AG's Statement Has No Basis in Law, Dumo's Lawyers Argue
The Independent </publishers.html?passed_pub=The%20Independent> (Banjul)
August 25, 2000
Alhagie Mbye & Amie Joof
Banjul
Lawyers defending Dumo Sarho, who was recently implicated in an alleged coup
attempt, have said that the Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice,
Pap Cheyassin Secka's statement to the press regarding the prolonged detention
of their client 'has no basis in law.'
Commenting on the case, the Justice secretary had told journalists at a recent
press conference that 'the right to be brought before a court after an arrest
within 72 hours under Section 19(3) of the Constitution is subject to Section
17(2) of the same Constitution.
This means that all the human rights provisions in Chapter IV of the
Constitution are 'subject to respect of the rights and freedoms of others and
for the national interest." Challenging the validity of that statement, human
rights lawyer and counsel for Dumo Sarho Emmanuel Joof on Tuesday told The
Independent that despite the fact that Dumo is charged with treason, it was the
constitutional right of his lawyers to have access to him. He added that
'therefore the Justice secretary's statement has no basis in law.
This is totally contrary to the provisions of the law because the issue is
access; it is our constitutional right to see our clients despite the fact that
the charge against Dumo is treason or whatever,' Lawyer Joof argued. Lawyer Joof
emphasised that they have also discovered that according to records, 'Dumo was
not properly charged before the High Court' and therefore he and co-counsel Ba
Tambedou cannot still have access to Dumo.
He added that Lawyer Tambedou had written a letter to the Interior secretary on
July 18th, copied to the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police
requesting to see their client who had been held incommunicado and charged with
treason, but that this letter bore no fruits. He said after almost three weeks,
a reply to their letter was received from the Interior secretary stating that
'since the matter was in the hands of the court, he couldn't do anything about
it.' The human rights lawyer said they were very unhappy with the reply because
'any person who is arrested can, within three hours, have access to a solicitor;
that's what the law says in section 19, subsection 2 of the constitution.'
Lawyer Joof insisted that the magistrate's court to which Dumo was reportedly
taken was not the 'proper forum and did not have the jurisdiction to deal with
the matter of treason.' He added that 'the magistrate made it categorically
clear in her ruling of July 14th that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the
matter and that Dumo could only be remanded in custody on condition that he was
brought before the High Court as soon as possible.' Mr. Joof noted that the
prosecution also promised that by July 17th the accused persons would be brought
before the High Court, but that 'according to our knowledge, that has not been
done.
Lawyer Joof said Dumo's lawyers are going to take further legal action against
the IGP, the NIA, and the Attorney General. He indicated that the High Court
ruling by Justice Mam Yassin Sey, also stated that the detention was
unconstitutional and that since their client was 'improperly charged, our
contention is that holding him is unconstitutional.' He strongly emphasised that
Dumo should be given access to his lawyers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
