Mr. Kah; Dr. Jallow,
I thank you for your Insights, much
obliged
Farang.
-----Original Message-----
From: malik kah <[log in to unmask]>
To: gambiapost <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 4:36 am
Subject: RE: [>-<] RE: HALIFA CAUTIONS AG CHAMBERS
Hi Baba and Farang, I could not agree more with your observations,
nonetheless, it is quite appropriate to expose these so called
intellectuals for their shortcomings, one does not have to be a lawyer
or read law to see the anomalies inherent in this piece of legislation,
may be by making it public that this is almost impossible if not
illegal to legislate, it might prompt them to reflect and go back to
the drawing board, as they have done in many occasions. Sometimes these
overzealous public servants in competition for the attention of the
grand master can craft things that is beyond the comprehension of any
reasonable folk, hence Halifa, by pointing out to the A.G it will focus
his mind that legislating on issues of morality can be very tricky.
Thanks.
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [>-<] RE: HALIFA CAUTIONS AG CHAMBERS
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:37:16 -0700
I agree Farang. It is clear by now that there is only one Minister, one
MP, one Director, and one Perm Sec., one government
official, in today's Gambia, and he is Yahya Jammeh. What we have today
is the strange phenomenon of a one-man-state. The Attorney General, the
Chief Justice, the Interior Minister and all other ministers and
government officials of any significance are nothing more than
wooden clogs in Jammeh's political machine. They dare not say or do
anything without the dictator's approval. Mr. Sallah's letter is
certainly useful for the record, but as a means of influencing public
policy regarding the issues he raises, it would have been better to
address it to the one and only Government Official in The Gambia today:
the dictator. Nevertheless, it is good that people insist that the
Attorney General's office does exist, even if only as the dry, fawning
skeleton of a long dead institution.
Thanks for sharing Malik.
Baba
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:52:28 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] HALIFA CAUTIONS AG CHAMBERS
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Mr. Kah thank you for the forwarding. Is it that We Gambians are
Still
> Not Clear that jammeh Does Not Care about The Constitution of The
> Republic of The Gambia? I would suggest to Halifa to address his
letter
> to jammeh if he may change his mind; since the AG is just playing
> second fiddle. Thanks,
>
> Farang.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: malik kah <[log in to unmask]>
> To: gambiapost <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 4:36 am
> Subject: [>-<] HALIFA CAUTIONS AG CHAMBERS
>
> Burning Issues
>
>
>
> HALIFA WRITES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERALPublished on Tuesday, 23
April
> 2013 08:19 | Written by Halifa Sallah
>
> Attorney General and Minister of Justice
> AG Chambers
> Ministry of Justice Marina Parade AMENDMENT CRIMINALISING DRESS
AND
> OTHERS NEGATES THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN MINOR CRIME (MISDEMEANOR)
AND
> MAJOR CRIME (FELONY) AND VIOLATES SECTION 33 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Having
> been a parliamentarian you may understand why I have taken
interest in
> the debate of the members of parliament on the motion you
submitted to
> the National Assembly relating to the amendment of the Criminal
Code.
> The Constitution holds that every Bill has policy implication and
must
> be introduced for a purpose. Section 101 has made it abundantly
clear
> that a Bill to be introduced into the National Assembly must be
> accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail the
> policy and principles of the bill, the defects which it is
intended to
> remedy and the necessity for its introduction. I must say that I
am
> still scratching my brain to find out how criminalising begging,
> homelessness, quarrelsomeness, prostitution and other status of
the
> wretched of the earth could put an end to their way life . In
fact
> once society implements such a law without reservation and put all
> beggars, quarrelsome persons and prostitutes in prison it would
dawn
> upon all policy makers that it is more expensive to society to
maintain
> them in prison than to use rehabilitative and restorative measures
to
> address any social menace that is a derivative of poverty and low
level
> of social awareness thus disempowering the person to be able to
engage
> in constructive social discourse. However, I do understand that my
> intervention is becoming rather late since the Bill is already
passed
> and is waiting for Presidential assent and publication in the
Gazette
> to become law. My concern is twofold. I would want your office to
> particularly review, on one hand, the penalties associated with
crimes
> classified as misdemeanor which to me are excessive and on the
other
> hand, the provision that criminalizes males wearing what is
referred to
> as female attire because of its failure to be constitution
compliant.
> In actual fact I would recommend that whole amendment be shelved
for
> further discussion by the National Assembly through refraining
from
> according it presidential assent. The first observation is that,
> sentencing a person above two years for a minor crime or
Misdemeanor is
> to eradicate the thin line between minor crimes and the major
crimes
> classified as Felony. According to Section 3 of the Criminal code
> “felony” means an offence which is declared by law to be a felony
or,
> if not declared to be a misdemeanour, is punishable, without proof
of
> previous conviction, with death, or with imprisonment with hard
labour
> for three years or more;” Misdemeanor according to the same
section
> “means any offence which is not a felony” Notwithstanding the
issue of
> hard labour, it is my view that any imprisonment for more than
three
> years would certainly be excessive for a misdemeanor. This is
further
> corroborated by Section 34 of the Criminal code which stipulates:
“When
> in this Code no punishment is specifically provided for any
> misdemeanor, it shall be punishable with a fine or with
imprisonment
> for a term not exceeding two years or with both such fine and
> imprisonment.” However the amendments in the penalties for the
> misdemeanors are as follows: 1. For the offence of personating
a
> public officer contrary to section 93, the penalty has been
increased
> from 3 years in prison to a fine of D50, 000 or 5 years in prison
or
> both; 2. For the offence of giving false information to a
public
> servant contrary to section 114, the penalty has been increased
from 6
> months in prison or a fine of D500 to 5 years in prison or a fine
of
> D50,000; 4. For the offence of being “idle and disorderly”
contrary
> to section 167, the penalty has been increased from three months
to
> five years or a fine of D25, 000 or both. A male attired in the
> fashion of a female could serve imprisonment under section 167
for a
> term which may extend to five years or with a fine of D20,000 or
with
> both. Five years imprisonment exceeds what I would classify as a
> misdemeanor. You would agree with me that the law could only be
an
> instrument of justice if it is bereft of vengeance in its effect.
> Transgression and retribution must be balanced and proportionate
if the
> law is to speak the language of justice. This is the first point.
> Secondly, Section 33 of the Constitution states that “all persons
shall
> be equal before the law.” Subsection (2) of this section adds that
> “Subject to the provisions of Subsection (5), no law shall make
any
> provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its
effect.”
> A review of the amendment dealing with male attired in the
fashion
> of a woman reveals that if it becomes law it would be
discriminatory of
> itself and in its effect and would therefore be unconstitutional.
The
> provision to be added to section 167 reads: “….Any male person
who
> dresses or is attired in the fashion of a woman in a public place
or
> who practices sodomy as a means of livelihood or as a profession
shall
> be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five
years
> or with a fine of D20, 000 or with both.” It is very clear that
the
> law is directed at males and what is meant by a male attired in
the
> fashion of a female is rather vague. These are my humble
observations
> and I hope you will take them into consideration. By a copy of
this
> letter I am requesting the President to open up a dialogue with
you as
> his principal legal adviser on these two issues in particular and
> further look into the general thrust of the Bill to determine
whether
> it merits his assent. I strongly propose that assent be withheld
and
> the Bill be returned to the National Assembly for further review
after
> National debate is opened on its merit. While anticipating a high
grade
> consideration of the views expressed I remain Yours in the
service
> of the people Halifa Sallah “USE OF SKYPE, VIBER IS LEGAL IF
NOT
> COMMERCIALIZED” >
>
>
>
> Category: Burning Issues
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the
Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
