"Nevertheless it is good that people insist the Attorney General's office does exist"... Exactly mawdo baba...the dictator's goal is to nullify every legimate institution and office other than his.. so that in the end it would look like he was the country and the country was him... nothing he does should make us forget the legitimate institutions and branches of government that will allow us to rebuild quickly after he is history... thanks always! Demba From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. -------- Original message -------- From: Baba Galleh Jallow <[log in to unmask]> Date: To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [G_L] HALIFA CAUTIONS AG CHAMBERS 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤