Joe Sambou skrev:

>> 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]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
Joe,

Many thanks for forwarding NADD's very mature and appropriate response
to that most ignominous Eid greetings from our Mr. President almighty.
Notwithstanding the wreckage and waste all over Africa, in this day and
age, you cannot help feel that Gambia has a head of state manufactured
outside the solar system.

Sidibeh

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤