 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 18:26:10
|
This is a turn up for the book,have a read,could this have anything to do with this recent meeting ?
http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/banjul-mandinka-society-meets-president-jammeh
I do not know the tribal make up of the discharged defendants so perhaps there is no link ,the two events followed one after the other very closely,any comments?
http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/justice-at-work
Justice at work
Africa » Gambia
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Editorial
It is indeed pleasant news that the state after considering all options have dropped charges against the 45 alleged Babylon attackers. The development from a legal perspective shows that justice is at work in the country and the humanistic values upon which the country is built are being protected at all cost. Of course, there is no doubt the arsonists had acted wrongly; what they did is unacceptable, but the action of the state is in-line with the dictates of natural justice, fair play and humanity. It is also obvious that the incarceration of the arsonists while the case was ongoing made them to understand that such actions cannot be tolerated in this country.
Just as the Solicitor General himself remarked during his submission for the accused persons to be discharged, that "The Gambia is known as a peaceful and stable country where people co-exist peacefully without trouble. The government of The Gambia is determined to ensure the peaceful co-existence of people in the country without compromise. Therefore, it is my submission that regardless of the gravity of the offence committed in the country, people must learn to follow the due process of the law and they must not take the law into their own hands. What happened in this case is unfortunate, it's an abominable act, which is foreign to the Gambian society and the crime is un-heard of and I hope it will never be repeated. The end of justice would be better served if the both parties in the case reconcile and are made to live in peace".
The fundamental conclusion to be drawn from the submission of the Solicitor General is that in every human society, there exists principles by which the people should operate, conducting themselves in-line with some specific moral norms and values and the role of the state is to administer justice among people who manage their own affairs. It further clearly shows that every individual has some form of freedom, but that freedom must not encroach upon the freedom of others. One's right to survival must not encroach upon another person's right to security. The move of the state therefore is to ensure that the end of justice is served by letting the parties in the case realise their mistakes and learn to co-exist in peace and harmony.
We hope the acquitted persons would learn from their mistakes and endeavour to be committing themselves to the dictates of the constitution from now on. They have to be cognizant of the fact that a peaceful society is not ordained by God; it is created by people with conscience. As the government continues to provide the enabling environment for the citizens, to serve as the ultimate guardians of their own freedom, and to forge their own path towards the recognition of their inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of humanity, we as citizens should continue to cement our utmost loyalty to the state. If democracy is to work, we must not only participate and exercise our rights, but also observe certain principles and rules of democratic conduct such as respecting the law and rejecting violence.
Once again we commend the state for standing by the principles of justice.
Author: Daily Observer
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 14 Oct 2010 18:31:52 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 19:56:00
|
But does the Solicitor-General really need to make these remarks? It is the reserved right of the Attorney-General in any jurisdiction to sanction prosecution or the discontinuation of any in the courts provided he/she deems it as either not well grounded in law or not being in the public interest. So why can’t the Solicit-General limit himself to those spheres and leave the political aspect of the case to the politicians to wallow in?
This case was not dismissed as a result of the defendants long incarceration in Mile 2 which is in fact, is a violation of their basic common law right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but rather the state's capricious lack of diligent prosecution and final withdrawal of the case. So I do not see how justice is being served here.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 14 Oct 2010 20:02:55 |
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 20:52:48
|
I understand your reservations and note your comments outlined in the final paragraph of your posting which is accurate i am sure,The Gambian system is different from the system operated in most countries and has developed over a period of time and will continue to develop I am sure,so perhaps "mistakes" and "lack of diligent prosecution " probably did play a major role in the "justice system of The Gambia" it would be fair to sum up and perhaps agree that the defendants did "probably" cause the damage alleged,and have been incarcerated,it would not be in the public interest to proceed with a trial and that "The move of the state therefore is to ensure that the end of justice is served by letting the parties in the case realise their mistakes and learn to co-exist in peace and harmony."
After all nobody likes to lose face and in this instance I think the right decision was made to draw a line under the whole thing. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 21:41:03
|
But it has not being proven that the defendants actually caused the damage alleged neither did they admit to it. I think justice would have been better served if the defendant's right to a fair trial including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, was observed, the state then secures successful convictions within that context, and clemency be given later in the interest of public good. Without this, it is not justice that is being served but a public interest consideration or better still, it could be politics. In other words, the underlying consideration in this decision is not natural justices as opined by this Daily observer editorial but public policy.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 14 Oct 2010 21:49:55 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 23:33:57
|
| Yes point taken,the end result is the same the 47 can get on with their lives again and perhaps live in peace,that surely is good and worth a try ? |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
