 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Oct 2013 : 02:13:31
|
What! A judge is always under an obligation to hear counsel. If he is not ready to do that then he must recuse himself from the case. What happens to 'Right of Audience' in The Gambia. The Chief Justice Should intervene.
If the judge thinks Counsel have disrespected the court, the tool available to him is to charge Counsel with contempt.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 04 Oct 2013 02:19:11 |
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2013 : 12:24:43
|
You know the legal "rules" Nyarikangbanna (I don't  ) so the Judge has not followed those "rules" therefore he himself is in breach of the "rules" so is not allowed to take the action that he has taken,that is my understanding of the words that you have written,can you clarify if my understanding of your words is correct please.?
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
What! A judge is always under an obligation to hear counsel. If he is not ready to do that then he must recuse himself from the case. What happens to 'Right of Audience' in The Gambia. The Chief Justice Should intervene.
If the judge thinks Counsel have disrespected the court, the tool available to him is to charge Counsel with contempt.
Thanks
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 04 Oct 2013 12:26:06 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 01:07:26
|
You got me right, toubab. The judge has effectively exceeded his powers. Counsel has a right to be heard and the judge is under an obligation to listen.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12237 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 01:58:54
|
"The Chief Justice Should intervene."
Probably won't though..... ,unless he reads Bantaba in Cyberspace that is 
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
You got me right, toubab. The judge has effectively exceeded his powers. Counsel has a right to be heard and the judge is under an obligation to listen.
Thanks
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 07 Dec 2013 : 01:59:28
|
1. Wowo’s counsel move no-case-to-answer motion
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
The defence counsel for the former Gambia Court of Appeal judge and Chief Justice of The Gambia, on Tuesday moved a motion of no-case-to-answer submission before Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul.
SOURCE: Daily Observer News & full report
2. The Point News Former Chief Justice Wowo files no-case submission
3. Former Chief Justice makes ‘No Case’ submission in Wowo, Jobarteh Trial As Justice Nkea warns him not to interrupt his court again
Foroyaa Burning Issues News: Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Uzoma, counsel for former Chief Justice of The Gambia, JosephWowo, Tuesday 3 December, at the Banjul High Court, entered a ‘No Case to Answer’ submission on behalf of his client. He refuted all the allegations preferred against his client on grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove any evidence against him. When the case was mentioned, lawyer Uzoma, told the court that his client wants to enter a ‘No Case to Answer’ submission.
He said they would want to make the submission in writing for the sake of clarity; but before making further utterance, he was alerted by his client who was making gestures to call his attention in the dock.
“Mr. Wowo, as a former Chief Justice, you know the laws of the court. I want you to know that you don’t do that in court. If you flip your fingers again to make noise in my court, I will remand you,” said Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Division of the High Court.
The first accused [Wowo] removed his glasses to look at the trial judge in the eye. He urged the trial judge to address him as Justice Wowo and not the other way round. However, the trial judge who appears infuriated turned down his request to talk to his lawyer.
At this juncture, the counsel for the first accused appealed to the court to allow him t talk to his client which was later granted by the court. Thereafter, the defense lawyer further appealed to make the submission in writing, but the trial judge insisted for an oral submission.
“It is law that in a criminal trial that all the evidence in the trial must be specifically through from the prosecution. The burden of proving each count lies on the prosecution,” said lawyer Uzoma. Lawyer Uzoma submitted that the prosecution must prove every element of the offense against his client on count one [Abuse of Office]. He referred the court to section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). He further summarized the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses who were called to testify in the trial.
Defense Counsel Uzoma highlighted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Alieu Barry [PW2] and Andre Sape Van Klaabergen [PW6] respectively. He said the evidence of these two witnesses were relevant in count one.
He began with the evidence of Mr. Alieu Barry. He said the witness had informed the court that he received a call from his lawyer [Christopher Menne] for a meeting at the residence of the former Minister of Justice [Jobarteh] for compensation where they met Mr. Andre Sape Van Klaabergen [PW6], former Justice Minister, Justice Wowo among others.
He submitted that the witness said in his testimony that the first accused made it clear that he was invited by the former Justice Minister to negotiate for compensation with regard to the dispute as to the title to the property.
He said Mr. Barry testified that the first accused further made it clear that if the compensation is not settled, he would not be one of the judges to determine the case when it rise at the Court of Appeal.
Lawyer Uzoma submitted that the witness has further admitted the fact that the first accused did not raise any unjust enrichment in the negotiation. He said the witness testified that he refused the amount offered as compensation by the former Justice Minister and left the meeting without any settlement.
Defense counsel Uzoma submitted that the witness further testified that there was no matter of bribery at the meeting. He argued that the witness also said what was posted on YouTube was not the correct recording he made. He said he also testified that he did not make any complaint against the first the accused [Wowo].
“The witness said he was not forced by the first accused to accept the outcome of the meeting. He said they have already settled compensation outside court with two other people,” said lawyer Uzoma. However, lawyer Uzoma further summarized the testimony of Mr. Andre Sape Van Klaabergen.
He said this witness informed the court that the meeting at the former Justice Minister’s residence was to bring parties together for compensation to the other party. He argued that the witness said he has not attended any sitting at the Court of Appeal and did not receive any record of proceedings from the said court.
The witness, he said, testified that the first accused was not representing any party and did not discourage him from appealing the case. He said the witness also denied any issue of bribery at the meeting.
Lawyer Uzoma further summarized the evidence of Mrs Mariama Ceesay, Principal Registrar of the High Court. He said the witness mentioned the report written by the first accused to the NIA and the request of Mrs. Amie Bensouda for data statistic.
He said the witness told the court that the person who came to her office from Mrs. Amie Bensouda’s chambers was one Mr.Suwaibou Jammeh.
“It is interesting that the prosecution has refused to call this person to testify in this matter even though he was the one between Amie Bensouda’s chambers and the judiciary,” he pointed out.
The defense counsel asked why Mrs. Anna Njie from Mrs. Amie Bensouda’s chambers who met the first accused in his office was not call to testify. He said the witness testified that the first accused told Mrs. Njie to put her request in writing. He said the witness also told the court that she was called to the NIA for questioning along with Mr. Buba Jawo, then Acting Master of the High Court and two clerks at the Central Registry.
He asked the reason why the two clerks at the Central Registry were not call to testify in the trial. Lawyer Uzoma further submitted that the witness in her statement at the NIA said the request of Mrs. Amie Bensouda was not only land matters, but later change at the police saying it was for pending matters at court. The defense counsel argued that the statements are very contradictory which is unacceptable in the eyes of the law.
He urged the court to acquit and discharged his client on count one without calling him to enter his defense. He argued that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence that point against his client and the court should not rely on it.
“An appeal is continuation of original case rather than inception of new one,” he argued. Defense counsel Uzoma referred the court to the Black Law Dictionary for the definition of the charges against his clients. He argued that the prosecution has not proven any evidence against his client on public servant, abuse of office, engaged in arbitrary act and prejudicial in the right of pending case.
He said both Alieu Barry and Andre Sape Van Klaabergen said in their testimonies that the other party won judgment at Brikama High Court.
“We will urge the court to regard such facts as established. They clearly informed the court that the issue discussed at the meeting was for compensation. All these facts were not challenged,” he submitted.
Lawyer Uzoma submitted that the issue of compensation was not before any court between the parties in the country. He said it is misleading for the prosecution to say that the matter discussed at the residence of the former Justice Minister was pending at court. He argued that the witnesses said they never attended any proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
The defense counsel referred the court to rule 19 of the Appeal Court. He argued that the Principal Registrar of the High Court has denied any appeal filed by the said parties at the records of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.
“It is misleading to say the matter is pending at the Appeal Court. The prosecution has failed woefully to prove evidence of any such thing that the first accused has abused his authority and that the arbitrary conduct of the accused was prejudicial to the right of another in a pending case before the Appeal Court,” he pointed out.
Lawyer Uzoma submitted that the first accused said at the meeting at the residence of the former Justice Minister the position of the law which was not prejudicial. He submitted that the prosecution has only succeeded in proving that the accused was a public servant and nothing more.
He argued that the prosecution has failed to establish anything in count one as required by the law. Meanwhile, the case was adjourned till today, Wednesday 4th December 2013, for continuation of the ‘No Case’ submission by the lawyer for the first accused (Wowo).
SOURCE: Foroyaa |
Edited by - kobo on 07 Dec 2013 02:00:18 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 23:11:50
|
1. SCC to rule on Wowo, Jobarteh no-case submission today
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul is today expected to rule on the no-case-to-answer submission filed by former Chief Justice Joseph Wowo and former Justice Minister Lamin AMS Jobarteh.
The development came following the reply filed by the state counsel, Lejunju Vitalisn, during yesterday’s proceedings in the case.
Justice Wowo and Lamin A.M.S. Jobarteh were arraigned on a thirteen-count indictment which included abuse of office, conspiracy to defeat Justice and interference with witnesses, offences relating to Judicial proceeding, to giving false informing to a public officer, charges they denied......
SOURCE: The Point News & Full Report
2. Prosecution reply to no-case-to-answer submission in Wowo, Jobarteh case
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
State prosecutors have insisted that they have established a ‘prima facie’ case against the erstwhile Gambia Court of Appeal president, Joseph Wowo and the former attorney general and minister for Justice, Lamin Jobarteh.
Making his submission before Justice Emmanuel Nkea on Monday at the Special Criminal Court in Banjul, state prosecutor L Vitalies recalled that the state had called eight prosecution witnesses to prove its case against the duo. He said before no-case-to-answer could be upheld, by any judge, the defence must show that the prosecution has failed to prove the following: it could not prove an element in the case or the prosecution witness has been discredited by the defence under cross-examination. But the prosecutor said none of the above has happened......
SOURCE: Daily Observer News & full report
3. Justice Wowo, Jobarteh have case to defend
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul yesterday dismissed the no-case-to-answer submission filed by former Chief Justice Joseph Wowo and former Justice minister Lamin AMS Jobarteh.
Justice Wowo and Lamin A.M.S. Jobarteh were arraigned on a thirteen-count indictment which included abuse of office, conspiracy to defeat Justice and interference with witnesses, offences relating to Judicial proceeding, to giving false informing to a public officer, charges they denied.
Delivering the ruling, the trial judge indicated that at the close of the prosecution case in the matter, the defence raised and argued a no-case-to-answer on behalf of the accused persons herein, urging that the 1st accused had no case to answer......
SOURCE: The Point News & Full Report |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2013 : 20:18:14
|
Justice Nkea overrules ‘No Case’ submission in Wowo/Jobarteh trial
Published Thursday, December 12, 2013
Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court yesterday,Tuesday 10 December, overruled the ‘No Case’ submission made by the defense in the case involving Joseph Wowo, former Chief Justice of The Gambia and Mr. Lamin AMS Jobarteh, former Attorney General and Minister of Justice who are facing thirteen counts of criminal charges at the Banjul High Court. Justice Nkea in overruling the submission made by the defense said it is trite law that where a court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of prosecution cannot get conviction, the ‘No Case to Answer’ submission should be upheld.
He said where there is evidence of such a nature that a court could probably come to the conclusion that the accused committed the offense then the judge should allow the matter to be tried.
“The burden is on the accused persons to demonstrate that upon the totality of evidence adduced before the court, there is no presumptive evidence that would require them to discharge the persuasive burden of proof,” said Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court.
The trial judge argued that the prosecution has established the required presumptive evidence, shifting the evidentiary burden on the defense to discharge the persuasive burden of proof. “It is for the above reasons that the ‘No Case’ submission, in my view, lacks merit.
It is accordingly overruled and the accused persons are each required to now open their defense,” he said. Justice Nkea said even when there may be other inferences to be drawn by the court which are consistent with innocence; it does not follow that the accused persons should necessarily be discharged.
He argued that when a ‘No Case’ submission is made, the test to be applied is not whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubts that the accused is guilty.
The trial judge argued that a ‘No Case to Answer’ submission can only succeed in circumstances where the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against an accused person. He further argued that the determination whether a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution, the only question that the courts would consider is whether upon the totality of evidence before the court there is ground to proceed with the case. Justice Nkea highlighted the issue of defects on the charge sheet which he agreed that the offenses must be properly described and adequately particularized.
He argued that the test is whether the defect would or has caused prejudice to the accused persons. He further stated that it has not been shown how these alleged defects have prejudiced the accused persons.
He quoted section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. “I accordingly hold this arm of the ‘No Case to Answer’ submission lacks merit. I overruled the same,” he pointed out. However, the trial judge further highlighted the arguments submitted by both the prosecution and defense in the no case submission. He mentioned the alleged count that the first accused [Wowo] falsely assumed the authority of Acting Chief Justice.
He argued that the proposition propounded by the counsel for the first accused in this regard, is certainly not the law known to the court. He said it is a very faint legal interpretation of the Constitution, geared only towards satisfying a narrow interest. “That reasoning, as I have shown, is against common sense and best practice.
It is without substance. I dismissed it,” said the trial judge. Justice Nkea further highlighted in his ruling other issues raised by both the defense and prosecution in the argument of no case to answer submission.
He made reference to the constitution, similar cases and authorities to support the ruling. Consequently, he overruled the ‘No Case’ submission and urged the accused persons to each open their defense. Meanwhile, Mr. Uzoma, counsel for the first accused requested for the copy of the ruling before applying for an adjournment to prepare to enter their defence.
The application was granted by the court. Subsequently, the case was adjourned till Thursday, 12th December 2013, for the accused persons to enter their defence.
SOURCE: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 13 Dec 2013 : 21:57:34
|
1. Ex-Chief Justice Wowo opens defence
Friday, December 13, 2013
Justice Joseph Wowo, the former Chief Justice of The Gambia and a resident of Fajara, Thursday started his defence testimony in the criminal trial involving the state against him and Lamin AMS Jobarteh, the former attorney general and minister of Justice before the Special criminal Court in Banjul, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Nkea.
Wowo while giving his evidence told the court that he was one-time, the president of the Gambia Court of Appeal, acting Chief Justice and Chief Justice of The Gambia, stating before these appointments, he was a trained lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar over 22 years ago, where he practiced in various capacities.....
SOURCE: Daily Observer News & full report
2. The Point News Former Chief Justice Joseph Wowo opens defence |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2013 : 21:44:12
|
Justice Nkea dismisses motion of jurisdiction by former Chief Justice
Monday, December 16, 2013
Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court of the Banjul High Court yesterday, 12 December, dismissed the motion submitted by Mr. Uzoma, counsel for Joseph Wowo, former Chief Justice of The Gambia, requesting to forward matters to the Supreme Court for the interpretation of sections of the Constitution cited by the trial judge in overruling his client’s ‘No Case’ submission. When the case was announced, Mr. Uzoma, counsel for the first accused [Wowo] told the court that they have filed a motion which was served.
He said they would want to deal with the issues highlighted in the motion before proceeding with the case. He mentioned the arguments of both the prosecution and the first accused in the ‘No Case’ submission together with the ruling of the court dated 10th December 2013. Mr. Uzoma said it is not in dispute that the provision of sections 5, 72, 120, 121, 123 and 140 are very relevant for the determination of the case. He stressed that the proper interpretation by the proper court would also be relevant.
He adduced that the first accused seriously relied on the defense as provided for in section 5, 121, and 123 of the Constitution. Defense counsel Uzoma drew the attention of the court to three prayers in the motion submitted.
He referred the court to section 127 of the 1997 Constitution for the stay of proceeding to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. He raised the issue for determination in this case whether the High court have jurisdiction to interpret or enforce the provision of the sections cited earlier.
Mr. Uzoma submitted that the motion was supported by 28 paragraphs affidavit as well as Exhibit A-C. He said they rely on all the paragraphs of the said affidavit and exhibits attached. However, he apologized for the notice of appeal filed on the 12th December 2013. Defense counsel Uzoma submitted that prayer one of the motion has required the court to transfer the matter with the issues therein to the Supreme Court.
He said it does not require the filing of appealing process by the applicant. He said the same thing about the second prayer which he said is a jurisdictional question.
He said it is compulsory to transfer the matter to the competent court for interpretation. He submitted that the High court cannot competently adjudicate on the issue raised in the motion. “For a court to competently adjudicate on an issue, it must have a proper and valid jurisdiction.
It cannot validly adjudicate on an issue outside its jurisdictional competence,” said Mr. Uzoma. Mr. Uzoma submitted that it is not within the imperative jurisdiction of a court to read into a provision words that are not there.
He argued that the court in interpreting or applying provisions of statues has a duty to pay heed to the text of every provision and take account of the words as they stand, it should not add any words.
“In this case, the constitution made it clear that the Supreme Court shall have an exclusive original jurisdiction to interpret or enforce any provision of this constitution other than any provision of sections 18-33 or section 36 (5),” he pointed out. The defense counsel referred the court to section 4 of 1997 Constitution. He said its trite law that parties cannot consent to jurisdiction when there is no jurisdiction.
Mr. Legenju Vitalisn, the state prosecutor made an objection to the application. He said they have enough facts contained in the case file. He said any competent court would strike out prayer three because no notice of appeal was applied. He said it is a mandatory statue of the law that the notice of appeal must be exhibited. He referred the court to the case of Carnegie Minerals. “The application lacks merit. It’s a calculated tactic of delaying the trial,” said Mr. Vitalisn.
The state prosecutor argued that section 5 of the Constitution cited by the defense was misleading. He said its an argument in vacuum. He said if the court is obliged to grant such an application; they would apply for it to revoke the bail of the first accused, arguing that the matter was set for the accused to enter his defense.
Meanwhile, the trial judge dismissed the application and ordered the first accused to enter his defense.
SOURCE: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
Edited by - kobo on 16 Dec 2013 21:45:13 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 16 Dec 2013 : 21:46:58
|
Former Chief Justice enters defence in Wowo/Jobarteh trial The presidency has never challenged my Acting capacity—Joseph Wowo
Published Monday, December 16, 2013
Joseph Wowo, former Chief Justice of The Gambia yesterday,Thursday 12 December, refuted all the allegations preferred against him by the state, arguing that the president of the republic has never challenged his position as Acting Chief Justice. He made this statement while he was testifying under evidence-in-chief before Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court of the Banjul High Court. In his evidence-in-chief, the first accused introduced himself to the court as Justice Joseph Wowo. He said he lives in Fajara. He said he was once the President of the Court of Appeal, Acting Chief Justice and Chief Justice of The Gambia.
The first accused said he is a trained lawyer and was called to the Nigerian Bar about 22 years ago. He said he has practised in several jurisdictions in Nigeria and The Gambia. He said he started practising in the country from 1998. He explained how he rose from a state counsel to the deputy head of civil division at the Attorney General’s Chambers. The former Chief Justice said he became a High Court judge in 2007.
He mentioned the various oaths undertaken by him from the High Court to the Court of Appeal to abide by the laws of the land. He said he first sat at the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the country in 2011.
The first accused said when he became the Chief Justice, as head of the Supreme Court he used to sit in chambers. He said he became Acting Chief Justice in 2012. He said he was in charged of the judiciary and renewal of contract of judges among other things.
“While I was Acting Chief Justice, I renewed the contract of Justice Emmanuel Nkea, the sitting judge in this trial. Interestingly, one of the charges against me is that I was acting illegally,” said Mr. Joseph Wowo, former Chief Justice of The Gambia. The first accused argued that as an Acting Chief Justice, he was performing all the functions of the Chief Justice while dealing with other arms of the government.
He further argued that he was in office based on the fact that the former Chief Justice [Justice Emmanuel Agim] handed over the judiciary to him.
“There is no law in The Gambia or anywhere in the world where it became the duty of the appointee to ask his appointer whether he has followed all the procedures in appointing him,” he submitted. The former Chief Justice said he further received a document from the Judicial Service Commission [JSC] clearly endorsing his appointment as Acting Chief Justice. He referred the court to the minutes of JSC meeting.
“Till now, no court with competent jurisdiction has challenged my appointment. The presidency has never challenged my acting capacity as Chief Justice,” he pointed out.
At this juncture, he was shown the handing over note from the former Chief Justice [Emmanuel Agim] and it was confirmed by him. He said it is very malicious and conniving to say this exhibit [handing over note] was inventory.
He argued that the said note was signed by former Chief Justice Agim, and was witnessed by Mr. John Belford, the Judicial Secretary. The first accused said before the making of the handing over note, he has never acted as Chief Justice. He admitted that he has overseen the office whenever the former Chief Justice was travelling out of the jurisdiction.
He further admitted that the former Chief Justice was within the jurisdiction when the handing over note was made. He drew the attention of the court to an emergency meeting of the JSC where one of the businesses to be discussed was the notification of his appointment as the Acting Chief Justice. He asserted that the said meeting was chaired by the then outgoing Chief Justice, Emmanuel Agim.
He further mentioned the presence of Justice Gibou S Janneh, Pa Harry Jammeh, former Solicitor General, Dr. Amadou Samba, Mr. Kawsu L Gibba, Mr. Badou S. Conteh and Mr. John Belford who acted as a secretary at the said meeting.
The first accused told the court that at the meeting, the former Chief Justice told JSC of his resignation because he has picked up a job in his native country, Nigeria. He said he told them that he has informed the government and has handed over the authority of the judiciary to him [Wowo]. “The appointment of an Acting Chief Justice is not stated that it should be in writing.
As acting Chief Justice, there are many avenues one can use to reach to the presidency for the quick administration of the judiciary,” said the first accused.
The former Chief Justice argued that he was not the one who wrote the handing over note, but has only appended his signature on Exhibit G. He further argued that the document was signed by a statutory body which was provided by the constitution.
The first accused admits that at the first meeting with Mr. Alieu Barry [PW2], he was invited by the former Attorney General [Jobarteh]. He said he was the President of the Court of Appeal and Acting Chief Justice at the time. “I was at the meeting purely for compensation and not dispute title to land. Before going to the meeting, I read the judgment of the High court and notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal. The issue to be discussed does not affect any party in court,” he said. The former Chief Justice denied directing anybody to do anything. He said he did not bring Mr. Alieu Barry to the said meeting and has not discussed anything with him in private. He said there was no agreement at the meeting.
“The particulars in this count are seriously misleading and a deliberate act to mislead the Gambian people. The issue discussed was not before any court or pending in the Court of Appeal,” he added.
However, he admitted that matters can be settled out of court such as in the case of Alternative Resolution of Conflicts. He argued that there are no laws to set venues to settle matters outside court. He said in this case, he was invited at the residence of the former Attorney General over a matter that was not before the court.
He further argued that no laws existed that set times for parties to meet. He further refuted the allegation on the count of abusing his office or authority. He said sometime in December 2012, as Acting Chief Justice, a staff of the judiciary called Mr. Comma, reported to him that Mrs. Amie Bensouda was collecting data on all pending cases of the High court registry without any written request.
He said he summoned the Principal Registrar of the High Court [PW8] Mrs. Mariama Ceesay who told him Mrs. Bensouda sent someone to collect all data pending at the High court which she refused and referred her to the office of the then Master of the High Court, Mr. Buba Jawo. He said he asked her to call Mr. Jawo who told Mrs. Bensouda to write a request to the Office of the Chief Justice.
The first accused said he was with these people in his office when Mrs. Anna Njie from Mrs. Bensouda’s office came saying they have contract for land matters. He said he told her to write formal request to his office. “I called two staff of the registry that were part of the team collecting the data to bring all the data collected. They said they have torn all the data.
I told them to bring all the torn papers. When I put them together, I realized they were not only collecting land matters but also commercial and divorce matters as well, that raised my suspicion,” said the first accused.
At this juncture, he was shown his cautionary statement which he said he still stand by. He said based on his suspicion, he wrote to the National Intelligence Agency [NIA] to investigate the matter. “The letter to the NIA was for investigation,” he pointed out. The former Chief Justice said the normal procedure was to write to his office. He said sometimes, they mistakenly take letters to the office of the substantial Chief Justice which takes days or week before he would receive and sign them. “I never ever instructed the Principal Registrar to delete any paragraph from her letter. She was transferred because her office was under investigation for administrative convenience and investigation for her not to tamper with evidences,” said the first accused.
The matter was adjourned till Monday, 16th December 2013, for continuation of evidence-in-chief of the former Chief Justice.
SOURCE: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2013 : 05:34:45
|
1. Fresh charges for ex-Justice Minister
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
State prosecution led by Katusabe Tom on Monday filed two fresh charges against the former attorney general and minister of Justice, Lamin AMS Jobarteh at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, presided over by Principal Magistrate Hilary Abeke. The accused person was charged with two criminal offences of abuse of office and destroying evidence....
SOURCE: Daily Observer News & full report
2. ‘Charges against me are malicious and misleading’
Published on Tuesday, 17 December 2013
The former Chief Justice of The Gambia, Joseph Wowo yesterday, Monday 16th December, denied all the allegations preferred against him by the prosecution. He referred to the allegations as malicious and misleading. He made this rebuttal in his evidence in chief before Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court. The former Chief Justice in his evidence, denied all the thirteen counts of criminal offenses preferred against him by the prosecution arguing that the charges were malicious and attempts to mislead the Gambian population.
The first accused denied giving any further instructions after the Judicial Secretary has written the transfer letter of Mrs. Mariama Ceesay [PW8], Principal Registrar of the High Court. He referred the court to the statement he made at a meeting at the residence of the former Minister of Justice [Jobarteh] where he said he was not supposed to be at the said meeting. He said he made the statement because he never knew the parties at the meeting. He added that the issues to be discussed were personal issues between them and were not before any court or pending at the Court of Appeal. Joseph Wowo emphasized that the issue at the said meeting was compensation and that he was invited by the second accused [Jobarteh].
He said the parties never invited him that was why he said he was not supposed to be at the meeting, but was invited by the former Minister of Justice [Jobarteh]. ‘The insinuation on this count is malicious and it is an attempt to mislead the Gambian people,” said Joseph.
The former Chief Justice argued that the prosecution witnesses Mr. Alieu Barry and Mr. Andre Sape Van Klaabergen buttressed in their testimonies before the court that they never met him before the said meeting. He said after reading the judgment at the Brikama High Court, he came to realize the facts on the issue of unjust enrichment.
He said as a judge, it was his candid legal opinion that had it been that the issue of unjust enrichment was argued or pleaded, the court would have considered it. Furthermore, he said if the issue of unjust enrichment was considered, the court may be would have arrived to an alternative decision of compensation.
“It falls with the law which said if an issue is not pleaded; the court cannot accept those facts.
Even if the matter came to the Court of Appeal in 20 years’ time the court cannot accept the facts of unjust enrichment as fresh evidence because the facts were available to the parties at the time of the trial,” said the first accused.
The first accused referred to the particulars in count six as very misleading which he said was an attempt to deceive the Gambian people.
He said Mrs. Mariama Ceesay [PW8] told the court in her testimony that she was the one who referred Mrs. Amie Bensouda to the office of Mr. Buba Jawo, then Acting Master of the High Court. He said she [PW8] further testified that he [Wowo] has summoned her and Mr. Jawo to his office after he became aware of what they were doing.
“She further told the court while I was interviewing both of them on the facts that I was informed that a lawyer was collecting data statistics on pending cases in court, Mrs. Anna Njie from Mrs. Amie Bensouda’s office came to inform me that her chamber was interested in land matters only.
I told her to go and put her request in writing in line with the procedure,” he said. Mr. Wowo said after all the parties left his office; that he called the people gathering the data to bring all what they compiled.
He said he realized they have compiled more than land matters as at the time they were asked to stop. He adduced that they have compiled commercial, land and divorce cases which he said was contrary to the information given by Mrs. Anna Njie from Mrs. Bensouda’s office. He said since they did not make any written request, he had reported the matter to the National Intelligence Agency [NIA] for the matter to be investigated because at the time, he saw it to be a security issue. The former Chief Justice said at the judiciary, from the face of the file, one would know the nature of the case.
He said based on his letter, an investigation was conducted by a panel of investigators. He argued that the panel report did not at anywhere said he gave false information against Mrs. Amie Bensouda, but instead the findings of the report have confirmed that the data collected includes commercial, land and divorce cases.
“The panel findings of the investigation, however, found the acting Chief Justice Wowo’s action of properly reporting the matter to the NIA for possible intervention as correct and timely action that any reasonable person in the position of acting Chief Justice would have done in this circumstance,” said the former Chief Justice.
SOURCE: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 18 Dec 2013 : 20:18:17
|
1.Startling Revelations at Justice Wowo Trial
By Rabiatou Jallow
The Special Criminal Court in Banjul was stunned into silence, shock and disbelief this afternoon 17 December 2013 when Justice Joseph Wowo continued his defence, with shocking revelations about the trial judge Justice Emmanuel Nkea. The disgraced former Chief Justice specifically accused Justice Nkea of corruption and greed for money....
Source: Maafanta.com online News & full report
2. Related Maafanta.com report and allegations by Rabiatou Jallow Justice Emmanuel Nkea is a Plagiarist
3.Former CJ Wowo continues defence testimony
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Joseph Wowo, the former chief justice of the Gambia, Monday continued his defence testimony in the criminal trial involving the state against him and Lamin AMS Jobarteh, the former attorney general and minister of Justice, before the Special Criminal Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Nkea.....
Source: Daily Obserever News & full report |
Edited by - kobo on 18 Dec 2013 20:39:04 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Dec 2013 : 20:05:35
|
“I will not get justice from Justice Nkea,”says Justice Wowo
Published on Thursday, 19 December 2013
by Lamin Sanyang
The former Chief Justice of The Gambia, Joseph Wowo yesterday, 18 December, made strong allegations against the trial judge during his cross examination before Justice Emmanuel Nkea of the Special Criminal Court of the Banjul High Court. “I will not get justice from Justice Emmanuel Nkea because I have a pending querry of corruption against him while I was acting Chief Justice and the same problem continued when I was appointed as Chief Justice. You must answer to the querry of corruption my lord,” said Joseph Wowo, former Chief Justice of The Gambia.
The former Chief Justice said he has a problem with the sitting judge. He adduced that the Director of Public Prosecution at the time has written a petition of corruption against Justice Emmanuel Nkea for receiving bribe from somebody who was standing trial before him.
In the meantime, while cross examining the former Chief Justice, Mr. Legenju Vitalisn, the state prosecutor asked whether he received the request letter from the office of Mrs. Amie Bensouda. He answered in the negative. He said all the correspondences at the time were sent to the office of the substantial Chief Justice. He said while acting as Chief Justice, he was still using his office at the Court of Appeal.
“Mrs. Amie Bensouda [PW7] clearly said in her testimony that the letter was sent to [Awa] secretary of substantial Chief Justice and not to [Ndella] my own secretary,” he said. Joseph Wowo referred the court to his testimony where he said it took days or week for the Judicial Secretary to bring the folder of letters to his office. He said this particular letter was never brought to his notice which he said was the reason why it was not approved by him. He said it was wrong for the state prosecutor to say he has seen the letter from Mrs. Amie Bensouda.
The former Chief Justice argued that the Principal Registrar of High Court [PW8] said in her testimony that he has summoned her and Mr. Buba Jawo, then Acting Master of High Court to his office for the collection data. He said if he had seen the said letter he would not have summoned them.
“At the Court of Appeal, there are 3 judges. There is no way that one judge can determine a case. Mrs. Amie Bensouda has lost a case at the high court and all the three judges at the Court of Appeal have taken decision on her case,” said Joseph Wowo.
Joseph Wowo further stated that he was informed by a staff of the judiciary that the staff of Central Registry were collecting data at the High court without any written request. He said while he was interrogating the Principal Registrar and Acting Master of High Court, Mrs. Anna Njie from Mrs. Bensouda’s chambers, walked into his office to inform him that her office was interested in land matters only. He said he told her to put the request in writing.
The former Chief Justice told the court that after they left his office, he called the people who were collecting the data to bring what they have compiled.
He added that when the said data was brought he found out that they have not only collected land cases but commercial and divorce cases as well. He said in the judiciary one can know a case by looking at the face of the file.
“The report from the panel of investigators has clearly confirmed my letter that Mrs. Bensouda has collected more than land matters,” he pointed out.
At this juncture, he held the letter in his hand and started to read aloud the content of the said report from the panel of investigators.
Quizzed about the trial of Dr. Njogu Bah and others which he said he only read the trial on newspapers but was never called to testify. He further said he has never entered the court while the said case was proceeding.
The former Chief Justice admitted writing a statement at the National Intelligence Agency [NIA]. He was quick to add that not all statements at the [NIA] necessitates court cases. He denied that he never said that the handing over note approved his appointment as acting Chief Justice. He mentioned the emergency meeting of the Judicial Service Commission [JSC] and Minutes of the [JSC] which he said constitute his acting capacity.
At this juncture, he was given two documents which he confirmed as his appointment letter as substantial Chief Justice. He stressed that if his attitude was bad then the government would not have called him back.
The state made an application to tender the said documents which was not objected by the defense. Subsequently, the documents were admitted and marked as exhibits in court. Joseph Wowo said after the JSC emergency meeting, the Judicial Secretary [PW5] ought to have written to him as in the case of Justice Raymond Sock.
He said as acting Chief Justice, he was performing all the duties of the Chief Justice. He said he was the one who approved the leave of Justice Kumba Sillah Camara and another person. “I renew the contract of Justice Emmanuel Nkea, the sitting judge of this case. One of the charges against me is that I was acting illegally.
The sitting judge is a product of my renewal. He should be my witness to prove my validity,” said the former Chief Justice. The former Chief Justice further argued that if he was not the acting Chief Justice he would not have approved the renewal contract of Justice Emmanuel Nkea, he would not have approved the leave of Justice Kumba Sillah Camara and others.
He said it would be extremely wrong to say he was not the acting Chief Justice. “The Gambian judiciary cannot appoint me to discuss an issue that is not before any court in the country,” he pointed out.
Meanwhile, the case was adjourned till today, Thursday 19th December 2013, for continuation of cross examination.
SOURCE: Foroyaa |
Edited by - kobo on 19 Dec 2013 20:07:03 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
