Hamjatta, In your memorandum of 21 December 1999, you raised four questions. The first question is as follows: "What do mean when you say (that you) have new evidence but is unwilling to go on a wild goose chase?" The answer is simple. I had made it abundantly clear that FOROYAA, as a newspaper, conducted an investigation into the death of Koro and published the facts that we gathered. Contrary to the notion Saul has, our reporters did see the transport with a dent. They did see a wall with the crack, and which a building expert from Niumi helped us to measure, and found to be 3.7 metres long. It was made of 18 x 9 inches blocks. The crack penetrated the other side of the wall. There were two blocks which were out of place at the edge of the culvert. We did see what appeared as broken pieces of glass of some sort. Our reporters did examine the inside of the burnt car after the body was moved. Some did say that a Mercedes Benz cannot catch fire. Others said that it has an air bag which protects the driver from any injury. If this could be confirmed by an expert, the possibility of accident being the cause of death and burnt vehicle would have been easily dismissed. We contacted a Mercedes Benz expert, one who had knowledge of the very Mercedes Benzes that the ministers were driving. It was confirmed that they did not have air bags and that they could catch fire. We opened up opinions for the cause of the cracks on the wall and the only person who accepted to go with our reporters to the scene indicated that the possible cause could be a sledge hammer. Contrary to the notion held by Cherno Baba, we did not indicate that Koro's transport was seen in the vicinity. The information we received was that Koro had never gone to Kombo South. We mentioned this in order to challenge the accident theory. However, people volunteered information and led our reporters to Gunjur "kenye kenye jaamengo" where the people in charge confirmed his appearance there to ask for prayers for the country. Bear in mind, Hamjatta, that we are just the editors of a newspaper and we do not teleguide reporters. They were simply asked to search and gather any piece of information they can find. These reporters even telephoned people to check the resonance of their voices. We went very far and in fact did not publish quite a lot of things we have done just to have an impression of foul play, and as I have said in my memorandum no single person has given us an information regarding foul play that we covered up. Needless to say, if such a person existed at the time, he or she would have been exposing us by now. Our conclusion was that the matter was beyond journalists who rely on information to publish; that the matter required professional handling. We ensured that we went to the right places to confirm whether the professional handling it required was in place. We discovered that it was in place. We, therefore, did the only logical thing that could have been done and that is to call for a Coroner's Inquest. We, therefore, did not pretend to be competent to go into technical matters such as forensic evidence. There were more competent people to do that and as far as our inquiry revealed at the time the professionals did do their work. What they found is what a Coroner's Inquest is designed to reveal. In short, the reason why I am saying that we will not engage in any wild goose chase is because of the fact that a post mortem examination of the deceased person was already held by duly qualified medical practitioners. This is why we indicated the following at the end of our effort as a newspaper to publish what a newspaper can publish in good faith in the public interest: "Since FOROYAA cannot be a judge and cannot claim to have all the information required to arrive at a definitive judgement, it calls on the State to rely on the Coroner's Act Cap 7:04 to cause an enquiry to be conducted." This was our honest opinion, an opinion which was not conclusive but was opening up for any fresh evidence. Hamjatta, a Coroner has the power to receive evidence from a qualified medical practitioner who has held a post mortem examination of a deceased person. According to section 4, subsection (3) of the Coroner's Act "Whenever a Coroner deems it expedient in order to discover the cause of death or make an examination of the dead body of any person who has already been interred, he may order such body to be exhumed and examined." Hence, it is clear that the Coroner has authority to do what is necessary to be able to acquire forensic evidence. The Coroner's powers extend to the taking of action where a criminal offence is revealed during an inquiry. This is stipulated in section 9, subsection (2) of the Coroner's Act: "Subject to the provisions of section 11 of this Act, if before or at the termination of any such inquiry a Coroner is of the opinion that the commission of an offence by some known person has been disclosed, he shall issue a summons or warrant for his arrest, or take such other steps as may be necessary to secure his attendance to answer such charge. On the attendance of the said person, the Coroner shall commence the inquiry de novo and shall proceed in the manner provided in Part VI of the Criminal Procedure Code for holding a preliminary inquiry into an offence." Hence, it is clear that it is a Coroner's Inquest which should give rise to the type of investigations that you are talking about and we have already recommended for such an inquest to take place. As far as we are concerned, even the present allegations of hitting with a baseball bat and shooting in the head could be confirmed by a Coroner if the results of the post mortem examination of the deceased are revealed. What more can we ask for than a Coroner's Inquest, Hamjatta? I will address the other questions if there are no further observations on this issue. Ah! let me add here a very interesting provision of the 1997 Constitution which, if implemented, would enable the country to have private prosecutors instead of relying entirely on the State. Section 86 of the Constitution indicates that: "An Act of the National Assembly may make provision for private prosecutions." This is why it is important for Gambians to examine who to elect to become their law makers. All these laws could be made to ensure that the people are not helpless before the State. Greetings. Halifa Sallah. -----Original Message----- From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 06:57 Subject: Re: Halifa's Reply to Hamjatta - (A Pox On Halifa's Semantic Sophistry) >Halifa, > Allow me to inform you that at no point in time did your choice of >language "impinge upon" my "self esteem." The streets of Banjul have taught ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------