>From: "Joe Sambou" <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >CC: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Gambia: Three Opposition Leaders Arrested >Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:18:53 +0000 > >Brother Mustaf, this is a follow up to my phone message of this morning. >Below is an example of why Gambians are very dissapointed with your >remarks, expecially when you saw with your own eyes, the massive poverty >that Gambians live under because of the kleptocracy we have in the Gambia. >At a time when Africans (African Americans included) are trying to liberate >themselves from poverty and stagnation, we have Africans supporting African >dictatorships. Below are articles of the events as they unfold on the >ground. I hope you will reconsider your opinion about the situation in the >Gambia. > >_______________________________________________________________________________ > >Gambia: Three Opposition Leaders Arrested > >UN Integrated Regional Information Networks > >November 16, 2005 >Posted to the web November 16, 2005 > >Banjul > >As Gambia gears up for presidential elections next year, the government has >announced the arrest of three opposition leaders for alleged involvement in >"subversive activities". > >A televised government statement Tuesday evening named the three arrested >as Hamat Bah, Omar Jallow and Halifa Sallah, all three of whom are involved >in a new opposition coalition. > >Bah of the National Reconciliation Party, Jallow of the former ruling >People's Progressive Party and Sallah, of the People's Democratic >Organisation for Independence and Socialism merged their parties last year >with the main opposition United Democratic Party to create a new opposition >force called the National Alliance for Development and Democracy (NADD). > >In parliamentary by-elections last month, the new opposition alliance won >three out of the four seats up for grabs with the remaining seat going to >the ruling Alliance for Patriotic Re-orientation and Construction party. > >Opposition supporters interpreted the election outcome as encouraging in >view of a 2006 presidential election that will be followed by parliamentary >polls in 2007, especially if the opposition manages to unite behind a >single candidate and face the incumbent president. > >Former army lieutenant Yahya Jammeh, who came to power in a bloodless >military coup in July 1994 and twice led his party to election victories in >1996/97 and 2001/2002, has said he will run for a third five-year term in >next year's elections. > >The televised government statement said Bah, an outspoken MP who lost his >seat in the October by-election, Jallow, a long-serving minister in the >deposed government of ex-President Sir Dawda Jawara, and Sallah, the >minority leader in parliament, were cooperating with police investigations >into subversive activities. It gave no details of the type of subversive >acts the three men were allegedly engaged in but went on to accuse them of >posing a threat to national security. > >The announcement urged the Gambian public to stay calm as there was "no >cause for alarm". But there appeared to be no immediate response from the >public to news of the opposition leaders' detention. > >On 3 November, Jammeh accused NADD members of fuelling a recent border spat >between Gambia and Senegal by flooding untrue and misleading information >into Dakar. > >He added he had seen documents from the opposition saying that Gambia was >backing separatist rebels fighting the Senegalese government for the >independence of the southern region of Casamance. > >Panapress news agency quoted Jammeh as saying that "such figures will not >witness the next President election scheduled in 2006". > >Last Friday, NADD's leader Sallah, now in custody, challenged the president >to prove his allegation against the coalition or apologize for it. > >NADD members were not immediately available on Tuesday for comment since >they had been meeting all day over their three leaders' arrests. > >An official at Bah's NRD party, Mbanyick Njie, told IRIN that police had >searched the party leader's office and removed documents. > >Relevant Links > >West Africa >Gambia >Legal and Judicial Affairs >Human Rights > > > >He said NADD denied the allegations and accused the government instead of >intimidation. > >[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations >] > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Make allAfrica.com your home page | RSS Feed > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Top | Site Français | Site Guide | Who We Are | Advertising | Search | >Subscribe > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Copyright © 2005 UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. All rights >reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). Click here >to contact the copyright holder directly for corrections -- or for >permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >NADD RESPONDS TO JAMMEH >Below is a copy of NADD's response to President Jammeh's remarks on Koriteh >day while he was receiving Muslim religious leaders. In their response >which was in the form of a letter, the NADD leaders gave President Jammeh >an ultimatum- to either provide evidence to substantiate his claims or >apologize. >Mr. President, four characteristics are indispensable if a person is to >qualify to be classified among a world leadership that is fit to govern a >Nation in the 21st century, that is, clarity, honesty, magnanimity and >humility. >Mr. President, when the mind is barren of knowledge, the heart devoid of >mercy, the personality starved of humility and the attitude stripped of >honesty, a person in position of public trust must become arrogant, greedy, >power hungry, pompous and revengeful. Such a person will not hesitate to >kill for power and die for power. Under such a leadership, might must >become right, the rule of law must become subservient to the rule of might >and a culture of impunity must reign supreme over the culture of rights and >justice. > >This is why the wisdom of the ages deems it incontrovertible that hunger >for power corrupts and obsession with power corrupts absolutely. >The objective of addressing this letter to you is simple. The Members of >the Executive Committee of NADD held an emergency meeting to discuss the >content of the speech you delivered in your meeting with the Muslim Elders >on 3rd November 2005 after the Eid prayers, commemorating the end of the >month of Ramadan. > >At the opening of the meeting the Chairperson of the occasion conveyed that >their visit was customary and symbolic; That such visits to leaders at the >helm of state affairs started 95 years ago. In short, it provides an >opportune moment for elders to state their concerns regarding the relation >between Government and the Governed and further accords them the >opportunity to offer words of advice to promote sensitivity and >responsiveness to the vital concerns of the people. > >It is amazing to the NADD Leadership, as it must be to every decent human >being in The Gambia who heard your message, that you would transform such a >solemn occasion into a platform to try to threaten, denigrate, castigate >and ridicule the Opposition despite the religious leaders' passionate >appeal for sincere efforts by ruling party and opposition to deal with any >matter of immense National concern in a concerted manner. >Your disrespectful and revengeful posture constitutes a betrayal of the >expectations of your peace loving visitors, a violation of your oath of >office not to act with "ill-will" and an affront to any sense of political >decency your comments had infact outraged all Gambians and non Gambians >alike who expect a higher standard of practice in governance from a person >occupying the highest office in the land. > >Mr. President, I am requested by the NADD Executive Committee to catalogue >the relevant portions of your speech which are fallacious in content and >further signify a total disregard for the letter and spirit of the >Memorandum of Understanding prepared under the auspices of the >Commonwealth, represented by General Abdousalam Abubakar, which the >representatives of all parties including your ruling party, helped to draft >but which your National Executive Committee have so far failed to sign. >This is what is delaying its coming into effect. > > >First and foremost you claimed that the Opposition met in New York and drew >the conclusion that they can neither win an election in The Gambia or >orchestrate a coup d'etat; That they resolved that the only way to depose >you is to provoke a war situation between Gambia and Senegal in order to >destabilize and uproot your government. > > >You alleged that the Opposition sent E-mails, faxes, reports and copies of >government documents to the Senegalese authorities in order to generate and >fan hostility between the Senegalese government and your regime. >That the Opposition fabricated stories that most of the forces sent by >Gambia to Sudan are from the MFDC rebels; that such rebels serve as State >Guards; that they even stated that Salif Sarjo, a leader of MFDC was >poisoned by you and taken to a doctor to be killed in 2003; that their lies >became evident when Salif Sarjo spoke on radio in 2005. You added that the >Senegalese forces were deployed at Selety near the border with Gambia while >Gambian soldiers were busy playing football; that the alleged lies of the >opposition almost brought about a war which you averted only because you >exercised restraint. You claimed that even after making peace recently the >opposition met to conoclude that it will not last. All these statements >were designed to give the impression that the Opposition harboured bad >faith. > > >You made it categorically clear that such Opposition members and their >collaborators do not deserve to witness the 2006 elections. You threatened >a reign of terror on the opposition and their alleged collaborators in >government after the Ramadan. > > >You also strayed into the differences between Muslim's regarding the date >for holding Eid prayers. You stated categorically that those who hold their >prayers after the date approved by the Supreme Islamic Council will not see >the light of the day. > > >Many threats, including death threats were issued during your speech that >could give you the image of a brutal dictator who is ready to arrest, >detain, maim and kill those who disagree with him. > > >Mr. President, during this era of democratization in our subregion many >would have thought that you will honour the goodwill mission of the >Commonwealth and concentrate on making peace with the Opposition by signing >the Memorandum of Understanding and thus prepare the ground for a peaceful, >free and fair presidential election in 2006. > > >It is hard for the Executive Committee of NADD to believe that after >displaying maximum political decency during the by elections of 29th >September 2005from which we emerged victorious you could state without any >semblance of guilt or equivocation that the Opposition is promoting war >between Senegal and Gambia because of its fear that it cannot win a free >and fair presidential election in 2006. > > >We wish to assert with all the emphasis we can muster that your allegation >against the Opposition are fabrications. They are based on fiction and not >facts. Consequently, they cannot stand the test of truth and commonsense. >Mr. President, the commitment of the Opposition to free and fair election >is corroborated by the following indisputable facts. > > >First and foremost, we in the Opposition have agreed to sign the Memorandum >of Understanding binding political parties in The Gambia to International >Standards of best practice in democratic political conduct in a multiparty >system which is characterized by adherence to truth, fair play, tolerance >and submission to the popular will when expressed by the ballot. >It is in fact your party which has shown little commitment to such >practices by procrastinating or delaying its signing of the Memorandum of >Understanding. > > >In the same vein, just before the recent by elections, the Opposition >parties went to court to ensure that there is strict adherence to the >electoral laws so that only people whose names appear on the registers of >voters would be allowed to vote. Your party advocated for those whose names >are not found in the register of voters to be allowed to vote. Who then is >actually afraid of free and fair elections, the Opposition or your? > > >Furthermore, since the Opposition Alliance emerged we have participated in >10 by elections. The facts reveal that we are also leading in popular >votes. >In the light of such development, which person with commonsense could be >made to believe that the Opposition parties met in New York to draw the >conclusion that we cannot win an election and that we can only take over >the helm of state by promoting war between Gambia and Senegal. This is >utter fabrication. No such meeting took place anywhere on the face of the >globe. > > >Mr. President, we must therefore state in no uncertain terms that in making >such a statement you are putting the office of president in disrepute, thus >justifying the grounds for impeachment, as is the norm in any civilized >democratic state. > > >In our view, the office of the president is too high to be a source of >unintelligent fabrications. > > >In this respect you owe the Gambian people concrete evidence to back your >assertions or extend your apology to the NADD Executive. >We give you five working days to provide the evidence regarding the alleged >meeting or apologize, failing which we have no option but to hold a press >conference to denounce you and call for your resignation or impeachment. >Bear with us as we move to the second point. > > >Mr. President, you also claim that the Opposition met recently to declare >that your recent agreement with Senegal will not last. This is utter >fabrication. In fact, every careful analyst will not fail to observe that >no member of the NADD Executive has issued any comment on the issue in the >press. This is due to an executive decision to promote alternative policies >as befits an alternative government and not simply comment on your >initiative. > > >Hence, instead of being prophets of doom who spend our energies to denounce >you for wasting the precious resources and time of the Gambian people and >create immense hardship by being adamant in maintaining the increase in >ferry tariffs in the name of defending National Sovereignty and territorial >integrity only to acknowledge later that you have erred by violating >Article 6 of the Agreement on Road Transport of October 2004, between >Gambia and Senegal. > > >However, instead of castigating you for your display of mediocrity and >incompetence in matters of foreign policy we did a detailed analysis to >find out the source of your shortcomings, with the view to find a way >forward in promoting a privileged relation between Gambia and Senegal that >would be informed by the doctrine of two states one people. > > >In our discussion on the border issue the NADD executive recalled the words >of your then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Musa Bala Gaye, in >response to a question raised at the National Assembly on 5th October 2005 >and compared it with extracts from the Communiqué issued on 21st October >2005, during your visit to Senegal. >His very words read: > > >"Mr. Speaker sir, as the Honourable member may know, the border was closed >by the Senegalese authorities in protest to the increase in the ferry >tariff at the Barra/Banjul and Bambatenda/Yellitenda crossings. The Gambia >has not at anytime 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 reopen its borders and >all related problems resolved." > > >Here your Secretary of State is attributing the border closure to the rise >in ferry tariffs. Your government officials have vehemently maintained that >the rise in ferry tariffs was irreversible because it was an act of >national sovereignty. >However, in the Communiqué of 21st October, 2005 it is categorically stated >that >"The President of The Republic of The Gambia has decided to suspend >immediately the new ferry tariffs and to revert to the tariffs effective >before 15th August 2005. The Gambia government will notify the government >of Senegal of its intention to increase the ferry tariffs in conformity >with the provisions of the agreement on road transport of 5th October 2004 >between The Gambia and Senegal." > > >Mr. President, the text of the Communiqué confirms that you have accepted >that you violated the agreement on road transport of 5th October 2004. In >your interview on the visit you also stated categorically that your >government violated Article 6 of the agreement on road transport. >The Executive Committee of NADD therefore concluded that the foreign policy >failure of your government arises from naked incompetence or lack of a >comprehensive foreign policy blue print to guide your relation with Senegal >in particular and other states in the subregion like Guinea Bissau. This is >what is responsible for your 180 degrees twist in foreign policy between >5th October 2005 when the secretary of state answered the question at the >National Assembly and 21st October 2005 when you visited Senegal. > > >It goes without saying that the Executive Committee of NADD did not stop at >identifying the shortcomings of your government we proceeded to examine the >ingredients required to develop foreign policy options for a country. > >In our view, it is important to take note of the idiosyncrasies of the >leadership in each country in our subregion to determine whether they are >prone to domination or cooperation. > > >Secondly, it is necessary to look at the interest of each country in our >sub-region as regards The Gambia, to determine whether such interests are >based on the collective interest of the two peoples or the interest of few >groups in any given country. >Thirdly, it is necessary to determine the principles of the ruling parties >in each country to determine whether a given party is committed to the >principles of the African Union in general and democratic principles at >home. Such analysis would have enabled a genuinely democratic government in >The Gambia to determine the foreign policy options of your government >towards Senegal in particular and other countries in our sub-region in >general. > > >The lack of coherence in your foreign policy with Senegal is attributable >mainly to your claim that you have no advisers. This claim implies that you >have no policy think tank. Hence your officials are likely to recommend >what pleases you. Hence instead of controlling circumstances you are >controlled by them. This is the dilemma of your government. >Mr. President, compared to the myopic attitude you attribute to the >Opposition as being mere prophets of doom, the NADD leadership had gone as >far as to assert that in our relation with Senegal we must be guided by the >principles of African Unity and the goals and Programmes of African >Integration. This vision goes beyond the concept of relying on sovereign >national interest as the determinant of external relation to advocate for >the principle of collective sovereignty. > > >This vision will help us to map out all the sovereign interest of the two >countries and then determined how they could be assimilated into the >collective interests of the two peoples. This is the way to make the >doctrine of two states one people a reality. In order to forge ahead the >NADD Executive sees the need to build the people to people ties of the two >countries. This envisages the establishment of relation between the >National Assembles, media, trade unions, women federations, youth >federations, farmers\ groups, professional associations, sport federations, >chambers of commerce, and the intellectual community. It does call for the >negation of policies like aliean identity cards for the Senegalese. It is >therefore abundantly clear that you have no evidence to prove that we met >just to express our hope for renewed conflict between the two countries. We >therefore demand for evidence to refute our assertion or an _expression of >apology for misleading the nation. Let us now move to the third point. >Mr. President, the most outrageous allegation you made against the >Opposition is your claim that it is an informer of the government of >Senegal. No single letter, e-mail or fax had ever been issued by any >Executive Member of NADD to promote hostility between the two governments >as alleged. > >In fact, if you give a second thought to your allegation, you will deduce >that it tantamount to an assassination of the integrity of the Gambian >Nation. Just imagine the scenario Mr. President. The Opposition's striving >to be an alternative government is reduced to an informer, the government >is transformed into an accused person while a foreign power serves as a law >enforcer who subjects Opposition and government to interrogation and >confrontation to know who is right or wrong. How can such a scene promote >National self respect? > >Mr. President, there is no iota of truth in your allegation that the >Opposition is an informer of the Senegalese government. You can provide no >e-mail, fax, report or vconfidential document made by any member of the >NADD executive to Senegal. We therefore demand evidence to refute our >claims or an apology for misleading the nation. > >Furthermore, you accused the Opposition of trying to come to power by any >means and having the intention to stay in power by all means. In this >regard, you claim that they do not deserve to witness the 2006 elections. > >Mr. President, you are the one who came to power by any means and you are >the one trying to retain power by all means. This is why you have been >amending the constitution to perpetuate yourself in office. You have >accepted no term limit to your presidency and you have negated the second >round of voting. > >Apart from these points let us state in no uncertain terms that contrary to >your assertion that the Opposition is out to get power by any means, there >is abundant evidence to show that NADD as an Opposition Alliance is more >committed to democratic principles. > > >In fact Article 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding limits the term of the >First President under a NADD ticket to a one five year term. The person >will not seek a second term or support any candidate in the next following >election to create a level field for political contest. > >Subsequently, a term limit of two five year terms shall be inserted in the >constitution. This confirms that there is no iota of truth to your >allegations. We therefore demand evidence within five working days or an >apology for misleading the nation. > >Finally, Mr. President, your threat to take life is in gross violation of >the constitution. Section 18 of the Constitution states that "No person >shall be deprived of his or her life intentionally except in the execution >of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in >respect of a criminal offence..." You are neither a prosecutor nor a judge >why do you continue to threaten people with death? No head of state in a >democratic society would use a meeting with civil society organisations as >a platform to issue death threats. This is all the more inappropriate at a >time when many mysterious murders like that of Deyda Hydara and attempted >murders like that of Ousman Sillah have taken place in The Gambia. You >claim that the Opposition is trying to discredit your regime but in actual >fact you are undermining the very pillars of integrity that a government >must rest on to deserve respect. Your own words are destroying the image of >your government in a more devastating manner than any Opposition party >could ever do. > >Suffice it to say that even though the Opposition can win more sympathy by >your death threats which, if implemented will consign you to the level of >the Idi Amins, Bokassas and Does and would therefore confront you with the >prospect of a disastrous and ignoble end. We demand an end to such inhumane >remarks. Brutality is a vice and not a virtue. It is beastly. It makes a >person to be viewed with contempt. You have to stop the threats otherwise >we will explore means of getting some international authority to examine >your threats for possible international legal action before it gets out of >hand. How can Gambia be the home of the African Commission on Human and >Peoples' Rights while you issue such threats which amount to a total >disregard for law and order or institutions of substantive justice. Let us >reiterate that you should never allow yourself to be misled by executive >power. A few soldiers and security forces in any nation can never massacre >tens of thousands of people and brutalize them into submission. Armies have >collapsed before the might of the people. Power of government lies in >deriving authority from the consent of the people and exercising authority >to promote the general welfare. This is the verdict of history and it is >irrevocable. > >Furthermore, Mr. President, your disregard of the constitution became too >overwhelming when you issued a threat that Imams who hold their Eid prayers >on a date different from the one set by the Supreme Islamic Council shall >be taken where they will never see the light of day. > >Clearly, your executive power is becoming absolute, excessive and >dictatorial. Section 25 (1) (c) of the constitution states that >"every person shall have the right to freedom to practice any religion and >manifest such practice." > >Section 25 (1) (b) states that >"every person shall have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and >belief......" > > >Hence it is unreasonable and unjustifiable for a head of state to interfere >with the practice of any religion. Gambia is a secular state that guarantee >freedom of worship of idols or god as Muslims and Christians. It safeguards >all religious denominations. > >This tolerance of belief and practice should not be jeopardized by >executive intolerance. > > >To conclude, allow us to state that peace and development in each country >in our subregion should be our common interest. Peace however begins at >home. > > >Mr. President, our subregion is volatile Countries wrecked by war are >trying to promote good governance. If you do not seek to maintain the peace >in the Gambia, other countries in the subregion will become stable and >would start to attract the business and services in the Gambia. This would >be devastating to our economy and the welfare of the people. > >It is our candid view that your government should be accountable for its >failures instead of trying to use the Opposition as a scapegoat. NADD, Mr. >President is restructuring the political landscape of the Opposition in the >Gambia. You can turn a blind eye of the mind to this reality. > >Notwithstanding, NADD's vision and mission will not be derailed. It will >pursue this mission with political decency and magnanimity. It will open >its doors to all those you will victimize to create a united front which >shall lay a new foundation for the birth of a democratic Third Republic. It >will build solid democratic institutions and culture to restore the power >of the Gambian people as sovereign rulers of the country. When that >happens, people will know how much time and resources have been wasted in >nurturing executive power instead of empowering the people. > >Mr. President, any attempt to obstruct this development is an exercise in >futility. The present must go and the future must come. This is the verdict >of destiny and it is incontrovertible. History is recording your words and >practice. > >It will provide the evidence for the future to judge and give its verdict. >This is the time for you to reassess your politics and make it to accord >with the dictates of conscience and best practice in democratic governance, >before it is too late. If you fail to take the opportunity history will >ultimately indict you and will never absolve you. > >In closing the curtains, allow us to assert that we shall address a letter >to the Senegalese President on the issue. You made him a witness against >the Opposition. We have to make him a witness in our defence. We hope that >he will not put the integrity of the Republic of Senegal at stake by not >clearing the air. He is quoted by President Jammeh and he is duty bond to >clear the air. > >We shall copy the letter we address to the President of Senegal to you. > >While anticipating that you will simply end the controversy by extending an >apology to NADD and further facilitate the signing the Memorandum of >Understanding on good governance > >We remain >Yours in the service of the Nation, > >Halifa Sallah >COORDINATOR >For: The NADD Executive Committee > >_______________________________________________________________________________ > > > >IN THE MATTER OF SAMBA BAH VERSUS THE STATE >In proceeding with the bail application by the Bah family for the release >of the former Secretary of State for The Interior, (a former Director >General of the National Intelligence Agency), Mr. Samba Bah, the counsel >for the applicant, Mr. Antouman Gaye, on receiving the affidavit in >opposition filed by the state on the 7th November 2005 in court, applied >for a short adjournment to midday to enable them (plaintiff's counsels) >prepare their reply to the affidavit in opposition to their application. >The application sought by Gaye was granted and on resumption, the leading >counsel for the applicant Mr. Gaye started his intervention as follows: >"My Lord, we have filed and served the state our reply and I submit that >the purpose of our application is for speedy trial and determination." >This, Mr. Gaye submitted is not shown by the state as can be clearly seen >in their affidavit in opposition. He said the said affidavit in opposition >contained so many irregularities and that it is therefore incompetent to >challenge the originating motion filed and tabled before the court on the >24th October 2005. He said there is no case before the court as portrayed >in the affidavit of the state as Samba Bah versus the state, but rather the >matter of Samba Bah. >Mr. Gaye further submitted that he adopted all that he has told the court >on the 24th October when he was moving the exparte application filed by the >wife of the applicant and his brother Yorro Bah, and the reply to the >affidavit in opposition sworn to by the applicant himself. Mr. Gaye then >added that the evidence led in the two applications are very clear, noting >the applicants clearly stated that in the morning of 17th October 2005, Mr. >Samba Bah was driving along the Kotu highway with four others and on their >arrival at the "cut junction" at the coastal road, Mr. Bah was stopped by >the police and asked to drive to Kotu Police Station, where he spent a >short time and he was taken to Mile Two Central Prisons. Mr. Gaye further >indicated to the court that the brother of the applicant Yorro Bah had gone >further to state that they have tried everywhere, but could not find out >where Samba Bah was kept, and that it was of late that they were told that >he was taken to Mile Two Central Prisons from Kotu Police Station. This, >Mr. Gaye submitted, is an unlawful detention since there is no where in the >affidavit in opposition where Mr. Bah is said to be charged with any crime >or taken before any court of law. However, Mr. Gaye further added that >paragraph four of the said affidavit in opposition indicated that Mr. Samba >Bah is suspected of terrorism, spying and economic crimes. This, the >counsel for the applicant said, is a mere speculation, since the affidavit >is not backed by any charge seat. Mr. Gaye then asserted that this is ample >proof of an unlawful and an arbitrary arrest of Mr. Bah from the 17th of >October 2005 which contravenes section 19(1) of the 1997 constitution. He >continued further to say that there is no where in our laws where it is >indicated that the police can stop a suspect and take him to prison without >charging and arraigning him before a court of law. That what the police >could do after an arrest is to tell the individual why he or she is >arrested as spelt out in section 19(2). This, Mr. Gaye submitted again >should be followed by a charge and the accused should be allowed the right >to have a legal practitioner or visit by family members which he said had >not been done as shown in the affidavit filed by the wife and brother of >the detainee. Mr. Gaye further cited a common law case of the House of >Lords on arrest which he said showed that once an arrest starts on a wrong >footing, any other act that follows it is unlawful. He again submitted that >this also shows that Mr. Bah is unlawfully detained at Mile Two Prisons >from the 17th October to today as opposed to section 19(3) of the >constitution. >On the issue of further investigations beyond boundaries of the Gambia, Mr. >Gaye submitted that the paragraph is too complex and vague since the court >is not told how long and how far the investigation has gone and when it >will last. He questioned whether the court will allow a subject of this >land to remain under such a vague and complex issue. This the counsel for >the applicant said, if the court should do, will abdicate its >responsibilities, since section 19(3) of the constitution empowers the >court to release such detainees. >Mr. Gaye urged the court to use its discretionary powers and release Mr. >Bah since he is under an unlawful custody as clearly shown in the affidavit >in opposition; that he is only a suspect and not charged. He finally urged >the court not to allow the issue to become adventurous nor timorous, but to >do justice to Mr. Bah as required by law. > > >_______________________________________________________________________________ > >REPLY OF THE DPP >In his reply, the Director of Public Prosecution, Akimoyae Agim agreed that >it is true that Mr. Samba Bah has been under detention in Mile Two Central >Prisons for over 72 hours. That it is also true that there has not been any >criminal charges against him in any competent court of law. But DPP Agim >said there is something more important for the court to take into >consideration. This the DPP submitted is public interest and any act which >may put the rights of others at stake; that it therefore behooves on the >court to look at the seriousness of the case against the applicant as a >suspect. He then cited the cases as follows: >1) Terrorism under section 3 of the anti-Terrorism Act, subsection 3 of >2003; >2) Spying under section 37 of the (CPC) Criminal Procedure Code. >3) Economic crime under the Economic Crime Decree of 1994. The DPP went on >to say that all these are serious crimes and are therefore not bailable >offences as shown by the anti-Terrorism Act and section 99 of the Criminal >Procedure Code amended version. He cited the case of Yaya Jallow versus the >state in the High Court of the Gambia in 2001. The DPP said the trial judge >at the time ruled that denial of bail under section 99 of the CPC does not >contravene section 19 in anyway. >The DPP further submitted that under the Police Act and section 19(1) of >the Constitution, the police have the right to arrest anybody when they are >aware that he or she has committed or is about to commit a crime. That when >such an arrest is made and the police who are key in the issue showed that >due to the seriousness of the crime to the public's interest, they need >more time to investigate the matter,, such as the case in which the >applicant is suspected because of the high level of intelligence involved, >the DPP submitted that in the interest of justice to the public, the court >needs to consider that since they (the police) are saying the investigation >has an international character. >On the issue of the capacity of the applicant to interfere with the >investigation process, the DPP submitted that these are probabilities that >no one can lose sight of in matters of this nature as humans. He cited >section 17(2) of the 1997 Constitution as the determining factor on whether >the detention is lawful or not. The DPP further went on to say that it is >the duty of the executive to decide whether a person constitutes a threat >to national security through its intelligence unit and other security >outfits in charge of crime prevention can arrest and put such a person >under custody when investigations are mot completed. He then cited the case >of Haddy Sarr and the Attorney General in which she too had challenged her >continued detention even after 72 hours. That due to the seriousness of the >allegations against her, the court had to prolong her detention because of >public interest as explained by the defendants in line with section 17(1) >of the Constitution and her case was dismissed. The DPP made a series of >citations of case law from within the Gambia, Nigeria and from the Common >Law Cases of England, from the level of the Privy Council and House of >Lords on Capital Offences and Terrorism. He finally urged the court to >consider the seriousness of the cases which the applicant is suspected of >in line with the public's interest. The case was adjourned to the 8th of >November 2005 for the counsels of the applicant to reply to the DPP on >points of law. The applicant was represented by Antouman Gaye, Mr. Sidney >Riley and Combeh Gaye while the state was represented by the DPP, Mrs. >Marly and Na Sisay Salah Wadda. > > >Sincerely, > >Joe Sambou > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤