 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11786 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Mar 2010 : 19:47:26
|
Burning Issues : General Tamba, Others Plead Not Guilty Colonel Ndure Cham and Omar Camara nowhere to be found
By Fabakary B. Ceesay
22-03-10
On Friday 19th March, former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Lieutenant General Lang Tombong Tamba, Brigadier General Omar Bun Mbye, Colonel (Major) Lamin Bo Badjie, Lieutenant Colonel Kawsu Camara, former Deputy Inspector General of Police, Modou Gaye, Gibril Ngorr Secka, Abdoulie (Lie) Joof and Yousef Ezziden, alias Rambo all pleaded not guilty to the three treasonable charges preferred against them by the State. The eight men appeared at the Banjul High Court before Justice Emmanuel Amadi. Justice Amadi ruled that he would hear the trial on a daily basis from Monday to Friday.
When the case was called in a crowded court room, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Richard N. Chenge and Mr. Mikahive Abdullah appeared for the State. Lawyer Awa Sisay Sabally announced her representation for Mr. Yousef Ezziden. Lawyer Sisay Sabally told the court that she only saw her client that very morning. Lawyer Sheriff M. Tambedou announced his representation of Mr. Abdoulie Joof.
DPP Chenge said the charges should be read out and plea taken, but that hearing could commence on Monday 22 March (today). He said the offences charged are capital offences, and argued that the accused could take their plea even in the absence of a defence counsel. The DPP said by Monday (today) some of the accused persons may secure the services of a lawyer to defend them and that if they could not secure counsels by themselves the State will do so for them.
Defence Counsel Tambedou told the Court that he was rightly informed by the accused persons that they were only served with the indictment less them twenty four hours ago. Mr Tambedou said the accused persons could not have enough time to access their families to consult lawyers for them.
Justice Amadi disagreed with Tambedou and ruled that he had to hear from the accused persons themselves and not from counsel. He added that the counsel could only speak for his client and not others.
General Tamba, who was not represented by a counsel, told the Court that he wanted to get a lawyer by himself and not from the State as stated by the DPP. All the other six accused men concurred to secure their own defence lawyers by themselves. DPP Chenge asked the court to order the accused persons to take their plea to the charges, adding that plea is personal. He said one could only take a plea of not guilty or guilty without a lawyer, but that a trial could not proceed without a defence counsel in a capital offence.
Lawyer Tambedou cited section 24 subsection (3) (c) of the 1997 Constitution. He said the law requires the accused persons to be given sufficient time to prepare for their defence and that such preparation shall include, without imposing any limitations, getting a legal adviser before plea can be taken. “I submit that it will be prudent for the court to allow the accused persons in their preparation of their defence be allowed to access a counsel before plea can be taken,” he told the court.
Lawyer Hawa Sisay Sabally rose up and argued that the situation does not affect her client, but that she cannot sit by and allow the DPP say that plea can be taken in a capital offence without a counsel.
She indicated that there is “prosecution and persecution”, adding that the Gambian law is very clear on this point. Lawyer Sisay Sabally also added that the DPP seems to have an adjusted interest in plea taking before accused persons can secure a counsel.
At this point, DPP Chenge rose up and made an application under section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). He informed the Court that the state wishes to remove the names of Ndure Cham and Omar Baru Camara from the charge sheet. He said the two men cannot be tried in absentia as they are not at hand, but at large and taking refuge somewhere. He said they are trying to locate and bring them to justice.
The presiding judge granted the application and removed the names of Ndure Cham and Omar Camara from the charge sheet.
At this stage, the court clerk read out the charge sheet as thus: Count one, “Conspiracy to commit Treason,” contrary to section 35 (1) (g) of the Criminal Code. The particulars of offence state that Lieutenant General Lang Tombong Tamba, Brigadier General Omar Bun Mbye, Colonel Lamin Bo Badjie, Lieutenant Colonel Kawsu Camara, Ex-Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) Modou Gaye, Gibril Ngorr Secka, Abdoulie Joof and Yousef Ezziden, with others at Large on diverse dates between 1st January and 19th December 2009, at Bijilo and other places, conspired to stage a coup d’etat and overthrow the democratically elected government of President Yaya Jammeh.” All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge.
However, Lamin Bo Badjie told the court that he is not a Colonel but a Major. He said. “I have never, never conspired with anybody to do anything and I’m not guilty of any thing.”
DPP Chenge rose and told Badjie that he has been promoted by then.
Mr. Yousef Ezziden said, “I think I am dreaming. I don’t know what I’m doing here. I’m not guilty.”
As the court clerk continued to read out Court two, General Tamba argued that he could not understand the differences between counts one and two as they both stated the same thing.
Justice Amadi told him that all counts fall under the same section but different sub-sections.
Count two was read as thus; “Treason”, contrary to section 35 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code. The particulars of offence stated that the eight aforesaid men and others at large on diverse dates between 1st January and 19th December 2009, procured arms and ammunition, equipment and mercenaries from Guinea Conakry and other places to stage a coup d’etat and overthrow the government of president Yaya Jammeh. They all pleaded not guilty.
Count three reads “Treason,” contrary to section 35 (1) (d) of the Criminal Code. The particulars of offence stated that the eight accused men and others at large on diverse dates between 1st January and 19th December 2009, procured arms and ammunition, equipment and mercenaries from Guinea Conakry and other places to stage a coup d’etat and overthrow the government of President Yaya Jammeh. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty.
DPP Chenge made an application for the Court to remand all the accused persons in custody, pending the outcome of the trial.
Lawyer Awa Sisay Sabally said the offences charged are not bailable and tantamount to a death sentence or life imprisonment. She added that the Constitution states that the accused are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. She told the court that her client, Ezziden, is very ill. She begged the Court to consider a balancing point in the case from both sides. She asked the court to remand Mr. Ezziden in his own home in the custody of his family and that the family would take the responsibility for all the expenses involved in that. As the lawyer was explaining the medical conditions of Mr. Ezziden, her client choked in court and demanded water to be given to him. Lawyer Sisay Sabally sent for water. When the water was brought in the prison Sergeant insisted that for security and safety reasons the counsel should first drink the water before her client, Mr. Ezziden, could drink it.
However, before lawyer Sisay Sabally finished with her application relating to the medical conditions of her client, Justice Amadi made a ruling that the defence counsel should write to the court and serve the DPP with her application. He added that he is sure that Mr. Ezziden would not die before Monday.
General Tamba told the Court that they have been in detention for months without having access to their families and a legal counsel. Tamba argued that they would not be able to get a lawyer if their families are not allowed access to them.
Justice Amadi asked the prison Sergeant whether the statement from Tamba is the truth. The Sergeant said that is an administrative matter which he has no control over, adding that the case is a security matter. He asked the court to write an order to the Prison Director about the issue.
General Tamba again argued that remanded accused persons shall have access to visitors and can be up to three visitors at a go adding that the state should not treat their case as a special one. He argued that even the DPP knew that they were not allowed access to their families. He said they told the DPP about that when they were taken to his office before appearing in Court.
Justice Amadi ruled that lawyers and visitors should be allowed to the accused persons based on prison regulations. He also urged both lawyers Tambedou and Sisay Sabally to defend all the accused persons to speed their trial. He argued that having too many lawyers to be involved in the case will only prolong the trial and that he would like to expedite the case within the period of two to three months.
Justice Amadi therefore adjourned the case till today, Monday, 22 March, 2010.
As the accused persons were being escorted out of the court room, accused number eight, Yousef Ezziden, nearly collapsed on the ground, but was held by the arm and assisted to walk by a prison officer. The accused persons were led to a waiting van that whisked them to Mile 2 Central Prison under heavy security escort by prison wardens AND personnel from the NIA and Police Intervention Unit (PIU), who were armed with AK47 rifles and anti riot gears i.e. tear gas, batons, shields and helmets. The court premises witnessed the heavy presence of armed security officers. Some relatives and onlookers, who were not allowed inside the premises, crowded at the main gate of the Banjul High Court on Independence Drive waiting to have a glimpse of the accused persons. As they were being driven away to their place of detention, some women were seen crying and wailing.
Source: Foroyaa Online
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2010 : 00:33:53
|
| This trial seems to be headed to a very interesting unfoldings. With the State so confident, that it is bringing the whole show to the public glare, with GRTS at the forefront and equally confident and upbeat defendants, i can envision a thrilling climax. What worries me however, is; does the TV cameras and all the circus that follows them not in any way infringe on the rights of the defendants? Will the presence of TV cameras not have a prejudicial effect on this case and is it within the defendants' right to ask for their banishment from court proceedings? Any lawyers out there? |
 |
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2010 : 00:37:26
|
Shaka,
This is the new version of Transparency just in case you miss something. I know you are not missing. Your point noted |
Karamba |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2010 : 01:26:12
|
| Transparency indeed, Karamba. I am watching and even go to sleep with my eyes wide open like the Sheikh, so that i would not miss a heart beat of this drama. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2010 : 06:31:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
This trial seems to be headed to a very interesting unfoldings. With the State so confident, that it is bringing the whole show to the public glare, with GRTS at the forefront and equally confident and upbeat defendants, i can envision a thrilling climax. What worries me however, is; does the TV cameras and all the circus that follows them not in any way infringe on the rights of the defendants? Will the presence of TV cameras not have a prejudicial effect on this case and is it within the defendants' right to ask for their banishment from court proceedings? Any lawyers out there?
This is not a jury trial. Therefore the influence of public opinion on the trier of both fact and law, the judge will be limited I suspect. However, it could be appropriate for the judge or the defence attorneys to caution GRTS and the Daily Observer from publishing or broadcasting prejudicial statements about the defendants.
But overall, I think it is in the interest of these defendants that their trial is conducted in the open civilian court instead of a military tribunal or in-camera. These, except Mr. Laye Joof (whose kids were my childhood friends...) and Mr. Azziden, are military officers and they would normally have been tried in military court with relaxed rules of evidence and quickly convicted. Open trial is the only way they can be seen to receive fair trial.
I tend to feel that the Gambian public opinion will be in favor of the defendants, nevertheless.
It appears to me that the defendants are very assertive and bold, therefore they should mount a vigorous defence before the judge and the public since the public is watching. They should also maintain a positive attitude towards the President in their defence who might eventually decide to release them and allow them (as they say it in the Gambia) "bouce back" into leadership positions again. Wonders never cease in today's Gambia.
Kayjatta is not an atty. and has no legal qualifications. Anything he says here is just an opinion... |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2010 : 01:59:02
|
| Great legal argument you have raised there Kay. It is no use ducking the responsibility of the Bantaba Attorney General, you have already been unanimously endorsed for that role, like it or not. If you continue to protest with your disclaimers we will be forced to tie up to the Bantaba tree, just to make sure you are always on duty and readily handy when we need you. That said, the point i tried to make however, was not about open proceedings or trials in-camera. The media is ofcourse welcome to record and report proceedengs as they happen. My question was premised on the possible infringement of the defendants' rights due to the probable loss of composure, confidence and other unnecessary distractions posed by TV cameras and the circus they attract. In a nutshell a TV camera has the potential to hinder freedom of expression. Let's look at it another way. You are in a NGENTEE(i know you just love those ceremonies) with friends and family, the ambiance in your corner is bubbly, everyone is laughing and cracking jokes. Then the video man comes along with his camera. Suddenly the whole group freezes. Even the loudest person within the lot suddenly leans back, fold their arms and bows his head or stares blank, away from the camera. If pushed pushed to say something about the occasion by the camera man, everyone seems to have lost their voice. I know they don't dobegnees or pankets and kola nuts in court but this an example of the possible distractions and prejudicial effects a TV camera might have in a court trial. It can potentially knock away focus and clear thinking. And it was not hard to notice the unease of the defendants with the cameras on their faces in the first day of trial, not to mention the trailing wires on the floor, dragged along by the camera men and one of them nearly knocking down defence attorney Mrs Ceesay-Sabally. This is my point Kay. Courts aught to be free from distractions as much as possible. |
Edited by - shaka on 24 Mar 2010 02:02:48 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2010 : 06:36:03
|
Well then spectattors from the public and the relatives of the defendants who sometimes weep in court should be barred along with reporters and their cameras. The presence of the public during trials could also be intimidating and embarassing to the once powerful and respected and therefore arguably diminish their ability to vigorously defend themselves... Remember the trial of Saddam Hussein in the glare of TV cameras?
However, this is the deal. Before a suspect is charged with a crime, he or she may still enjoy the protection of his or privacy; but after(criminal) charges are filed a good deal of his/her freedoms and privacy become lost. Therefore, I believe that unless the judge finds that public trial with the full glare of tv cameras will substantially compromise fair trial, these defendants may not have any rights to protection from reporters and their cameras who have a constitutional duty to inform the public on all matters relevant to public interest. That constitutional duty outweighs any vague considerations of defendants emotions and temperaments...
Besides defense attorneys should be able to coach and manage such unwilling and camera-shy defendants...
I do understand the point you are making though; and thanks for the compliment...
Kayjatta is not an atty and has no legal qualifications. Anything he says or writes here or elsewhere is nothing but personal opinion and does not constitute legal advice. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 24 Mar 2010 06:42:30 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2010 : 01:44:07
|
If you are telling me that the trial of Saddam Hussein was without prejudice, then i will have to reconsider my endorsement of you as the Bantaba AG. The trial of Saddam Hussein is the perfect example of everything bad about televised trials. The presence of the TV circus had completely prejudiced that trial in that instead of defending himslef, Saddam took advantage of the television cameras to wage a political war against his enemies and the occupying forces. That trial was a farce. The man was hanged based on a very prejudiced trial and there was nothing the occupying forces and their 'democracy' did about. Talk about the hypocrisy of democracy. Coming to your previous point about spectators and family members, if the conduct of court hinges around the code of 'silence in court' how does spectators and family members get to "weep in court" durring proceeedings without restraint. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? People can wail and weep after the day's proceedings or in between recesses not durring proceedins.
"That constitutional duty outweighs any vague considerations of defendants emotions and temperaments..." Kay
I am not talking about emotions, temperaments and what not. I am talking about 'infringement of rights'. Kaput!!! These law students know how to confuse people. Jeez!!
Here is some reference material that my interest you:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cameras+in+Court
Allow me to quote what a US Supreme Court Justice told Congress in one of two testimonies. "Cameras will come in over my dead body"
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 25 Mar 2010 : 06:55:51
|
The title of "Bantaba AG" doesn't fit me. I am not qualified for it. But thanks... . I am not arguing that Saddam's trial was prejudicial or not. I used the example of his trial only to show that public trial with the full glare of cameras could be intimidating and embarrassing for the once powerful and respected, thereby prompting a possible argument that they are denied a fair trial.
However, whether trials covered live by TV cameras deny fair trial is a decision to be made by the judge, and the burden of proof often rests on the defendant. In history, different judges have arrived at different conclusions about the role of TVs in courts.
In the United States, there has been a lot of concern about the influence of the electronic media (TV, particularly)on the outcome of trials, partly because U.S. practices a jury trial system and the extreme sensationalization characteristic of many TV coverage could taint the jury pool resulting in an unfair conviction of the defendant. However, judges across the U.S. have approached this argument in conflicting ways; but the general trend since the mid 1990s is to allow more televised coverage of court proceedings.
Having said that, Shaka I am surprised:
1. that the Gambia govt. wants to try General Tamba and his military conspirators in a civilian court under the TV cameras. When the defense starts its case and calls (subpoenas) witnesses, there is a real risk that issues of sensitive national security will be exposed. Is the state ready for that?
2. that Tamba, who was initially sacked for financial misappropriation is not charged for anything like that at all...
3. that the timeline of this coup plot is still murky (probably only to me). Did Ndure Cham (on the run since 2006 foiled coup) and Kukoi sneak back and forth into the Gambia to meet with Gen. Tamba without the Gambian security aware? When did that happen?
4. that Gen. Tamba, a supposed seasoned officer with above average intelligence awareness recruit and assign a 20 year old Mr. Marreh, a student and lay person with survellance of military installations, with instructions to misrepresent an intelligent officer from the President's office without ID...
5. that the State's primary witness, Mr. Marreh may be a person of dubious character whose credibility will now be attacked by the defense attorneys. Reports are coming out that alleges Marreh's involvements in theft (from Tamba and his wife) and bank fraud. Are these true?
I can't wait to see this trial unfold... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 25 Mar 2010 08:09:52 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 02:50:16
|
| Kay there is something that intrigues me about the Koukoie-LTT connection. I will share it with you when i can dig it up from the internet. It's something to do with Koukoie reporting the arrest and extradition of LTT'S bodyguard by Bissau or something like that. I would love to read that article again. I can't remember where i had read it. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 05:38:01
|
| Okay, I look forward to it... |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 11:08:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
The title of "Bantaba AG" doesn't fit me. I am not qualified for it. But thanks.... I am not arguing that Saddam's trial was prejudicial or not. I used the example of his trial only to show that public trial with the full glare of cameras could be intimidating and embarrassing for the once powerful and respected, thereby prompting a possible argument that they are denied a fair trial.
However, whether trials covered live by TV cameras deny fair trial is a decision to be made by the judge, and the burden of proof often rests on the defendant. In history, different judges have arrived at different conclusions about the role of TVs in courts.
In the United States, there has been a lot of concern about the influence of the electronic media (TV, particularly)on the outcome of trials, partly because U.S. practices a jury trial system and the extreme sensationalization characteristic of many TV coverage could taint the jury pool resulting in an unfair conviction of the defendant. However, judges across the U.S. have approached this argument in conflicting ways; but the general trend since the mid 1990s is to allow more televised coverage of court proceedings.
Kay, in all commonwealth common law jurisdictions [former british colonies], live or televised coverage of criminal proceedings is considered an affront to defendants' right to a fair hearing because it tends to bring public sentiment to bear influence on the final outcome.
The state must choose only one court; either the court of public opinion or the court of law. Otherwise, there is a grave risk that the defendants' right to a fair trial will be compromised.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 11:44:26
|
The American Bar Association (ABA) does not seem to agree with your statement above. Certainly the Florida experiment in the 1980s diagrees also.
The live tv coverage of court procedings by CNN, E!, and to some extent C Span appears to bring into clash the reporters' First Amendment Right (free speech) and the defendants' Sixth Amendment Right (fair trial).Despite the Jury system in the U.S. both the Florida and the ABA study did not find any significant influence on the outcome of trials by tv coverage.However, most State courts in the U.S. significantly allow televised court procedings; although the Supreme Court still restricts despite growing pressure from the public and the senate for it to open up more...
"To some, public scrutiny is an important asset. Zacarias Moussaoui, the first person charged with the terrorist attacks on September 11, asked for his trial to be televised despite a ban on cameras in federal courtrooms. In requesting the cameras, his goal was to put "the American criminal justice system …on display for the entire world." The American Bar Association (ABA).
|
Edited by - kayjatta on 26 Mar 2010 12:05:58 |
|
|
|
Kitabul Arerr
Gambia
645 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 21:36:55
|
Treason Trial, Alzheimer's Disease & Q&A
Q - Mr. Marreh you told the court that you were born in 1988?
A - Yes.
Q - Now, how old are you?
A - I don't know.
Q - You remember telling this court that you are 20 years, but could not remember the date you were born?
A - Yes.
Q - Do you have a birth certificate?
A - No...........................................................lol!
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/in-treason-trial
|
The New Gambia - Stronger Together! |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 26 Mar 2010 : 23:08:33
|
Kitabul Arerr,
Don't forget to add another new face.......
that of the Star Witness.....or.... |
Karamba |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
