to make the
>doctrine of two states one people a reality. In order to forge ahead the
>NADD Executive sees the need to build the people to people ties of the two
>countries. This envisages the establishment of relation between the
>National Assembles, media, trade unions, women federations, youth
>federations, farmers\ groups, professional associations, sport federations,
>chambers of commerce, and the intellectual community. It does call for the
>negation of policies like aliean identity cards for the Senegalese. It is
>therefore abundantly clear that you have no evidence to prove that we met
>just to express our hope for renewed conflict between the two countries. We
>therefore demand for
>evidence to refute our assertion or an expression of apology for misleading
>the nation. Let us now move to the third point.
>Mr. President, the most outrageous allegation you made against the
>Opposition is your claim that it is an informer of the government of
>Senegal. No single letter, e-mail or fax had ever been issued by any
>Executive Member of NADD to promote hostility between the two governments
>as alleged.
>
>In fact, if you give a second thought to your allegation, you will deduce
>that it tantamount to an assassination of the integrity of the Gambian
>Nation. Just imagine the scenario Mr. President. The Opposition's striving
>to be an alternative government is reduced to an informer, the government
>is transformed into an accused person while a foreign power serves as a law
>enforcer who subjects Opposition and government to interrogation and
>confrontation to know who is right or wrong. How can such a scene promote
>National self respect?
>
>Mr. President, there is no iota of truth in your allegation that the
>Opposition is an informer of the Senegalese government. You can provide no
>e-mail, fax, report or vconfidential document made by any member of the
>NADD executive to Senegal. We therefore demand evidence to refute our
>claims or an apology for misleading the nation.
>
>Furthermore, you accused the Opposition of trying to come to power by any
>means and having the intention to stay in power by all means. In this
>regard, you claim that they do not deserve to witness the 2006 elections.
>
>Mr. President, you are the one who came to power by any means and you are
>the one trying to retain power by all means. This is why you have been
>amending the constitution to perpetuate yourself in office. You have
>accepted no term limit to your presidency and you have negated the second
>round of voting.
>
>Apart from these points let us state in no uncertain terms that contrary to
>your assertion that the Opposition is out to get power by any means, there
>is abundant evidence to show that NADD as an Opposition Alliance is more
>committed to democratic principles.
>
>
>In fact Article 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding limits the term of the
>First President under a NADD ticket to a one five year term. The person
>will not seek a second term or support any candidate in the next following
>election to create a level field for political contest.
>
>Subsequently, a term limit of two five year terms shall be inserted in the
>constitution. This confirms that there is no iota of truth to your
>allegations. We therefore demand evidence within five working days or an
>apology for misleading the nation.
>
>Finally, Mr. President, your threat to take life is in gross violation of
>the constitution. Section 18 of the Constitution states that "No person
>shall be deprived of his or her life intentionally except in the execution
>of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in
>respect of a criminal offence..." You are neither a prosecutor nor a judge
>why do you continue to threaten people with death? No head of state in a
>democratic society would use a meeting with civil society organisations as
>a platform to issue death threats. This is all the more inappropriate at a
>time when many mysterious murders like that of Deyda Hydara and attempted
>murders like that of Ousman Sillah have taken place in The Gambia. You
>claim that the Opposition is trying to discredit your regime but in actual
>fact you are undermining the very pillars of integrity that a government
>must rest on
>to deserve respect. Your own words are destroying the image of your
>government in a more devastating manner than any Opposition party could
>ever do.
>
>Suffice it to say that even though the Opposition can win more sympathy by
>your death threats which, if implemented will consign you to the level of
>the Idi Amins, Bokassas and Does and would therefore confront you with the
>prospect of a disastrous and ignoble end. We demand an end to such inhumane
>remarks. Brutality is a vice and not a virtue. It is beastly. It makes a
>person to be viewed with contempt. You have to stop the threats otherwise
>we will explore means of getting some international authority to examine
>your threats for possible international legal action before it gets out of
>hand. How can Gambia be the home of the African Commission on Human and
>Peoples' Rights while you issue such threats which amount to a total
>disregard for law and order or institutions of substantive justice. Let us
>reiterate that you should never allow yourself to be misled by executive
>power. A few
>soldiers and security forces in any nation can never massacre tens of
>thousands of people and brutalize them into submission. Armies have
>collapsed before the might of the people. Power of government lies in
>deriving authority from the consent of the people and exercising authority
>to promote the general welfare. This is the verdict of history and it is
>irrevocable.
>
>Furthermore, Mr. President, your disregard of the constitution became too
>overwhelming when you issued a threat that Imams who hold their Eid prayers
>on a date different from the one set by the Supreme Islamic Council shall
>be taken where they will never see the light of day.
>
>Clearly, your executive power is becoming absolute, excessive and
>dictatorial. Section 25 (1) (c) of the constitution states that
>"every person shall have the right to freedom to practice any religion and
>manifest such practice."
>
>Section 25 (1) (b) states that
>"every person shall have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and
>belief......"
>
>
>Hence it is unreasonable and unjustifiable for a head of state to interfere
>with the practice of any religion. Gambia is a secular state that guarantee
>freedom of worship of idols or god as Muslims and Christians. It safeguards
>all religious denominations.
>
>This tolerance of belief and practice should not be jeopardized by
>executive intolerance.
>
>
>To conclude, allow us to state that peace and development in each country
>in our subregion should be our common interest. Peace however begins at
>home.
>
>
>Mr. President, our subregion is volatile Countries wrecked by war are
>trying to promote good governance. If you do not seek to maintain the peace
>in the Gambia, other countries in the subregion will become stable and
>would start to attract the business and services in the Gambia. This would
>be devastating to our economy and the welfare of the people.
>
>It is our candid view that your government should be accountable for its
>failures instead of trying to use the Opposition as a scapegoat. NADD, Mr.
>President is restructuring the political landscape of the Opposition in the
>Gambia. You can turn a blind eye of the mind to this reality.
>
>Notwithstanding, NADD's vision and mission will not be derailed. It will
>pursue this mission with political decency and magnanimity. It will open
>its doors to all those you will victimize to create a united front which
>shall lay a new foundation for the birth of a democratic Third Republic. It
>will build solid democratic institutions and culture to restore the power
>of the Gambian people as sovereign rulers of the country. When that
>happens, people will know how much time and resources have been wasted in
>nurturing executive power instead of empowering the people.
>
>Mr. President, any attempt to obstruct this development is an exercise in
>futility. The present must go and the future must come. This is the verdict
>of destiny and it is incontrovertible. History is recording your words and
>practice.
>
>It will provide the evidence for the future to judge and give its verdict.
>This is the time for you to reassess your politics and make it to accord
>with the dictates of conscience and best practice in democratic governance,
>before it is too late. If you fail to take the opportunity history will
>ultimately indict you and will never absolve you.
>
>In closing the curtains, allow us to assert that we shall address a letter
>to the Senegalese President on the issue. You made him a witness against
>the Opposition. We have to make him a witness in our defence. We hope that
>he will not put the integrity of the Republic of Senegal at stake by not
>clearing the air. He is quoted by President Jammeh and he is duty bond to
>clear the air.
>
>We shall copy the letter we address to the President of Senegal to you.
>
>While anticipating that you will simply end the controversy by extending an
>apology to NADD and further facilitate the signing the Memorandum of
>Understanding on good governance
>
>We remain
>Yours in the service of the Nation,
>
>Halifa Sallah
>COORDINATOR
>For: The NADD Executive Committee
>
>
>IN THE MATTER OF SAMBA BAH VERSUS THE STATE
>In proceeding with the bail application by the Bah family for the release
>of the former Secretary of State for The Interior, (a former Director
>General of the National Intelligence Agency), Mr. Samba Bah, the counsel
>for the applicant, Mr. Antouman Gaye, on receiving the affidavit in
>opposition filed by the state on the 7th November 2005 in court, applied
>for a short adjournment to midday to enable them (plaintiff's counsels)
>prepare their reply to the affidavit in opposition to their application.
>The application sought by Gaye was granted and on resumption, the leading
>counsel for the applicant Mr. Gaye started his intervention as follows:
>"My Lord, we have filed and served the state our reply and I submit that
>the purpose of our application is for speedy trial and determination."
>This, Mr.
>Gaye submitted is not shown by the state as can be clearly seen in their
>affidavit in opposition. He said the said affidavit in opposition contained
>so many irregularities and that it is therefore incompetent to challenge
>the originating motion filed and tabled before the court on the 24th
>October 2005. He said there is no case before the court as portrayed in the
>affidavit of the state as Samba Bah versus the state, but rather the matter
>of Samba Bah.
>Mr. Gaye further submitted that he adopted all that he has told the court
>on the 24th October when he was moving the exparte application filed by the
>wife of the applicant and his brother Yorro Bah, and the reply to the
>affidavit in opposition sworn to by the applicant himself. Mr. Gaye then
>added that the evidence led in the two applications are very clear, noting
>the applicants clearly stated that in the morning of 17th October 2005,
>Mr. Samba Bah was driving along the Kotu highway with four others and on
>their arrival at the "cut junction" at the coastal road, Mr. Bah was
>stopped by the police and asked to drive to Kotu Police Station, where he
>spent a short time and he was taken to Mile Two Central Prisons. Mr. Gaye
>further indicated to the court that the brother of the applicant Yorro Bah
>had gone further to state that they have tried everywhere, but could not
>find out where Samba Bah was kept, and that it was of late that they were
>told that he was taken to Mile Two Central Prisons from Kotu Police
>Station. This, Mr. Gaye submitted, is an unlawful detention since there is
>no where in the affidavit in opposition where Mr. Bah is said to be charged
>with any crime or taken before any court of law. However, Mr. Gaye further
>added that paragraph four of the said affidavit in opposition indicated
>that Mr. Samba Bah is
>suspected of terrorism, spying and economic crimes. This, the counsel for
>the applicant said, is a mere speculation, since the affidavit is not
>backed by any charge seat. Mr. Gaye then asserted that this is ample proof
>of an unlawful and an arbitrary arrest of Mr. Bah from the 17th of October
>2005 which contravenes section 19(1) of the 1997 constitution. He continued
>further to say that there is no where in our laws where it is indicated
>that the police can stop a suspect and take him to prison without charging
>and arraigning him before a court of law. That what the police could do
>after an arrest is to tell the individual why he or she is arrested as
>spelt out in section 19(2). This, Mr. Gaye submitted again should be
>followed by a charge and the accused should be allowed the right to have a
>legal practitioner or visit by family members which he said had not been
>done as shown in the
>affidavit filed by the wife and brother of the detainee. Mr. Gaye further
>cited a common law case of the House of Lords on arrest which he said
>showed that once an arrest starts on a wrong footing, any other act that
>follows it is unlawful. He again submitted that this also shows that Mr.
>Bah is unlawfully detained at Mile Two Prisons from the 17th October to
>today as opposed to section 19(3) of the constitution.
>On the issue of further investigations beyond boundaries of the Gambia, Mr.
>Gaye submitted that the paragraph is too complex and vague since the court
>is not told how long and how far the investigation has gone and when it
>will last. He questioned whether the court will allow a subject of this
>land to remain under such a vague and complex issue. This the counsel for
>the applicant said, if the court should do, will abdicate its
>responsibilities, since section 19(3) of the
>constitution empowers the court to release such detainees.
>Mr. Gaye urged the court to use its discretionary powers and release Mr.
>Bah since he is under an unlawful custody as clearly shown in the affidavit
>in opposition; that he is only a suspect and not charged. He finally urged
>the court not to allow the issue to become adventurous nor timorous, but to
>do justice to Mr. Bah as required by law.
>
>REPLY OF THE DPP
>In his reply, the Director of Public Prosecution, Akimoyae Agim agreed that
>it is true that Mr. Samba Bah has been under detention in Mile Two Central
>Prisons for over 72 hours. That it is also true that there has not been any
>criminal charges against him in any competent court of law. But DPP Agim
>said there is something more important for the court to take into
>consideration. This the DPP submitted is public interest and any act which
>may put the rights of others at stake; that it therefore behooves on the
>court to look at the seriousness of the case against the applicant as a
>suspect. He then cited the cases as follows:
>1) Terrorism under section 3 of the anti-Terrorism Act, subsection 3 of
>2003;
>2) Spying under section 37 of the (CPC) Criminal Procedure Code.
>3) Economic crime under the Economic Crime Decree of 1994. The DPP went on
>to say that all these are serious crimes and are therefore not bailable
>offences as shown by the anti-Terrorism Act and section 99 of the Criminal
>Procedure Code amended version. He cited the case of Yaya Jallow versus the
>state in the High Court of the Gambia in 2001. The DPP said the trial judge
>at the time ruled that denial of bail under section 99 of the CPC does not
>contravene section 19 in anyway.
>The DPP further submitted that under the Police Act and section 19(1) of
>the Constitution, the police have the right to arrest anybody when they are
>aware that he or she has committed or is about to commit a crime. That when
>such an arrest is made and the police who are key in the issue showed that
>due to the seriousness of the crime to the public's interest, they need
>more time to investigate the matter,, such as the case in which the
>applicant is suspected because of the high level
>of intelligence involved, the DPP submitted that in the interest of justice
>to the public, the court needs to consider that since they (the police) are
>saying the investigation has an international character.
>On the issue of the capacity of the applicant to interfere with the
>investigation process, the DPP submitted that these are probabilities that
>no one can lose sight of in matters of this nature as humans. He cited
>section 17(2) of the 1997 Constitution as the determining factor on whether
>the detention is lawful or not. The DPP further went on to say that it is
>the duty of the executive to decide whether a person constitutes a threat
>to national security through its intelligence unit and other security
>outfits in charge of crime prevention can arrest and put such a person
>under custody when investigations are mot completed. He then cited the case
>of Haddy Sarr and the Attorney
>General in which she too had challenged her continued detention even after
>72 hours. That due to the seriousness of the allegations against her, the
>court had to prolong her detention because of public interest as explained
>by the defendants in line with section 17(1) of the Constitution and her
>case was dismissed. The DPP made a series of citations of case law from
>within the Gambia, Nigeria and from the Common Law Cases of England, from
>the level of the Privy Council and House of Lords on Capital Offences and
>Terrorism. He finally urged the court to consider the seriousness of the
>cases which the applicant is suspected of in line with the public's
>interest. The case was adjourned to the 8th of November 2005 for the
>counsels of the applicant to reply to the DPP on points of law. The
>applicant was represented by Antouman Gaye, Mr. Sidney Riley and Combeh
>Gaye while the state was represented by the DPP, Mrs. Marly and Na Sisay
>Salah Wadda.
>
>JUWARA CONDEMNS DEMOLITION EXERCISE IN BRIKAMA
>"BLAMES AUTHORITIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY"
>Lamin Waa Juwara, an Executive Member of NADD has strongly criticized and
>condemned the demolition exercise taking place in Brikama, along the
>Bafuloto Road.
>Speaking to Foroyaa at his residence in Brikama, Mr. Juwara said that he
>does not understand why illegal land allocation can take place without the
>knowledge of the authorities in Brikama. Mr. Juwara added that the
>Commissioner, Physical Planning Authority, the Chief and the Area Council
>are all stationed in Brikama; that he saw no reason why they could not
>avert the current problem, as he put it, "if it was not for the negligence
>of their duties and responsibilities."
>The former Niamina Dankunku parliamentarian pointed out that some of the
>victims have their lands endorsed by the Physical Planning Office
>and that the Area Council have also been collecting yard rates and taxes
>from the victims. Mr. Juwara argued that it is impossible for the
>authorities not to know about such a legal development of settlement taking
>place in Brikama. He went further to say that he does not understand the
>reason why the victims should be evicted and have their building and
>structures demolished. He went on to say that the problem is a reflection
>of the lack of adequate or proper planning on the part of the authorities
>concerning.
>"It is really bad to put people in such hard conditions because most of
>them purchased their plots of land from 'Kabilos' in Brikama, who are the
>traditional owners of the lands in question. It would definitely be unfair
>for these innocent people to suffer whilst the other party involved go
>scot-free," Juwara said.
>Mr. Juwara disclosed that there is no land transaction
>under traditional tenure-ship that does not go through the district
>authorities and the head chief. He stated that government needs to set up a
>commission of enquiry to investigate into the whole issue with the
>recommendation of the SoS for Local Government and Lands; that this would
>satisfy the parties concerned for the mean time before they could take the
>matter to court and find out those who are responsible.
>Juwara also registered his sympathy for the poor victims who are evicted
>from their homes without any resettlement plans or compensation. He likened
>the situation to what obtains in Zimbabwe and said: Zimbabwe is around our
>won backyard."
>He concluded by admonishing the commissioners to always do their job as
>expected and not to abdicate their responsibilities as the APRC's scanty
>functionaries.
>Express yourself instantly
>with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger Download today it's FREE!
>

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

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤