Buharry,
Thanks again for the insightful observations. I think the law also states
that, any person arrested should have access to an attorney after 3 hours.
Mr WoWo is fighting an already finished battle. He might have been
intructed by his bosses to delay the release of Dumo and Co. but he should
be informed that we are a formidable force. This is a war of liberation.
We shall overcome. Africa deserves better.
Regards
>From: MOMODOU BUHARRY GASSAMA <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: State challenges 'unconstitutionality' of Dumo's detention
>Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:36:02 +0200
>
>Hi!
> I wonder how Mr. Wowo can justify his "99 per cent chances of winning
>the appeal based on the law". Maybe he meant he had 99% chance of losing
>and
>he was misquoted. Doesn't the law say that an arrested individual must be
>brought before a court of law as promptly as possible and in any case
>latest
>72 hours after the arrest? It took the state over two weeks. Even 14 days
>according to my calculator is 336 hours and it took them more than 14 days
>to charge Dumo. What is so ambiguous about the law or better still, which
>law is Mr. Wowo talking about?
> The law also says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest
>and
>detention and that those arrested shall be arrested in accordance with the
>procedures of the law. Unless I am dreaming can Mr. Wowo please show us
>where in the laws of The Gambia it is stated that someone can be arrested
>and kept for over 300 hours without being charged, kept for over 3 weeks
>without access to a lawyer when the Constitution grants the arrested
>individual the right to "consult a legal practitioner"? C'mon, his lawyers
>are still trying to locate him. How can they effectively prepare his
>defence
>when they can't even find him?
> On what grounds should the suit against the state be dropped when
>section 19, subsection 6 of the Constitution clearly states that "any
>person
>who is unlawfully arrested or detained by any other person shall be
>entitled
>to compensation from that other person or from any other person or
>authority
>on whose behalf that other person was acting"? Doesn't over 300 hours of
>detention without charge instead of 72 and refusal to let him have access
>to
>his lawyer and family constitute unlawful detention? Even when a state of
>emergency is declared, section 36 (b) of the Consitution provides that "the
>spouse, parent, child or any other available next-of-kin of the person
>detained shall be informed by the authority effecting the detention and
>shall be permitted access to the person concerned at the earliest
>practicable opportunity, and in any case not later than twenty-four hours
>after the commencement of the detention". The law is very clear that even
>those arrested under a state of emergency shall have certain inalienable
>rights. Yet these rights are violated in a non-emergency situation. C'mon,
>Mr. Wowo, please save the Gambian taxpayer some money by not fighting what
>is so obvious. Thanks.
>
>Buharry.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bokaloho <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 1:58 PM
>Subject: State challenges 'unconstitutionality' of Dumo's detention
>
>
> > >From today's Observer:
> > "The state has filed an appeal (överklagande) in the Court of Appeal,
> > contesting the decision passed by High Court Judge, Justice Mam Yassin
>Sey,
> > that the continued detention of Modou Dumo Sarho, was unconstitutional."
> > .... "Dissatisfied with Justice Sey's ruling, the indefatigable
>principal
> > state counsel, Joseph Wowo, filed an appeal on behalf of the state the
>same
> > day, contesting the ruling." "In an appeal dated July 18th, 2000, Wowo
> > argued that Justice Sey, 'erred in law in holding that the arrest and
> > detention of modou Dumo Sarho is unconstitutional and unlawful..." "Mr
>Wowo
> > asked the Appeal Court to issue a declaration setting aside Justice
>Sey's
> > decision" and " .... issue another declaration that the acts of the
>state
> > were constitutional and lawful" and "dismiss the suit brought against
>the
> > state. Asked whether he had chances of winning his appeal, Mr Wowo told
> > Daily Observer, 'The State has 99 per cent chances of winning the appeal
> > based on the law.' The Appeal Court is yet to fix a date for the appeal
> > hearing."
> > They are really showing their true faces, aren't they!?
> > By the way, the lawyers have not yet been able to locate Dumo. They're
> > working on it. I should guess that the legality even of that magistrate
> > ruling in Kanifing last Friday could be questioned in the light of the
> > absence of counselling for the accused.
> > Annika
> >
> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> >
> > 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 unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
