 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Feb 2014 : 20:22:57
|
 1. Former Cabinet minister charged with neglecting duty
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Former Cabinetminister Mambury Njie was yesterday arraigned and charged with neglect of duty, at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court before senior Magistrate Lamin Mbaye.
The police accused Mambury Njie that some time in 2001, as permanent secretary number 1 at the Office of the President in Banjul, being the officer responsible for economic and energy Affairs, he willfully neglected his duties by failing to advise appropriately the Office of the President in the approving of the license of Carnegie Mineral, thereby committed an offence.
He denied the charge against him........
Source: The Point News & full report
2. Related Bantaba topics;
|
Edited by - kobo on 26 Feb 2014 21:14:35 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2014 : 02:41:49
|
EX-FINANCE MINISTER MAMBURY NJIE ARRAIGNED, GRANTED BAIL
Published on Thursday, 27 February 2014 | Written by Mamadou Dem
Mambury Njie, former Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs was on Tuesday 25th of February 2014, arraigned before Magistrate Lamin Mbaye of the Banjul Magistrates’ court charged with ‘Neglect of Official duties contrary to the laws of the Gambia. According to the particulars of offence, the aforesaid person sometime in the year 2001 as Permanent Secretary One (PS1) Office of the President in the City of Banjul, being the officer responsible for economic and energy affairs, wilfully neglected his duties wit: Failing to advise appropriately the office of the President in approving the licence of Carnagie Minerals, thereby committed an offence.
Mr. Njie pleaded not guilty as charged and was granted bail in the sum of D100,000 and ordered to produce a Gambian surety who should swear to an affidavit of means. Before the granting of bail by the court, Police Prosecutor Alpha Badjie applied for an adjournment to enable him to call witnesses. He however, submitted that the prosecution objecting to bail of the accused person on grounds that the accused was a top civil servant that served the civil service where they are expecting to bring their witnesses from.
According to the prosecution, if the accused is admitted to bail, there is likelihood of him interfering with witnesses and also abscond from the jurisdiction; adding that investigations into this matter are still ongoing. He said because of the 72hrs limitation, they have decided to bring the accused to court while the police continue with their investigations. He finally craved the indulgence of the court to grant the application. Lamin .S. Camara, counsel for the accused person applied for bail under section 99 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that the charged preferred against his client is bailable and that it is a misdemeanour.
“The reasons submitted by the prosecution are unfounded for the simple reason that the accused person left the Civil service almost 2 years ago and has a bail bond of 15 million dalasi and still remains in the jurisdiction,” said counsel. The defence lawyer further submitted that since there is a substantive charge before the court, the prosecution is therefore ready to proceed with this matter; adding that there is no holding charge before the court and the prosecution clearly applied for an adjournment.
On the issue of the accused tampering with witnesses, Camara argued that there is no list of witnesses given by the prosecution and therefore the accused person does not know any witness to be called by the prosecution. “Bail is surely at the discretion of the court and therefore I respectfully urge your worship to exercise that discretion in favour of the accused,” appealed counsel. Counsel finally urged the court to exercise its discretion under section 99 (1) and also put into consideration section 99 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Delivering the ruling, Magistrate Mbaye stated that he has listened carefully to both sides of the bail application and the prosecution have not given cogent reasons for the accused not to be granted bail; adding that the prosecution submitted that bail is at the discretion of the court pursuant to section 99 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He said he would use his discretion under the said section including section 19 of the 1997 Constitution to grant the application. The case was at that juncture adjourned to Tuesday 18th March, 2014 for hearing.
Source: Foroyaa Burning Issues News |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2014 : 19:50:32
|
Mambury Njie still under investigation, says prosecutor
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Police prosecutor sergeant Badjie yesterday told the court in Banjul that the former cabinet Minister, Mambury Njie, was still under investigation.
Mambury Njie was recently charged with neglect of official duty at the Banjul magistrates’ court before senior magistrate Lamin Mbaye.
When the case was called, the prosecutor told the court that the case was for hearing on Tuesday, but the matter was still under investigation.
“We are not able to bring any witness to court,” he said.
“I want the court to grant my application for an adjournment, as the matter is still under investigation, and we are hoping that by the next adjournment date, the investigation will be concluded,” he added.
Defence counsel Lamin S. Camara raised no objection to the application made by the police.
“I have no objection to the application,” counsel said.
The case was then adjourned to 10 April 2014, for hearing.
Readers would recall that the police accused Mambury Njie, that some time in 2001 as permanent secretary number 1 at the Office of the President in Banjul, and being the officer responsible for economic and energy affairs, he willfully neglected his duties by failing to advise appropriately the Office of the President in the approving of the license of Carnegie Mineral company, and thereby committed an offence.
Source: The Point News |
Edited by - kobo on 19 Mar 2014 20:14:28 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 13 Apr 2014 : 07:03:33
|
Mambury Njie trial commences
Friday, April 11, 2014
The trial proper commenced yesterday of former cabinet minister Mambury Njie, at the Banjul magistrates’ court before principal magistrate Hilary Abeke.
The police accused Mambury Njie that some time in 2001, as permanent secretary number 1 at the Office of the President in Banjul, being the officer responsible for economic and energy affairs, he willfully neglected his duties by failing to advise appropriately the Office of the President in the approving of the license of Carnegie Mineral, and thereby committed an offence.
The first prosecution witness, Abdoulie M. Cham, former staff of the geology department, told the court that he recognised the accused person as the then permanent secretary 1 at the Office of the President.........
Source: The Point News & full report |
Edited by - kobo on 13 Apr 2014 07:22:02 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2014 : 00:30:21
|
Former Geology Director testifies in Mambury Njie’s trial
Source: Foroyaa June 18, 2014
By Lamin Sanyang
Mr. Abdoulie Cham, former director of the geology department yesterday,Mambury Njie Monday 16 June, testified in the trial involving Mr. Mambury Njie, former Minister of Finance who is now facing economic crime charges before Justice Mikhail Abdullah of the Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court.
When the case was mentioned, Mr. Simon Abi, Director of Special Litigation announced his appearance for the State while lawyer Lamin S. Camara appeared for the defendant.
The second prosecution witness introduced himself to the court as Mr. Abdoulie Cham. He said he lives in Brikama and was the former director of the geology department. He said he knew the Carnegie Mineral Mining Company, which he said was a mining company in The Gambia. He told the court that the said company was involved in mining and had a mining licence to mine and export mineral sand from the Gambia.
The former Director of Geology told the court that the Carnegie Mining Company was mining and selling the product outside Gambia, and usually paid royalty to the government. He added that the value of a tonne of the mineral is $30.8 dollars and that the company used to pay 5 percent of the sales price to the government.
During cross examination, the defence questioned the witness about his comment on the value of a tonne of the mineral sand which he said was $30.8 dollars. The witness answered in the affirmative. He was asked where he gets the value.
He claimed that it was from the report sent by Carnegie Mineral Mining Company to the geological department when he was the director of the said department. But when pressed by defence counsel, he acknowledged that at the time of sending the report he was the deputy director of the said department.
However, he adduced that the reports were sent to the department because the licence provides for the operators to send reports of their operation to the geological department, adding that they had a lands minister and a commissioner of petroleum.
It was put to him that the $30.8 dollars he spoke about was not captured in the report and he admitted that he had not seen it in the report.
Meanwhile, the case was adjourned till today, Tuesday 17 June 2014, for continuation of hearing. |
Edited by - kobo on 19 Jun 2014 01:14:14 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2014 : 01:11:20
|
State closes case in Mambury Njie trial
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
State prosecutors led by the deputy director of Special Litigation at the Attorney General’s Chambers, Simon Abi, have announced that the state was closing its case in the trial of former Cabinet minister Mambury Njie, before Justice Makilou Abdullah of the high court in Banjul.
When the case was called yesterday, the state counsel told the court that the prosecution was closing its case.
The defence counsel, Lamin S. Camara, then said he would apply for an adjournment, and would consider whether to make a no-case-to-answer submission.
The state counsel responded that the defence could not make a no-case submission because of the economic crime charge, and urged the court to ask the defendant to enter his defence.
The case was at that juncture adjourned to 23 July 2014, to enable the parties to address the court on whether or not the defence could make a no-case submission in an economic crime case.
It would be recalled that the accused, Mambury Njie, is standing trial on two counts of economic crime and one count of negligence, charges he denied.
The prosecution has so far called two witnesses to give evidence, and tendered some exhibits.
Source: The Point News |
Edited by - kobo on 19 Jun 2014 01:14:53 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2014 : 20:48:56
|
Prosecution closes case against Mambury Njie
Source: Foroyaa June 19, 2014
By Lamin Sanyang
The Director of Special Litigation, Simon Abi, yesterday, Tuesday, 17 June, Mambury Njie2014 announced the closing of the prosecution’s case against Mambury Njie, former Minister of Finance, who is facing charges of Economic Crimes before Justice Mikailu Abdullah of the Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court.
This disclosure was made after the testimony of the second prosecution witness (PW2), Abdoulie Cham, former Director of the Geology Department. The former Finance Minister faces two counts of economic crimes including neglect of official duty, charges he denied.
When the case was mentioned yesterday, the state prosecutor announced their intention of closing the case because there is no other witness to testify apart from the two witnesses that had already testified in the trial.
In the meantime, Defense lawyer Lamin S. Camara made an application to make an oral submission of a ‘no-case to answer’ which was objected to by the state prosecutor, who argued that the submission cannot be made in the charge under the Economic Crime Act. He referred the court to the ruling delivered by Justice Joseph Ikpala of the Brikama High Court on the matter. He urged the defendant to enter his defense.
“I vehemently disagreed that the law does not allow the submission,” said defense lawyer Camara.
Lawyer Camara argued that the defense can make the no-case submission as stated by the laws of the land. He submitted that the said ruling cited by the state prosecutor cannot in any way prevent the submission.
At this juncture, the trial judge said he would hear the address on the matter first to decide whether or not to admit the application before the defense would make an address of no-case submission. The matter was adjourned to Monday, 23rd June 2014, for the address. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2014 : 13:08:48
|
1. Defence makes no-case submission in Mambury Njie’s trial
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Lawyer LS Camara yesterday made a no-case-to-answer submission in the trial of former cabinet minister Mambury Njie, before Justice Makailou Abdulah of the high court in Banjul.
Njie is facing a two-count charge of economic crime and one count of negligence of duty.
Counsel Camara told the court that the law required the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor called two witnesses, Malick Sanyang and Abdoulie A Cham.
He added that neither Sanyang nor Cham gave cogent, credible and reliable evidence before the court to prove the accusations.
The defence counsel submitted that Malick Sanyang clearly and ambiguously told the court that the scope of their investigation was to find out three things: how Carrnagie Minerals came to The Gambia? How it was able to obtain a mining licence? And the relationship between Carnagie Minerals and the accused person..........
Source: The Point News & full report
2. Also Daily Observer news No-case submissions for Mambury Njie
|
Edited by - kobo on 24 Jun 2014 13:09:16 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2014 : 02:40:53
|
Lawyer Camara calls for acquittal of Mambury Njie
Source: Foroyaa June 24, 2014
By Lamin Sanyang
Defense lawyer Lamin S. Camara yesterday, Monday 23 June,2014 urged Mambury Njie the court to acquit and discharge Mambury Njie, former Minister of Finance, who is facing charges of economic crime and neglect of official duty as there is no element of evidence in the case.
Lawyer Camara, in his application for a no-case submission before Justice Mikhail Abdullah of the Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court, argued that the evidences of the two prosecution witnesses combined did not establish any of the ingredient of the offenses charged against the accused person. He drew the attention of the court to section 7 (d) of the Common Laws of the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia. He also cited Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“I respectfully enjoin the court to acquit and discharge the accused person for the prosecution’s woeful failure to established a prima facie case,” said Lawyer Camara.
The defence counsel said what is obvious before the court is that the evidences of the witnesses did not established nexus between the two counts. Therefore, he said, it is woefully inadequate, unreliable and unworthy of consideration.
The defense has submitted that the accused person is charged with two counts of economic crime and neglect of official duty respectively. He said it behoves the prosecution to prove in count one, the act or omission that the accused did willfully or recklessly caused economic lost to the state which, he said, must be directly related to Carnegie Minerals. He mentioned the two prosecution witnesses, Malick Sanyang and Abdoulie M. Cham.
“It is our submission that neither Malick Sanyang nor Abdoulie M. Cham adduced cogent, credible and reliable evidence before this court to prove accusation of the offense. There is no amount in count one of the economic crimes. It does not state how much is lost to the government,” he submitted.
Defense Counsel Camara referred to the first prosecution witness (Malick Sanyang), a police detective, who said in his testimony that the scope of investigation into the Carnegie Minerals which he headed was to find out three things. The said investigation was to find out how Carnegie Minerals came to the Gambia, how it was able to obtain mining license and the relationship between Carnegie Minerals and the accused person.
“We submit that the scope of the investigation has nothing do with count one as the charge on this count is not about who gave mining license to Carnegie Minerals or how Carnegie Minerals came to The Gambia or the relationship between Carnegie Minerals and the accused person. The charge is economic crime,” he told the Court.
At this juncture, he referred the court to Exhibits B, B1 and B2 which are correspondence relating to Carnegie Minerals. He argued that none of the said exhibits contain any specific amount of lost to the government by virtue of the accused. He also mentioned Exhibits C, C1, C2 and C3 which, he said, were cautionary statements of the accused that speak for itself and none of which is an admission or conclusion.
“I have not played any role to bring Carnegie Minerals in The Gambia,” he quoted the cautionary statements.
Defense Counsel Camara submitted that the first prosecution witness under cross examination admitted that none of the Exhibits B, B1 and B2 bears the name of the accused. He said the question that is begging an answer is what this witness knows about count one. He said he did not know anything.
“He did not say anything that ties Mr. Mambury Njie (accused) to count one of the indictments,” he told the court.
Lawyer Camara also mentioned the testimony of the second prosecution witness (Abdoulie M Cham), former director of Geological department, who, he said, was supposed to be the star witness of the prosecution as he has been in the thick of the matter. He said what is conspicuously lacking in his evidence is what should have been the total amount of royalties paid to the government which has not been paid.
“That is the only way that the state can say there is a willful or omission occasion of economic lost to the government. The question is by whom? The answer to this question will be academic,” he submitted.
The defense submitted that there is no figure between the counts adduced by this witness to say what the Carnegie Minerals have paid is less than what they should have paid. The witness, he said, testified as to the content of Exhibit A and confirmed to the total number of mineral sands mined and further confirmed the royalties paid on it.
“This witness in the entire purpose of his evidence did not even mention the name of the accused person and link it to the charge,” said Lawyer Camara.
He recounted the evidence of the witness who said the license provides for the operator to send reports to the geological department which, he said, has put the witness in a better state to tell the court what is the nature of the lost, how much is the lost, who is responsible for the operation of Carnegie Minerals and who is overseeing the company, who is culpable for the lost caused by Carnegie Minerals in The Gambia. These questions, he said, have not been answered.
“Therefore, the court is left in darkness without answers,” he submitted.
Lawyer Camara further told the court that the witness said under cross examination that the Geological department has a line ministry which has the final authority on petroleum matters. He said there is no evidence from either the first or second prosecution witness that the accused person has at any time been the Minister of Petroleum or Permanent Secretary for that ministry or even has administrative oversight of that ministry.
The defense lawyer in his submission on count two, neglect of official duty, referred to Section 113 of the Constitution. He argued that the two prosecution witnesses did not say anything on count two. He added that none of the witnesses said he was supposed to advise the state on the activities of Carnegie Minerals.
The defense questioned the stature for the Common Law imposed on the accused to perform the duty which he has failed. He said for a no-case submission to succeed it must be established that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offense. He added that the evidence adduced by the prosecution must have been thoroughly discredited under cross examination that no reasonable tribunal can convict on it.
“I submit that the evidence of the second prosecution witness has been thoroughly discredited under cross examination,” he said.
Earlier, Simon Abi, Deputy Director of Special Litigation, tendered the ruling of Justice Joseph Ikpala on the no-case submission between the State versus Alhagie Bakary Trawally and others at the Brikama High Court. When there was no objection from the defense, the document was subsequently admitted and marked as an exhibit.
The state prosecutor maintained his argument that there is a prima facie case and urged the accused to enter his defense. He made mentioned of the documentary evidences tendered by the first prosecution witness before the court which, he said, speak for themselves. He argued that the accused cannot deny having been under obligation to advise the government on the issue of Carnegie Minerals.
“We submit that the prosecution has established a prima facie case on both counts which require an explanation from the accused person,” said the State Prosecutor.
The Deputy Director of Special Litigation referred to Exhibit A which, he said, is evidence of shipment by Carnegie Minerals. He argued that there is a monetary term in those shipments. He further argued that the evidence of the second witness and Exhibit A is clear on what is lost to the government.
The state prosecutor submitted that the accused admitted in his cautionary statement that he was a Secretary General, adding that there is no need for any law to tell the court that the accused was under the obligation of advising capacity.
“The accused is sufficiently link to the charges. I urged the court to dismiss the submission of no-case to answer,” he said.
Meanwhile, the earlier submission of no need for any law whether the accused was under the obligation of advising capacity was challenged by the defense quoting Section 113 of the Constitution.
The case was adjourned to Thursday, 3rd July 2014, for ruling. |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11779 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 13:35:40
|
High Court acquits Mambury Njie
By Malamin L.M. Conteh
The point: Published on Friday, July 04, 2014
The high court in Banjul presided over by Justice Makilou Abdoulah Thursday acquitted and discharged former cabinet minister Mambury Njie.
Mambury Njie was charged with two counts of economic crime, and one count of negligence of official duty, which he denied.
Ruling on the no-case-to-answer submission made by the defence counsel, LS Camara, and the response of the prosecutor, Justice Abdoulah pointed out that the prosecution had called two witnesses and tendered eight exhibits.
He spoke of “deficiencies in the prosecution case,” and that a no-case submission was bound to succeed, when there has not been evidence to establish the important ingredients of the offence charged.
It is trite law that where there is any doubt in criminal proceedings, it should be resolved in favour of the accused person, the judge added.
He said he found that the offence had not been established by the prosecution in count one.
“I uphold the submission of no-case and accordingly acquit and discharge the accused on count 1,” the judge declared.
The judge also stated that he has not seen any evidence or law, and none has been shown to him relating to the activities of Carnagie Minerals company, under the public service or civil service, which imposed a duty on the accused person, in his capacity as Secretary General (Office of the President), to advise the government on the activities of Carnagie Minerals.
He added that in the absence of evidence, in common law, that imposed a duty on the accused person to advise the government on the activities of Carnagie Minerals Ltd, it was his view that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of the offence.
“The accused is hereby acquitted and discharged on count two,” the judge again declared.
Source: The Point |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 15:32:16
|
ACQUITTED,NO case to answer .
"The judge also stated that he has not seen any evidence or law, and none has been shown to him relating to the activities of Carnagie Minerals company, under the public service or civil service, which imposed a duty on the accused person, in his capacity as Secretary General (Office of the President), to advise the government on the activities of Carnagie Minerals."
"He added that in the absence of evidence, in common law, that imposed a duty on the accused person to advise the government on the activities of Carnagie Minerals Ltd, it was his view that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of the offence.
“The accused is hereby acquitted and discharged on count two,” |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Former Cabinet Minister Mambury Njie Charged
