 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11740 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jan 2007 : 17:41:31
|
AT THE COURT MARTIAL
CAPTAIN DARBOE ALLEGES SEVERE TORTURE
By Bubacarr K. Sowe
Captain Bunja Darboe, the first accused person in the general court martial on the March 21st Coup Plot on Wednesday 3rd of January told the court that he had gone through severe beatings at the National Intelligence Agency (NIA).
Captain Darboe recalled the 25th of March 2006 about 15:00 hours when he was picked up by people in a black uniform, who started slapping and kicking him before taking him to the NIA headquarters in Banjul. He said that prison officers at Mile 2 Central Prisons where he is in custody had to intervene, telling them to kill him outside but not inside the prison campus.
He testified that as he alighted from a vehicle at the NIA, the men in black uniform continued the onslaught on him. According to him, as they were climbing the stairs, he was pushed and he fell down while still hand cuffed. Darboe said he battled to rise amidst continuing beatings and reached the corridor where his leg was kicked and he fell down again, causing him a fracture on his left wrist. Captain Darboe informed the court that he was taken to the minor theatre at the Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital (RVTH) where his fractured wrist was straightened and bandaged. He said that after two weeks it was put on a pop (plaster). He also said he visited the physiotherapy where his hand was treated and he was given a brace and asked to report every Thursday, which was only honoured twice by those keeping him in custody.
Continuing his testimony, Captain Bunja Darboe said that on the 6th of April, 2006, together with Captain Yaya Darboe (second accused), he was taken to the NIA around midnight by men in black uniform. On arrival, he said, he was escorted to the back of the building by Lieutenant Musa Jammeh where they ordered him to kneel down. Darboe alleged that they wore a black plastic bag on his head and tied it, thus he could hardly breath. He said among those he recognised were Sergeant Borra Colley, Corporal Nuha Badjie, W1 Tumbul Tamba and, Lieutenant Alagie Martin and Musa Jammeh who were wearing Camouflage uniform.
Eventually, Captain Darboe said, he tore the plastic bag from his face so that he could breath, but that it was replaced immediately. There, he added, Musa Jammeh asked him which country is sponsoring the coup. He said he replied that he had no knowledge of that. According to him, they resumed beating him with sticks while the bag was worn over his head. “I started crying, till I could not cry anymore. I was lying on the ground and they were just beating me like a dead snake. Lieutenant Musa Jammeh told them to stop. He asked me certain questions again, I was so weak I could not talk properly and could not respond. Then he told them take me outside and finish me,” Darboe narrated. He said he was later dragged to a dark corner and asked by a soldier to say his last prayers since he was going to die. He added that they continued to beat him. He said he was then forced to amend his statement as they wanted it to be in line with what Lieutenant Dem and Captain Seckan told them. He said he did not amend it that day but did so on the 22nd of June, 2006.
Captain Darboe told the court martial that shortly after his arrest on the night of the 22nd of March, 2006, he was whisked from his cell and taken to the NIA. He said as he came out of the car, a soldier kicked him with combat boots on his lower abdomen, resulting in severe pain. He said he was taken to the conference hall where he met one Mr. Hydara, Lieutenant Alagie Martin who were later joined by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Colonel Lang Tombong Tamba and the then Inspector General of Police (IGP) Ousman Sonko. According to him, Colonel Tamba told him that Ex-CDS, Colonel Ndure Cham, is already arrested and he (Cham) had informed them that he (Captain Darboe) was part of the coup. “He said it will be wise if I admit being part of it,” he recalled. He narrated that after refusing to answer Tamba’s question, Lieutenant Alagie Martin came over him, tore his shirt, and threatened to deal with him severely.
At that juncture, he requested to talk to his wife for her to arrange for a lawyer to see him. He said he talked to his wife but did not have access to a lawyer. According to Darboe, Tamba told him that he knew something about the coup, since he was Colonel Cham’s assistant. He denied knowing anything about a coup, though he knows Cham. He also said that he was asked by Mr. Hydara for the names of soldiers who had been visiting Cham’s office between January and March 2006. An instruction to arrest those officers he said was made and some were arrested. Darboe said he was forced to make a statement saying that he was part of it otherwise he would be killed. Captain Darboe said he was asked to recopy his statement of 22nd of March 2006 by Assistant Superintendent Modou Lamin Ceesay. And Darboe said he complied since there was nothing he could do.
CROSS EXAMINATION
In a cross-examination by the prosecutor Emmanuel Fagbenle, he said on the 25th of March, 2006, he wrote a statement at the NIA that was to be read over the radio.
In an earlier testimony, Corporal Bakary Wharf Kujabi, a Prison Medical Officer at the Mile 2 Central Prisons identified three X-ray films and a medical folder of Captain Bunja Darboe. He said that the exhibits were issued to Captain Darboe. Corporal Kujabi said he was present when the films were made. He identified the images, indicating,“ It’s the wrist on the left hand of Darboe.”
In a cross examination with the prosecutor, Kujabi said Darboe complained to him that his hand was paining. Kujabi said after examining it they found that it was swollen and referred him to the RVTH, since he was not a bone specialist.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues
Issue No. 002/2007, 5-7 December, 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11740 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2007 : 12:50:42
|
AT THE COURT MARTIAL
RULING ON CAPTAIN DARBOE'S STATEMENT
By Bubacarr K. Sowe & Abdoulie Dibba
Justice Akomoye Agim, the judge advocate at the General Court Martial on Saturday ruled on the 'Voir Dire' (trial within a trial) of Captain Bunja Darboe, first accused person in the treason trial on the March 21st 2006 coup plot. The judge advocate held that the cautionary statement made by Captain Bunja Darboe was not made under threat or duress. He accordingly admitted his statement in evidence.
In his judgment the judge advocate noted that the legal burden at all times lies on the prosecution which must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He said the trial within a trial arose from two contentions by the defence, that the entire evidence relating to the statement of Captain Bunja Darboe is riddled with contradiction and that it was made out of threat or duress.
He further stated that a conflict is only material when it affects the main issue. Justice Agim described the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as consistent and credible, and therefore clear. He found that Bunja Darboe's statement was made in the presence of an independent witness. He also found that the independent witness was not a member of the police force.
The judge advocate maintained that he had seen no material contradiction between the evidence of the first and second prosecution witnesses. He expressed satisfaction with the testimony of the first witness under cross examination.
According to the judge advocate, what is material is whether the independent witness was present when the statement was being made.
He indicated that even where the fracture on Captain Darboe's left hand could be attributed to his falling down, nothing on record shows that the acts of torture took place in June 2006 and that it took place soon after the statements had been obtained.
Below is a report on submission by counsel in the trial within a trial which took place before the ruling.
Submission by Defence Counsel
In his address to the court martial on the trial within trial regarding the voluntariness of the cautionary statement (TWT1) of the first accused person Captain Bunja Darboe, Defence Counsel Lamin Camara told the court that in the prosecution's drive to prove that TWT1 (the cautionary statement of Captain Bunja Darboe) was taken voluntarily, they (the prosecution) have called two witnesses, Boto Keita and the purported independent witness Babou Loum. Counsel Camara indicated to the court that the burden of proof on the voluntariness of TWT1 (the statement) lies squarely on the prosecution, and they have woefully failed to prove their case.
Counsel Camara posited that the prosecution failed to meet this obligation for the simple reason that the witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable in their evidence and as such, the court should not believe them. He pointed out that these are witnesses who have come to testify on what has transpired before them vis-ŕ-vis the first accused person (Captain Bunja Darboe). He asserted that Boto Keita said in court that the cautionary statement of Captain Bunja Darboe was taken in the presence of the independent witness Babou Loum, but that Babou Loum told the court that he does not know the language Boto Keita and Bunja Darboe were using.
Counsel Camara pointed out that Boto Keita told the court during cross-examination that he (Boto) knew Babou Loum in 2004 when he joined the same office with Sergeant Ndure in Banjul and that Babou Loum lives in Barra, North Bank Division. Camara said Babou Loum told the court that he knew Boto Keita at the NIA when he was called to be an independent witness and that was the first time he met Boto Keita. Counsel Camara pointed out to the court that all the inconsistencies led to one equation and that is none of the witnesses (Boto Keita and Babou Loum) is speaking the truth. Camara said that another inconsistency on the part of the witnesses could be seen as to who and who were present when the (TWT1) the statement was taken. He said Boto Keita told the court that those present were himself, Babou Loum and the accused person (Bunja), while Babou Loum told the court that those present were himself, Boto Keita, the accused person and Sergeant Ndure but that Sergeant Ndure left after the introduction of the independent witness. Counsel Camara asserted that if Boto Keita knew Babou Loum since 2004 as he (Boto) claimed then there would not have been any need for Sergeant Ndure to introduce Babou Loum to Sergeant Boto Keita.
Camara told the court that another inconsistency could be found in Boto Keita's evidence-in -chief. He said Boto told the court in his evidence-in-chief that the independent witness was Tijan Bojang but later changed his mind when he was given TWT1 (the cautionary statement) of the accused person. Camara said the independent witness could not corroborate anything that Boto Keita has said. He recalled that Boto said the accused person wrote everything in the cautionary statement (TWT1) except the name of the independent witness, Babou Loum, Barra Village North Bank Division, while Babou Loum said that the accused person wrote everything in the statement (TWT1) in his presence except his (Babou's) signature.
Counsel Camara told the court that the prosecution witnesses have not proved the voluntariness of the cautionary statement (TWT1) of the accused person. He said when Babou Loum was asked under cross examination why he signed without dating it, he (Babou) said he was only made to sign it. Counsel Camara told the court that the defence called two witnesses to prove that TWT1 (the statement) was not voluntary, but was taken under severe duress when the accused was under custody and denied his constitutional right; a fundamental right, to consult a lawyer. Continuing his address, counsel Camara told the court that TWT2 (the medical report) TWT2A, 2B, 2C ( three X-Ray films) have attested documentarily the physical state of the accused person before TWT1 (the statement) was taken. He said TWT2 (the medical report) TWT2A, 2B and 2c (X-Ray films) re-enforce to corroborate the accused person's testimony of the catalogues of torture prior to TWT1 (Statement) of the accused person. Camara posited that TWT1 which was undated was copied from TWT3 which was dated the 27th of March 2006 and was signed by the independent witness on the 25th of March 2006. He said the accused was compelled to write the statement and that TWT4 and TWT5 (a torn shirt and trousers) have proven the involuntariness of the statement eventhough the burden of proof does not lie on the defence. Counsel Camara concluded by urging the court to reject the statement and confine it to the dustbin.
The Prosecution Address
Addressing the general court martial on Thursday 4th January 2007, DPP Fagbenle said the burden that lies on the prosecution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but that this does not mean to prove beyond any iota of doubt. Regarding TWT1 (the statement) Fagbenle said the prosecution has called two witnesses and the first witness Boto Keita, a Police, officer has narrated the procedure in obtaining the statement and not only that, but also that the statement was obtained in the presence of an independent witness who also testified in court as prosecution number two in the trial within trial. Fagbenle said that in the testimony of Boto Keita, he (Boto) said that the accused person (Bunja) appeared before a panel of which he (Boto) was a member and after which he was asked to obtain a statement from the accused person. Fagbenle posited that TWT1 (the statement) was obtained in May 2006 and that there was no inducement, torture, harassment or intimidation on the accused person. This was said by Boto Keita and even during cross examination, he was unshaken. Fagbenle pointed out that the accused person did testify that there was no torture, inducement, harassment or promise of any kind on May 2006 under cross examination. Fagbenle told the court that during his testimony, the accused person stated that on the 6th of June he did not make any statement and that on the 22nd of June 2006 he (the accused) had no disagreement with any of the investigation team. Fagbenle said that the accused person has indicated that he has not included anything new on TWT1 on the 22nd of June 2006 and that he had no quarrel with anybody in the investigation team. Fagbenle then indicated that "If it is true as submitted by the prosecution that the statement was taken in May 2006, then from the record before the court, there is no evidence of torture, inducement, harassment, or intimidation. "Assuming that the statement (TWT1) was taken on the 22nd of June, 2006, there is no evidence before the court that there was torture, intimidation harassment or inducement." Fagbenle pointed out that between 25th March 2006 the day when the accused person alleged that his left wrist was broken and 22nd June 2006 when the TWT1 (the statement) was taken was a long period of time. He pointed out that the testimonies of Boto Keita and Babou Loum were consistent when TWT1was taken. "There is no contrary evidence before this court that the independent witness was not present when Boto Keita was taking TWT1 (the statement)."
Fagbenle asserted that the evidence before the court is consistent and overwhelming and is worth believing as compared to the evidence of the accused person. Going further, Fagbenle said that the last paragraphs of TWT1 was crossed and is not in TWT3 which is an indication that the accused person has an unfettered control over the statement. He indicated that Boto Keita, by the nature of his job, is not expected to be known by anybody he has known whether at the same level or at all. He said the submission of the defence that Boto said he knew Babou since 2004 and that Babou said he knew Boto when they met at the NIA does not hold water. He said the fact that Boto and Babou did not know each other at the same time, does not amount to contradiction. Fagbenle indicated that the accused person was taken to hospital on the 4th of April, the last one was on the 21st of April 2006 and that he said he suffered the broken wrist on the 25th of March. He said this record is in agreement with the evidence of Bakary Kujabi (Wharf). Fagbenle said that the medical report and the testimony of Wharf are consistent, that the injury was on the 2nd of April. "The evidence of the accused person that he broke his wrist on the 25th of March 2006 at the NIA office is not supported by the medical report which was produced by the defence," Fagbenle said. He continued to say that the logical conclusion is that the accused person did not suffer any broken wrist at the NIA as alleged. He also submitted that the claim that the pain was a psychological damage which may affect any statement obtained thereafter cannot stand. Fagbenle concluded by saying that the statement was not obtained by way of any psychological torture or whatever. At this point the case was adjourned till on Friday 5th January 2007 for ruling.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 003/2007, 8-9 January, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11740 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2007 : 12:50:42
|
AT THE COURT MARTIAL
RULING ON CAPTAIN DARBOE'S STATEMENT
By Bubacarr K. Sowe & Abdoulie Dibba
Justice Akomoye Agim, the judge advocate at the General Court Martial on Saturday ruled on the 'Voir Dire' (trial within a trial) of Captain Bunja Darboe, first accused person in the treason trial on the March 21st 2006 coup plot. The judge advocate held that the cautionary statement made by Captain Bunja Darboe was not made under threat or duress. He accordingly admitted his statement in evidence.
In his judgment the judge advocate noted that the legal burden at all times lies on the prosecution which must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He said the trial within a trial arose from two contentions by the defence, that the entire evidence relating to the statement of Captain Bunja Darboe is riddled with contradiction and that it was made out of threat or duress.
He further stated that a conflict is only material when it affects the main issue. Justice Agim described the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as consistent and credible, and therefore clear. He found that Bunja Darboe's statement was made in the presence of an independent witness. He also found that the independent witness was not a member of the police force.
The judge advocate maintained that he had seen no material contradiction between the evidence of the first and second prosecution witnesses. He expressed satisfaction with the testimony of the first witness under cross examination.
According to the judge advocate, what is material is whether the independent witness was present when the statement was being made.
He indicated that even where the fracture on Captain Darboe's left hand could be attributed to his falling down, nothing on record shows that the acts of torture took place in June 2006 and that it took place soon after the statements had been obtained.
Below is a report on submission by counsel in the trial within a trial which took place before the ruling.
Submission by Defence Counsel
In his address to the court martial on the trial within trial regarding the voluntariness of the cautionary statement (TWT1) of the first accused person Captain Bunja Darboe, Defence Counsel Lamin Camara told the court that in the prosecution's drive to prove that TWT1 (the cautionary statement of Captain Bunja Darboe) was taken voluntarily, they (the prosecution) have called two witnesses, Boto Keita and the purported independent witness Babou Loum. Counsel Camara indicated to the court that the burden of proof on the voluntariness of TWT1 (the statement) lies squarely on the prosecution, and they have woefully failed to prove their case.
Counsel Camara posited that the prosecution failed to meet this obligation for the simple reason that the witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable in their evidence and as such, the court should not believe them. He pointed out that these are witnesses who have come to testify on what has transpired before them vis-ŕ-vis the first accused person (Captain Bunja Darboe). He asserted that Boto Keita said in court that the cautionary statement of Captain Bunja Darboe was taken in the presence of the independent witness Babou Loum, but that Babou Loum told the court that he does not know the language Boto Keita and Bunja Darboe were using.
Counsel Camara pointed out that Boto Keita told the court during cross-examination that he (Boto) knew Babou Loum in 2004 when he joined the same office with Sergeant Ndure in Banjul and that Babou Loum lives in Barra, North Bank Division. Camara said Babou Loum told the court that he knew Boto Keita at the NIA when he was called to be an independent witness and that was the first time he met Boto Keita. Counsel Camara pointed out to the court that all the inconsistencies led to one equation and that is none of the witnesses (Boto Keita and Babou Loum) is speaking the truth. Camara said that another inconsistency on the part of the witnesses could be seen as to who and who were present when the (TWT1) the statement was taken. He said Boto Keita told the court that those present were himself, Babou Loum and the accused person (Bunja), while Babou Loum told the court that those present were himself, Boto Keita, the accused person and Sergeant Ndure but that Sergeant Ndure left after the introduction of the independent witness. Counsel Camara asserted that if Boto Keita knew Babou Loum since 2004 as he (Boto) claimed then there would not have been any need for Sergeant Ndure to introduce Babou Loum to Sergeant Boto Keita.
Camara told the court that another inconsistency could be found in Boto Keita's evidence-in -chief. He said Boto told the court in his evidence-in-chief that the independent witness was Tijan Bojang but later changed his mind when he was given TWT1 (the cautionary statement) of the accused person. Camara said the independent witness could not corroborate anything that Boto Keita has said. He recalled that Boto said the accused person wrote everything in the cautionary statement (TWT1) except the name of the independent witness, Babou Loum, Barra Village North Bank Division, while Babou Loum said that the accused person wrote everything in the statement (TWT1) in his presence except his (Babou's) signature.
Counsel Camara told the court that the prosecution witnesses have not proved the voluntariness of the cautionary statement (TWT1) of the accused person. He said when Babou Loum was asked under cross examination why he signed without dating it, he (Babou) said he was only made to sign it. Counsel Camara told the court that the defence called two witnesses to prove that TWT1 (the statement) was not voluntary, but was taken under severe duress when the accused was under custody and denied his constitutional right; a fundamental right, to consult a lawyer. Continuing his address, counsel Camara told the court that TWT2 (the medical report) TWT2A, 2B, 2C ( three X-Ray films) have attested documentarily the physical state of the accused person before TWT1 (the statement) was taken. He said TWT2 (the medical report) TWT2A, 2B and 2c (X-Ray films) re-enforce to corroborate the accused person's testimony of the catalogues of torture prior to TWT1 (Statement) of the accused person. Camara posited that TWT1 which was undated was copied from TWT3 which was dated the 27th of March 2006 and was signed by the independent witness on the 25th of March 2006. He said the accused was compelled to write the statement and that TWT4 and TWT5 (a torn shirt and trousers) have proven the involuntariness of the statement eventhough the burden of proof does not lie on the defence. Counsel Camara concluded by urging the court to reject the statement and confine it to the dustbin.
The Prosecution Address
Addressing the general court martial on Thursday 4th January 2007, DPP Fagbenle said the burden that lies on the prosecution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but that this does not mean to prove beyond any iota of doubt. Regarding TWT1 (the statement) Fagbenle said the prosecution has called two witnesses and the first witness Boto Keita, a Police, officer has narrated the procedure in obtaining the statement and not only that, but also that the statement was obtained in the presence of an independent witness who also testified in court as prosecution number two in the trial within trial. Fagbenle said that in the testimony of Boto Keita, he (Boto) said that the accused person (Bunja) appeared before a panel of which he (Boto) was a member and after which he was asked to obtain a statement from the accused person. Fagbenle posited that TWT1 (the statement) was obtained in May 2006 and that there was no inducement, torture, harassment or intimidation on the accused person. This was said by Boto Keita and even during cross examination, he was unshaken. Fagbenle pointed out that the accused person did testify that there was no torture, inducement, harassment or promise of any kind on May 2006 under cross examination. Fagbenle told the court that during his testimony, the accused person stated that on the 6th of June he did not make any statement and that on the 22nd of June 2006 he (the accused) had no disagreement with any of the investigation team. Fagbenle said that the accused person has indicated that he has not included anything new on TWT1 on the 22nd of June 2006 and that he had no quarrel with anybody in the investigation team. Fagbenle then indicated that "If it is true as submitted by the prosecution that the statement was taken in May 2006, then from the record before the court, there is no evidence of torture, inducement, harassment, or intimidation. "Assuming that the statement (TWT1) was taken on the 22nd of June, 2006, there is no evidence before the court that there was torture, intimidation harassment or inducement." Fagbenle pointed out that between 25th March 2006 the day when the accused person alleged that his left wrist was broken and 22nd June 2006 when the TWT1 (the statement) was taken was a long period of time. He pointed out that the testimonies of Boto Keita and Babou Loum were consistent when TWT1was taken. "There is no contrary evidence before this court that the independent witness was not present when Boto Keita was taking TWT1 (the statement)."
Fagbenle asserted that the evidence before the court is consistent and overwhelming and is worth believing as compared to the evidence of the accused person. Going further, Fagbenle said that the last paragraphs of TWT1 was crossed and is not in TWT3 which is an indication that the accused person has an unfettered control over the statement. He indicated that Boto Keita, by the nature of his job, is not expected to be known by anybody he has known whether at the same level or at all. He said the submission of the defence that Boto said he knew Babou since 2004 and that Babou said he knew Boto when they met at the NIA does not hold water. He said the fact that Boto and Babou did not know each other at the same time, does not amount to contradiction. Fagbenle indicated that the accused person was taken to hospital on the 4th of April, the last one was on the 21st of April 2006 and that he said he suffered the broken wrist on the 25th of March. He said this record is in agreement with the evidence of Bakary Kujabi (Wharf). Fagbenle said that the medical report and the testimony of Wharf are consistent, that the injury was on the 2nd of April. "The evidence of the accused person that he broke his wrist on the 25th of March 2006 at the NIA office is not supported by the medical report which was produced by the defence," Fagbenle said. He continued to say that the logical conclusion is that the accused person did not suffer any broken wrist at the NIA as alleged. He also submitted that the claim that the pain was a psychological damage which may affect any statement obtained thereafter cannot stand. Fagbenle concluded by saying that the statement was not obtained by way of any psychological torture or whatever. At this point the case was adjourned till on Friday 5th January 2007 for ruling.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 003/2007, 8-9 January, 2007 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
