 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11823 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 19:18:36
|
Femi Peters’ Trial Continues
By Baba Sillah
The trial of The United Democratic Party (UDP) Campaign Manager Mr. Femi Peters who is facing two count charges of "control of procession and using of loudspeaker" in public without authority from the Inspector General of Police, resumes on Tuesday 17th November 2009 before Principal Magistrate Ikpala of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court.
Testifying before the court Ebrima Manneh the first principal witness told the court that he lives at Bundung and that he is the officer in charge of the Kanifing Municipality and attached to Serrekunda Police Station. He stated that he recognized the accused person in the dock and could recall the 24th October 2009 between 5pm to 6pm while he was at the Serrekunda Police Station preparing to deploy his men on route lining when the Head of State was about to travel, he was informed that United Democratic Party was holding a political rally at the Ebony junction in Serrekunda Central.
He posited that he was instructed by the police deputy Commissioner Momodou Sowe to find out whether the UDP party has obtained any permission from the Inspector General of Police. Going further, he informed the court that he mobilized officers and upon their arrival at the venue, found that the procession was on and they went straight to the podium where they found one Kebba Fatty, a retired police officer with a tape recorder recording the program. Manneh further stated that he greeted Fatty and explained their mission to him that they came to confirm whether they [UDP] have obtained permit from the IGP before holding a rally.
He further asserted that they were then directed to the accused [Mr. Peters] to confirm this but the accused responded that he was not in a better position to answer that question. He still maintained that while he was talking with the accused, a group of youths emerged towards them shouting and screaming. He stated that the police Chief of Operation Momodou Jawo who lead them to the meeting also asked the accused about their permission letter, but the accused responded that he will only show him the permission letter after the rally.
Further testifying, Manneh informed the court that during that conversation with the accused some youths with others jumped again and came towards where the accused was, stating that they were screaming, shouting and even abusing them. "Some even said that with or without permit ‘we will hold meetings’ because we are all citizens," he stated. Officer Manneh further adduced that Commissioner Jawo advised them to retreat from the crowd which they complied with. He maintained that while they were waiting for the PIU officers to arrive at the scene, they discovered that the crowd has already left the venue. He asserted that up till now, the permission letter is not shown to them. He confirmed that on the 26th October 2009 after the rally, he was informed that the accused has applied for permit but was not issued to him. He also confirmed that on that date, the accused was arrested and taken to police headquarters in Banjul where a statement was obtained from him.
Meanwhile, in his submission before the court, the defense counsel for the accused lawyer Ousainou Darboe submitted that it is the view of the accused person that the Public Order Act, particularly Section 5 as amended by the Public Order Act 2009 are inconsistent with section 25(1) D of the constitution of the Gambia. In so far as it made it mandatory to obtain prior permit for the holding of a political rally by a bona fide registered party or a member thereof.
Darboe further submitted that whether Section 6 of the Public Order Act requiring the accused, a political or any person or a registered political party to obtain a prior written consent from authority to use apparatus for amplification for a sound at a political rally, is not inconsistent with Section 25 (1) D of the constitution of the Gambia 1997. Darboe further submitted that if answers to 1 and 2 are in the positive, whether the said provision of the Public Order Act ought not to be declared invalid and unenforceable.
He referred the court to Section 127 of the constitution of the Gambia to refer the case to the Supreme Court of the Gambia for determination for the stay of proceeding.
But the police prosecutor Inspector Fadera objected to the counsel’s submission stating that the issue here is not constitution but what matters is for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. He further stated that the case is a criminal one before the court to determine. He said the court does not have the power for the stay of proceeding. He referred the court to Section 133 of the constitution of the Gambia.
Fadera submitted that it is the High Court that should issue an order for stay of proceeding. He posited that the case was heard on the 6th November at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court and there was a ruling that this court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Inspector Fadera referred the court to the last ruling by the Banjul Magistrates’ Court to dismiss the application by the defense counsel. The case was then adjourned to 23rd November for ruling.
Source: Daily News
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 20 Dec 2009 : 17:37:27
|
Here is a case precedent which readers may find interesting, and also to help them understand the issues at stake in the Femi Peters'case. See below and enjoy reading.
Thanks
Case Name; A N M Ousainu Darboe & Another v Inspector General of Police & Another
Topic;- Permit for political meetings can not be refused without a justifiable reason
Category; ASSEMBLY - prior authorisation;
ASSOCIATION - meeting;
EQUALITY - discrimination (political opinion);
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION - discrimination;
Tribunal High Court
Country Gambia, The (Africa)
Case Date 16 Mar 1998
Judge(s)Obayan J
Facts;-
The first applicant was the leader and secretary general of a leading opposition political party (the second applicant). The applicants commenced proceedings in the High Court under ss 5 and 37 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the refusal of the respondents to grant them permits to hold political meetings or to use loud speakers, without giving reasons, was inconsistent with s 17(2) of the Constitution and the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression (s 25(a)), freedom of assembly and association (s 25(d) and (e)) and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of political opinion (s 33(3)). Section 17(2) provides that every person in The Gambia, whatever his or her political or other opinion shall be entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual contained in the Chapter, subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest. The applicants also sought an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with or impeding the exercise of their constitutional rights. The High Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was the ‘court of competent jurisdiction’ under s 5(1) since the appellants’ allegations related to the freedoms entrenched in ss 18 to 33 of the Constitution and accordingly it referred the case back to that court. Objecting to the jurisdiction of the High Court, the respondents argued that there was no proper constitutional cause of action before the court under s 5(1)(b) because the applicants’ supporting affidavits, in merely alleging the refusal to issue permits, did not specifically allege that the respondents’ acts were inconsistent with a constitutional provision. They also contended that under s 37(5) of the Constitution, the applicants’ constitutional challenge was premature since it was possible for them to resort to other ‘adequate means of redress’ lawfully available, for example an application for mandamus. The respondents also argued that s 5 of the Public Order Act, which permits the authorities to refuse an application to hold a public procession if satisfied that the procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, is justified under s 25(4) of the Constitution since it is necessary to safeguard national security and public order.
Ruling;-
In allowing the application in part, it was held that:
1. In light of the Court of Appeal’s ruling and the applicant’s supporting affidavits it would be difficult for any reasonable tribunal to say that the applicants have not levelled allegations under s 5(1)(b) of the Constitution.
2. The proviso in s 37(5) of the Constitution does not refer to a complaint brought to the High Court under ss 37(1) and (2) but rather it refers to s 37(4), which relates to proceedings referred to the High Court by a subordinate court. Redress under ss 37(1) and (2) is without prejudice to any other action which is lawfully available (Ennin v The Republic (1976) 1 GLR 326 (Ghana CA) distinguished).
3. When considering an application to hold a public procession under s 5 of the Act, the authorities must apply an objective test in determining whether the procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace. A reason for refusal which complies with the Act must be given.
4. The respondents’ refusal to issue permits to the applicants to hold political meetings without giving any reason justifiable under the Act (or any other existing laws) is an infringement of the applicants’ rights under ss 17(2), 25 and 33(3).
5. Future applications by the applicants to hold and address public meetings must be considered on their merits in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and existing law.
6. It is not necessary to grant an injunction to restrain the respondents since some of the situations complained of have passed.
Cases sited: Willian Steven Banda v Attorney General Case No 92/HP/1005, 4 Sep 1992
Legal Provision: Constitution of the 2nd Republic of The Gambia, ss 5, 17(2), 25(1)(a), 25(1)(d), 25(1)(e), 25(4), 33(3)
Public Order Act Cap 22, s 5
THE END.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 20 Dec 2009 17:43:11 |
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 21 Dec 2009 : 08:42:58
|
Thanks for the citation and for bringing this case to our notice. However, there are few things:
1. Is this opinion still good law in the Gambia. Has it been repealed, reversed, negatively cited elsewhere since 1998?
2. Are the issues raised in Peters V. the IGP the same as this 1998 case, Darboe V. the IGP? It appears that the later (the 1998 case cited above) is purely a constitutional question addressed by the High Court (and appealed), while the former, the Femi Peters case currently in court, involves a criminal question, holding a 'public rally and using Public Address System without a permit' which did not exist in the 1998 precedent.
3. The mention of the writ of Mandamus in the 1998 case is interesting. Don't you think the use of a court order to compel a public official, the IGP in this case to issue a permit or explain denial would equally serve the UDP's purpose? |
Edited by - kayjatta on 21 Dec 2009 08:43:31 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 02:19:27
|
This is only to explain why a request is being made for the matter to be transferred to the High Court as it brings into question the legality of the criminal proceeding at the magistrate court. I can't go any further as there is an ongoing trial but I can confirm that the cited case is the only case of its kind reported from Gambia's legal jurisdiction since the birth of the second republic and therefore still valid and binding on subordinate courts. However, a valid 'stay of proceeding' has to be secured before the constitutional and civil liberties dimension of the case could be heard.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 25 Dec 2009 02:35:19 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 07:20:07
|
Thanks Nyari.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 13:36:19
|
Is the judiciary independent or are the organs of Gambia government working properly & politically effective All levels of society have tasted criminal law and tried under The Gambia Constitution except The President who is supreme to The Laws Of The Gambia. Don't expect a fair trial or count on The Gambia constitution This case is a political game to eliminate any opposition to The President. Things are getting worst for opposition parties to mobilised themselves. There is no civil rights or proper democracy for the Gambia our homeland.
Hopefully another revolution will come soon |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 15:15:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
Thanks Nyari.
My pleasure kay.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
