FOROYAA NEWSPAPER BURNING ISSUE

Issue No. 85/2005, 7-9 November, 2005



Editorial

THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS

The border problem, the threat to banish religious leaders and his views on same sex marriages

The allegations made by president Jammeh that the opposition has been creating the basis of conflict between The Gambia and Senegal and that religious leaders who fail to abide by the dictates of the Supreme Islamic Council regarding the day to hold EID prayers after the month of Ramadan will be dealt with, has thrown the peaceful image his supporters were trying to paint into limbo. It is now very clear that Jammeh does not see eye to eye with members of his cabinet.

All Gambians who have followed the NADD National Assembly members to the National Assembly after they were sworn in would have witnessed the answer given by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bala Gaye to a question raised on the state of the border closure between Senegal and The Gambia on Wednesday, 5th October 2005.

The Secretary of State stated the following:

“Mr Speaker Sir, as the honourable member may know, the border was closed by the Senegalese authorities in protest to the increase in ferry tariff at the Barra/Banjul and BambaTenda/Yelli Tenda crossings. The Gambia has not at any time 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 re-open its borders and all related problems resolved.”

This is what a cabinet secretary indicated just a month ago before Jammeh went to Senegal. It is amazing that in less than a month President Jammeh shifted the cause of the border closure from reaction to increase in ferry tariffs to conspiracy by the opposition.

The Gambian people must take both Jammeh and the opposition to task. Either the opposition is guilty of unpatriotic behaviour or Jammeh is guilty of fabrication. The Gambian people are now waiting for the reaction of the opposition to pass their judgment. The Gambian people need a government with integrity, one that does not fabricate. They also need an alternative government that will rely on their consent rather than on the imposition of a foreign power to take charge of the helm of state. If they are now faced by a government that accuses its opponents falsely to cling on to power or an opposition that accuses the government falsely to climb up to power, then The Gambia is heading for troublesome times.

In our view, either the government or the opposition must be right. Hence instead of heading for troublesome times those who hide behind the cloak of falsehood for the sake of power will stand defenceless before the powerful Gambian people. They will be disgraced and humbled. Instead of creating fear or instability they will suffer from political isolation and marginalisation from even their traditional supporters. The era of cat and mouse politics has passed. This is the era of the people. What they want are politicians who can debate on how to guarantee them liberty and prosperity, not ones who promote poverty and insecurity.

FOROYAA wishes to advise Jammeh to stop violating the constitution. Section 25 of the constitution guarantees freedom of worship and belief. The executive has no power to tell a person whether to worship a tree, a snake or pray in a given way or time. There is no compulsion in religion.

Lastly, homosexuality and lesbianism is not a social movement in The Gambia. So it is futile to make it the subject of a presidential comment. This only makes the office petty.



REPORT OF DISAPPEARANCE

There is yet another report of disappearance of a person. Relatives of Lamin Tunkara claim that their beloved son, brother or father has not been seen for about four months now. According to them, Lamin was arrested about four months ago at his residence in Tallinding Kunjang by plain clothes security agents. They say that when the wife asked the security agents where they were taking her husband to they simply told her to follow them if she wanted to know. The source claim that they later found him at the police headquarters in Banjul, but that he was subsequently transferred to Kairaba Police Station. At Kairaba Police Station, they had access to him.

However, according to the source, after a week of detention without trial at the Kairaba Police Station, they never saw him again. They claim that when they asked the police officers at the station for their beloved one they told them that he had been taken away. When they further asked them for the ones who took him away they declined to tell them. They claim that they have been to all the police stations in the Banjul/ Serrekunda area but all of them told them that Lamin was not in their custody.

The relatives are worried, especially since Lamin’s wife has delivered. They want to know whether their beloved one is still alive or not. They urge any security force that may be holding him to take him to court for a fair trial if they feel that he has done anything wrong.



Bail Sought For Former SoS Bah

The family of the former Secretary of State for the Interior, Mr Samba Bah who was recently removed from office has filed an application for bail in the High Court against his continued detention at the Mile Two Prisons. The application is expected to be heard today by Justice Savage of the High Court. Mr Bah is reported to have been detained since 17th October, 2005. He had served as a senior intelligence officer in the former regime and as Director General of the National Intelligence Agency.

When the matter appeared in court time on 2nd November, 2005 the state counsel applied for an adjournment on the ground that she was assigned the case on Tuesday, 1st November. She explained that she had been at a seminar on Friday 28th October; that Monday 31st October was a public holiday; that therefore she could not have got the reaction of the police on time. She told the court that she wrote to the police on Tuesday, 1st November but up to the time she went to court on Wednesday there was no feedback from the police. Nevertheless, she acknowledged that the case in hand is a very important constitutional matter as the liberty of a person is at stake.

Responding to the state’s application for adjournment, counsel for the applicants, Mr Antouman Gaye, expressed surprise at the application, noting that Mr Bah was picked up from his home on 17th October, 2005 and on the 24th of October, 2005 the case was before the court. Mr Gaye questioned why the state could not have called in the police all this period. He further questioned why Mr Bah was still in custody. He asserted that the claim of attending ADR seminar could not be used as an excuse since when the case was tabled before the court, the trial judge, who was a resource person at the seminar, left the seminar hall to attend to the case. Mr Gaye wondered why the Office of the Attorney General, who is the chief legal adviser to the government, could not have used its office even on a nonworking day, to have the reaction of the police or even call them due to the nature of the case.

Citing section 19 of the constitution, he opined that the nature of the arrest of Mr Bah and his subsequent detention violated this section. He finally submitted that the trial judge is sitting as a competent judge of law and equity and that therefore the court must not allow the state to use them to prolong the detention of Mr Bah because they have failed to do their duty. He cited section 7 of the constitution to affirm that the judge is complete and competent as a judge of law and equity.

The trial judge, however, after enquiring from the state counsel when they hope to have the response of the police, adjourned the case till the following day, Thursday, 3rd November. Alternatively, if Thursday is declared a public holiday, the case will be heard today, Monday, 7th November 2005.



TRIAL OF BALLO KANTEH, SULAYMAN SARR AND OTHERS

It was like a bolt in the blue when murder and treason convicts brazenly told the Supreme Court that their appeals were torn by a prison warden and that they filed their appeals several years ago contrary to the information on their appeals. The appellants wasted no time in exposing certain things which they felt are abnormal.

The Farafenni attackers namely, Sulayman Sarr, Alieu Bah and Omar Dampha together with Lamin Fatty, a murder convict, clarified issues when they told the Supreme Court that they had filed their appeals several years ago. Sulayman Sarr, Ballo Kanteh and Omar Dampha were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment after they were found guilty of committing treason. Readers could recall that Sarr, Kanteh and Dampha were arrested and tried at the High Court after they were indicted for attacking Farafenni Military barracks and killing some soldiers.

However, during Monday’s sitting of the court, some of the inmates at Mile Two Central Prisons claimed that they had filed appeals immediately after they were convicted. But the information on their appeals have it that they appealed recently, and as a result, the court had to strike out their appeals because it found out that the appeals were incompetent and were made beyond the time limit set for appeals. It must be noted that most of the prisoners who were in the dock were illiterates who do not know how the courts operate. They (Prisoners) spoke local languages. However, Lamin Fatty an ex-police officer who was convicted for committing murder said his appeal was torn by a prison warder at the prisons reception.

When his case was called, Chief Justice Brobbey asked him when he filed his appeal. In his reply, the appellant said he filed his appeal in 1993. At this point, Chief Justice Brobbey told him that the information on his appeal have it that he filed his appeal in 2005. But Mr. Fatty was quick to explain the circumstances surrounding his appeal.

In his explanation, Mr. Fatty said he was convicted and sentenced to a period of three years on 17th February 1992. He said he filed an appeal at the court of appeal and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

He said he did file an appeal at the Privy Council because the Supreme Court was not constituted at the time. In his narration, Mr. Fatty said his Lawyer at the time Edu Gomez came to the prisons and told him that from here to London was expensive and his Family could not afford it. According to him, he had left everything in the hands of God and hoped a moment would come when he could pursue his case in court.

Going further, Mr. Fatty said the authorities at the prisons did inform him in the year 2004 that a Supreme Court now exists in the Gambia. He said he filed an appeal at the Supreme Court last year. He pointed out that the said appeal was torn by a prison warden who told him that the document was old and dirty and that the appeal should be on new piece of paper. He said the appeal dated 2005 was the one prepared by the prison authorities after the other one was destroyed.

The chief Justice at this juncture told the appellant that the his appeal is out of time, because the information before the court have it that  the appeal was filed in 2005.The court concluded the matter by striking out the case .However ,the appellant was advised by the court to file a notice and seek for an extension. The court also advised the appellant to state in his appeal why he has not been able to make his appeal on time.

When he entered the dock, Sulayman Sarr told the court that he was sentenced in the year 1997.At this stage the Chief Justice told the appellant that the information on his appeal have it that he filed his appeal in 2005.However this was contested by Sulayman Sarr. In his argument, Sarr told the court that he filed his appeal shortly after he was convicted in 1997.Going further, Sarr said he and his colleagues were freed by the court of Appeal, but the state rearrested them and filed an appeal at the Privy Council. Continuing his explanation, Sarr said they were waiting for the outcome of the case at the Privy Council all these years. He pointed out that they were not wearing convict uniforms all these years, noting it was march last year that they were informed by the Director General of Prisons that they should wear convict uniforms. At this stage, the Chief Justice asked Sulayman Sarr to tell the court who convicted him. In his reply, Sarr told the court that he was convicted by
 DPP Agim, the crowded court room burst into laughter when Sarr made this accusation.

DPP Agim stood and threw light on the issue. According to him, Sarr and his colleagues were sentenced to death in the year 1997. He said the death sentence passed by the High Court was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal. .He said the state later filed an appeal at the Privy Council and challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal. He pointed out that the state later abandoned the appeal it filed at the Privy Council. DPP indicated that the Director General of Prisons approached him sometime march last year and asked him about the fate of   Sarr and his Co/convicts.. The DPP said he read the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal and later informed the Prison boss that Sarr, Ballo Kanteh and Omar Dampha are convicted by the Court. The Court asked the DPP whether the Appellants were informed that the state had abandoned the appeal it filed at the Privy Council. In his reply, the DPP pointed out that he came to the Gambia three years after the appellants
 were convicted. According to DPP Agim, the appellants did misconstrue the State\s application at the Privy Council to mean that they have been acquitted by Court of Appeal.

‘You can apply for an extension of time. The records have shown that you appealed in 2005 you have some points in your favour. You can go back and put your house in order’. The Court told the appellant.

The case was later struck out by the court. Ballo Kanteh and Omar Dampha also held the view that they were freed by the court but they were later rearrested by the state. The DPP later told the court that the explanation he gave regarding Sulayman Sarr applies to the case of Ballo Kanteh and Omar Dampha. The court later decided to strike out the appeals by both Kanteh and Dampha, The court held the view that the appeals filed by the appellants are out of time.



“BLOCKADE ON CUBA IS A GENOCIDE”

AMBASSADOR SALSAMENDI



By Bubacarr K. Sowe

The Cuban Ambassador to the Gambia, His Excellency Mr. Carlos M. Salsamandi has informed journalist at a press conference on Wednesday that the continuous economic, commercial and Financial blockade imposed by the government of the united states of America against Cuba is “genocide and state terror.”

“We speak about a blockade and it is important to notice the difference between an embargo and a blockade.”

Ambassador Salsamendi said, “blockade means to cut and close one with the outside world inorder to isolate the besieged country to surrender by force. While an embargo is generally known as the legal manner of retaining action inorder to ensure the fulfillment of an obligation carefully accepted” he said. He added that the United States government has on the other hand isolated Cuba from the rest of the world.

“It legally forces companies and persons from third countries to abide by U.S. law that has no obligation on other countries. In 1992, the U.S. government passed the Helms-Burton Act, the intention of this Act was to end foreign investment in Cuba. It also denied persons who trade or visit Cuba from entering the United States. And this happened to a Canadian company when nine of their executives were denied entry in to the US’ the ambassador explained.

Meanwhile, a special communique approved by Ibero-American (the regional grouping of Spain, Portugal and the twenty Latin  American States) has called for an end to the blockade against Cuba at their summit in Salamanca. Spain on the 14 to 15 October.

“We reiterate our most energetic rejection of the application of laws and measures which ran contrary to international laws, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urged the government of the United States of America to end its enforcement” the communique indicated.

“We enjoined the government of the United States to comply with provisions passed in 13 Successive resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade that country maintains against Cuba” the communique added.

However, the communique also asked the government of the United States to immediately cease the implementation of the measures the Bush administration has adopted over the past two years aimed at strengthening and deepening the impact of its policy of the economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.

The embargo on Cuba was imposed on the 7th of February 1962 by the then president of the United States of America John F. Kennedy.




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

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