| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
 Posted - 12 May 2016 : 18:15:47
|
April 14 alleged demonstrators denied bail
The Point: Thursday, May 12, 2016
 The alleged demonstrators on the amended charge are Lamin Sonko, Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Modou Touray, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Alhagie Fatty, Alhagie Jammeh, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Lamin Jatta, Lamin Camara, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yabo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, Bubacarr Touray and Saderr Secka, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kawsu Bayo, Modou Ngum, Ebrima Jabang, and Kalilou Saidy.
They were indicted on a seven-count of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
When the case was called DPP S.H. Barkun alongside with Deputy DPP M.B. Abubacarr appeared for the state.
Senior Counsel Antouman Gaye led the defence team along with A.N. Bensouda, H.S. Sabally, O.M.M. Njie, R.Y. Mendy, N. Cham, C. Gaye, Yasin Senghore, A. Sissoho, and S.M. Tambadou, among others.
Delivering his ruling, the trial judge said the applicants filed a bail application based on sections 19 and 24 of the constitution of The Gambia and section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He said the applicants each filed an affidavit in support of the motion.
He said that in response, the DPP filed an affidavit in opposition replying to all the applicants individually.
Justice Ottaba said the applicants’ affidavit in support of the motion stated that the offences charged “are all bailable”, and that they had people who would act as sureties when granted bail.
It also stated that the applicants when admitted to bail would not jump bail or interfere with witnesses or investigations.
The affidavit also stated that some of the applicants have medical problems, while others said that they are breadwinners of their family.
It further stated that the offences are bailable, and urged the court to grant the applicants bail.
They also said the state had charged and brought the applicants to court, which means that the investigation was over.
On the issue of national security, the applicants’ counsel stated that the charges did not state that it had anything to do with national security.
They, therefore, urged the court to exercise its discretion and admit the applicants to bail.
The respondents, the judge went on, in their affidavit in opposition, stated that investigations are still ongoing in the case, and that the applicants might flee the jurisdiction if granted bail.
They also stated that the applicants when released on bail might interfere with witnesses and the investigation, and that “the offences are serious” and concern national security.
It was further stated that there was likelihood that the applicants might commit the offence again.
He also said the state in their affidavit in opposition further stated that going through the affidavit in support, the applicants had woefully failed to convince the court in exercising its discretion.
The fact that “they are sick does not warrant” the court to admit them bail, because “there are medical facilities in prison.”
It also stated that when granted bail they might go ahead with their unlawful protest again.
The state, therefore, urged the court to refuse the bail application.
Replying on points of law, the judge continued, the applicants’ counsel stated that since the applicants are in detention the burden to justify bail could not be placed on them.
The applicants’ counsel, therefore, said the court should consider the presumption of innocence of the accused persons and admit them on bail on reasonable terms.
“It is factual that bail is not a matter of cost or automatic, but it depends on the facts, circumstances and peculiarities of the case,” the judge said.
There was no doubt that the offences the applicants are charged with “touch on the security and peace” of the country.
He added that the charge brought against the applicants was a serious one and, therefore, granting them bail might send a wrong signal to the society.
He added that with regard to the materials before the court, there is a prima facie case against the applicants and that there was a possibility of the applicants jumping bail.
“In view of the facts, circumstances, peculiarities in relation to the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, likelihood of the offence being committed again and prima facie case against the accused persons, I, therefore, hold that this application lacks merit and hereby dismissed,” the judge announced.
Senior Counsel Gaye then told the court that they wanted to make the same application for the court to stay proceedings on counts 5 and 6, but to save time they want to adopt their application made in the case involving Darboe and 19 others.
However, the DPP objected on the grounds that these are two different instances.
“We agree that the two cases are different even though the charges are the same. We apply for your lordship to stay the application of this case pending the determination of the application in Darboe and Co case,” he said.
The trial judge granted the application, saying the outcome of the ruling on the application for a stay of proceedings on counts 5 and 6 in the Darboe and Co case would determine the next step that would be taken in the case.
The case was then adjourned until 17 May 2016.
Meanwhile, senior Counsel A.N. Bensouda said the court had previously made an order that the prison’s rules should be applied to the accused persons, as they are remand prisoners and not convicts.
She told the court that from the reports coming from their clients, “they are not allowed food from outside and, when they complain about ill-health, they are only given paracetamol.”
“We applied that they be treated like any other remand prisoner and also allowed to exercise their privilege guaranteed by the law. All prisoners have the right, and if the prison authority failed to comply with the court order we are ready to pursue a contempt suit against them.”
The DPP then said there was no need for any other order, because he had confirmed that the previous order of the court was complied with, and said the court could asked the prison officer.
The prison officer, Kalifa Bojang, said that since the order was served to the Director of Prison the accused persons “are given access”.
The trial judge said that it was important to treat the accused persons as innocent until the contrary is proven.
He said the accused persons should enjoy the rights and privileges within the rules of the prison.
Author: Halimatou Ceesay
Source: http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/april-14-alleged-demonstrators-denied-bail
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2016 : 20:53:25
|
This is Nogoi Njie's affidavit on her treatment in detention. She was arrested on 14th April 2016 together with several young people who were protesting for electoral reform at Westfield in The Gambia.
DOWNLOAD in PDF: Affidavit of Nogoi Njie
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2016 : 22:37:19
|
Judge withdraws from the case of Westfield Protestors
By Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: May 18, 2016
  
Justice O. Ottaba, of the special Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court, yesterday 17 May,2016 said he has decline further Fatoumata JawaraFatou Camara Nogoi Njiehearing in the criminal trial involving Mrs. Fatoumatta Jawara, the Chairperson of the Female wing of the United Democratic Party(UDP) and 24 others.
When the case was called, the Director of Public Prosecution appeared for the state, while Lawyer Antouman Gaye, Amie Bensouda, Hawa Sisay-Sabally, R.Y.Mendy, Yassin Seneghore, and Neneh Cham announced their representation for all the accused persons.
At this stage the trial Judge told a hushed courtroom that he has declined further hearing in the case and that the case file shall be forwarded to the Chief Justice for re-assignment.
The 24 other accused persons are Lamin Sonko, Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Modou Touray, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Lamin Camara, Alhagie Jammeh, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Jatta, Lamin Marong, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yabo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, BubacarrTouray, Saderr Secka , Alhagie Fatty, Fatou Camara, Modou Ngum, Kafu Bayo, Kalilou Saidykhan and Ebrima Jabang.
The accused persons are facing 7 counts of ‘Unlawful assembly’, ‘Riots’, ‘Incitement of violence’, ‘Riotously interfering with vehicles’, ‘Holding a procession without a permit’ , ‘Disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession’ and ‘Conspiracy to commit felony’ and to which they all pleaded not guilty.
It could be recalled that at the last adjournment, the trial judge ruled that the outcome of the application on the case of Darboe and others regarding whether or not to refer counts 5 and 6 to the Supreme Court will determine the application made by counsels in this case.
After their plea, their lawyers filed bail application for them which was denied by the court.
The case was indefinitely adjourned pending its re-assignment to another judge. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2016 : 22:46:53
|
IS SOLO SANDENG DEAD OR ALIVE?
Foroyaa Editor: May 18, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
IS SOLO SANDENG DEAD OR ALIVE?
 As the judge recuses himself from the case all minds return to the most important question hovering over the incidents of 14 and Solo Sandeng 216 April 2016; Is Solo Sandeng dead or alive?
This is the question that sparked the incident of 16 April. For over a month now, the authorities have not said or done anything to give a clear answer to this question.
The appearance in court of seven persons who were missing has given hope that Solo Sandeng would also appear very soon before the court.
This is why maximum effort should be made by the authorities to explain Solo Sandeng’s whereabouts.
Time will tell. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2016 : 11:39:02
|
25 Westfield Arrestees Trial Stalls at Mansakonko High Court Due to Absence of Accused Persons in Court
Foroyaa Editorial:ċJune 4, 2016
The high court in Mansankonko on Wednesday, June 01, 2016 adjourned the trial of the 25 defendants who were arrested atFatoumata JawaraFatou CamaraNogoi Njie Westfield on 14 April, including Fatoumatta Jawara and Nogoi Njie, the chairperson and deputy chairperson respectively of the women¡¦s wing of United Democratic Party (UDP), as the accused persons were not brought before the court.
When the case was called, A.M Yusuf and Sheriff Kumba Jobe appeared for the state whilst lawyer Borry S. Touray represented the accused persons in absentia before Justice Simone Ateh Abi.
The Lower River Region (LRR) high court would have presided over the matter for the first time after it was transferred from the Banjul high court where the case was initially mentioned in April. They were, however, denied bail by the said court.
The proceeding was expected to witness some amendments on the indictment bill, however, that did not materialize due to the absence of the accused persons.
Addressing the court, the state prosecutor said they wished to proceed with the matter but the accused persons were not in court.
¡§Have the accused persons been put on notice?¡¨ asked the presiding judge.
In response, State counsel Yusuf said he is not sure whether the accused persons were put on notice.
He therefore urged the court to direct an order to the prisons to that effect.
At this juncture, the judge adjourned the case to 15th June 2016 at 11 am for mentioning of the trial. He also ordered that the accused persons should be put on notice before the said date to enable them to appear in court..
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2016 : 11:44:20
|
CASE TRANSFER IS FRAUGHT WITH COMPLICATIONS Is justice being brought to the doorstep of litigants taken afar?
Foroyaa:ċJune 4, 2016
The trial of 25 April 14 arrestees - Fatoumata Jawara, Nogoi Njie and others - has faced another setback. The first proceeding since its transfer from the high court in Banjul to the high court in Mansakonko was scheduled to take place yesterday but the case did not proceed because the accused were not in court. Transferring a case has its consequences. It cost money and time to transport the accused and state counsels to Mansakonko each time there is a proceeding. The defence will also become more expensive as the lawyers will have to take their time and transportation into consideration.
This was evident after the first appearance. During the trial in Banjul the prosecution and defence were represented by teams of lawyers while at Mansakonko only two state counsels and one defence lawyer were present.
It is apparent that the trial is going to take longer and more costly in the midst of heightened tension. We are in an election year and at this moment the leadership of the UDP is on trial. The executive needs to consider a political solution and discontinue the cases which will give credence to the electoral process. It needs to follow the example of Senegal where the ruling party has subjected itself to the scrutiny of the opposition and civil society in a dialogue.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2016 : 14:54:18
|
Lawyers file habeas corpus for UDP’s Solo Sandeng to be produced
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Thursday, June 09, 2016
 Lawyers representing Ebrima Solo Sandeng yesterday filed a habeas corpus against the Inspector General of Police (IGP), National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Commissioner of Prisons and the Attorney General (AG) to produce UDP’s Ebrima Solo Sandeng.
When the case was called, senior counsel Gaye said he would leave counsel S.M. Tambadou to address the court.
State counsel Binjaji for the respondents said they wished to apply for a short adjournment, to enable them file their affidavit in opposition.
He said the reason was that the three agencies being sued in the court “are different government agencies”, and they had problems in getting the officers in charge to respond to the affidavit in support.
He said the affidavit in opposition would be filed on 9 June 2016, in the morning.
In reply, counsel S.M. Tambadou said the application was dated 25 April 2016 and they believed that service of the motion was done more than 8 days ago.
He said the matter was adjourned from Tuesday with the agreement of the respondents, as such they were opposing to the application for adjournment.
However, the state counsel insisted that their application was based on the fact that the motion was served at AG Chambers on Monday at 5:30 p.m.
“We are not even sure if the 2nd and 3rd respondents were served; so we are applying for a short adjourned date,” he said.
The trial judge overruled the defence objection, on the grounds that the respondent should be given chance to react to the affidavit in support.
Counsel Tambadou then asked the court to order for briefs to save time. The court then ordered for briefs, and each of them were given dates to file their briefs.
The case was then adjourned until 27 June 2016, for adoption of briefs.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jun 2016 : 18:47:04
|
BREAKING: The Gambia Government has finally replied to the Habeas Corpus filed on behalf of Solo Sandeng at The High Court in Banjul today stating that Solo has died in custody. Will they produce the body?? We will find out and let you know.
Source: The Fatu Network |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2016 : 11:33:05
|
Gambia Admits Opposition Activist’s Death In Custody
by JOLLOF MEDIA NETWORK
Joller News: June 17, 2016 Human Rights, News
(JollofNews) – A Gambian opposition activist who led April’s demonstration against the regime of President Yahya Jammeh died during enhanced interrogation by security officials, Saihou Omar Jeng, director of operations at the Gambia’s feared National Intelligence Agency reveals.
Ebrima Solo Sandeng, organising secretary of the main opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) was arrested on..................
Reading More |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2016 : 12:20:07
|
Trial of April 14 alleged protesters continues at Mansakonko High Court
By Halimatou Ceesay in LRR
The Point: Thursday, June 23, 2016
 The trial of April 14 alleged protesters yesterday continued before Justice Abi at the Mansakonko High Court.
The accused persons are Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alhajie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum.
They were charged with seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
All the accused persons chose to remain mute throughout the proceedings, during tendering of exhibits as well as in cross-examination.
When the case was called, A.M. Yusuf appeared for the state along with A. Bah while the accused persons were unrepresented.
A.M. Yusuf then informed the court that the matter was slated for continuation of the hearing, and he has his witnesses in court.
In his testimony, the third prosecution witness, Sherifo Ceesay, said he lives in Busumbala and is attached to Kanifing Police Intervention Unit.
“I recognise all the accused persons. I came to know them on 14 April 2016 when there was a problem and they were arrested and brought to the PIU base in Kanifing. I was among the arresting officers.
“On 14 April 2016 at around 14:45 to 15:00 whilst on standby at Kanifing PIU, we had an emergency phoning and boarded the truck to Westfield. Upon arrival at Westfield, we found a large group of people with their banners, whistles, P.A. system advocating what they wrote on their banners: ‘Why borders are closed’, ‘Gambians are hungry’. ‘Yahya must go’, ‘Enough is enough’ and ‘we need electoral reform’. ‘No 5th term for dictator’ and the whistles were blowing.”
He added: “Our command immediately stood down from the vehicles, and asked them whether they had a permit. No permit was shown. Our command warned them to disperse peacefully and go after their lawful businesses. They were still there, and after some time our command warned them again in a different language and they still stayed there.”
He further stated that their command ordered them to disperse the crowd, and some of them were arrested and their banners, P.A. system and whistles were taken from them.
“They were then escorted back to our base in Kanifing P.I.U and handed over to our command,” he further told the court.
State counsel A.M. Yusuf asked the witness if he was shown the items they seized from the accused persons he would be able to identify them.
The witness said: “There was a white flag written with markers and the body of the P.A. system is white with a blue mouthpiece, and the whistles are many and in different colours.”
The items were shown to him in court and he identified them and counsel Yusuf applied to tender them in court.
The trial Judge, Justice Abi, then called the witnesses each by their names and asked them if they have any objection to the tendering of the items but they remained silent.
The trial judge then said: “From the 1st to the 11th accused were all called upon and asked if they had any objection to the tendering of the items, but they all remained mute. I ruled that they have no objection to the tendering of the items, and they are accordingly admitted and marked in evidence as exhibits.”
The trial judge then again called all the accused persons by their names accordingly, and asked them if they have any questions for the witness, but they all chose to remain silent.
The trial judge then said: “I hereby ruled that they have no questions to ask, so the witness is hereby discharged.”
Testifying as the fourth prosecution witness was Lamin N. Jammeh, a police officer attached to the Fraud Squad Unit at Police headquarters in Banjul, as an investigator. He said that on 19 and 21 April 2016, he was assigned to record the statements of Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong and Fatou Camara.
He said he cautioned them one after the other.
He added that he brought out the cautionary form and read out the cautionary wordings to the accused persons in the language they understand, and asked them if he (the witness) could record their statements for them or they could record it by themselves.
He said he was allowed to record their statements, and they narrated their own side of the story and he wrote it down and read it over to them; they thumb-printed and he endorsed the statements.
The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them and the state applied to tender the statements in court.
The accused were then asked if they had any objection to the tendering of the said statements, but they remained silent. The documents were tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits.
The trial judge again asked them if they had any questions for the witness, but they as well remained silent and the witness was discharged.
The fifth prosecution witness, Bakary Darboe, a police officer attached to the Major Crime Unit at Police headquarters in Banjul, said he recorded the statement of Nogoi Njie and took the court through a similar process of obtaining her statement.
Nogoi was then asked by the trial judge if she had any objection to the tendering of the documents, but she remained silent. The statement was then tendered in court and marked in evidence as an exhibit.
All the accused persons were then asked if they have any questions for the witness, but they remained silent.
Testifying as the sixth prosecution witness was Saikou Keita, a police officer, who said he recorded the statements of Modou Touray, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum and also took the court through the same process of obtaining statements.
The accused persons were then asked by the court if they have any objection to the tendering of the statements, but they remained mute.
The statements were then tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits. The trial judge then asked them again if they had any questions for the witness, and they remained silent.
The case continues today at 10 a.m.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2016 : 12:56:31
|
April 14 alleged protesters case set for judgment
By Halimatou Ceesay
The point: Friday, June 24, 2016
The case of the April 14 alleged protesters before Justice Abi of the Mansakonko High Court, in the Lower River Region, has been set for judgment.
The accused persons are Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lansana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alhajie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang and Modou Ngum.
They were charged with seven counts of unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding a procession without a permit, disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession and conspiracy.
The case was adjourned until 21 July 2016, for judgment, by the trial judge after the prosecution closed its case and the accused persons opted for silence.
State counsel A.M. Yusuf with A. Bah appeared for the state, while the accused were unrepresented.
After an hour’s stand-down to enable the state decide on whether to call another witness or close its case, state counsel A.M. Yusuf said: “Having gone through our materials, we are satisfied with what we laid before the court; so we are closing our case.”
The trial judge, Justice Abi, then said to the accused persons, in English, that the state had closed their case and it was up to them to open their defence.
He told them that if they had something to say and wanted to swear they could do so. He also told them that if they had nothing to say and wished to remain silent they could do so, because it was their right to do so.
Having said that to the accused persons, the trial judge then called each of them by their names accordingly, and asked if they wanted to enter their defence or call a witness to talk on their behalf, but all of the accused persons opted for silence.
The trial judge then ruled that the accused persons decided to remain silent, and that under the constitution of The Gambia an accused person has the right to remain silent if he or she wished to do so, and the court has no right to compel an accused person who does not wish to give evidence in court to do so.
He, therefore, closed the defence of the accused persons.
State counsel A.M. Yusuf said they were seeking the discretion of the court to file a written address, and that he wished to deem it adopted upon filing.
The trial judge then asked state counsel Yusuf to give copies of the address to each of the accused persons, so that if they wished to reply they might do so.
However, A.M. Yusuf said that since the accused persons opted for silence there was no need for them to reply to an address.
He said it was only legal practitioners representing the accused persons that would file or address the court on their behalf. He did not quote any law to support his argument.
The trial judge then gave A.M. Yusuf until 7 July 2016 to file his address, which was deemed adopted upon filing.
The case was then adjourned for judgment.
Meanwhile, the 1st accused, Lamin Sonko, addressed the court on issues affecting them while being detained.
He said the trial judge, Justice Abi, ordered for them (the accused persons) to be remanded at Mile 2 Central Prisons, but instead they “are being remanded at the Jangjanbureh prison” and two of the accused persons “are seriously ill” and they “do not have access to their doctors”.
He said Lamin Marong, the 4th accused person, has an eye problem and was supposed to go for an operation, but he could not see his doctor because they “are still remanded at Jangjanbureh”.
Delivering his ruling on that, Justice Abi said it was his view that the prison officers that run Mile 2 Central Prisons and Jangjanbureh prisons “are one and the same,” and where they chose to keep the accused persons was at their discretion considering the location of the case and the logistics involved.
He said on the issue of ill-health, with regard to the accused persons, the court could not make an order on that, because he believed the prisons medical team could handle that and if inmates are sick they should consult the prison medical team, and if the medical team wishes to refer them to any hospital they may do so.
Testifying earlier, the seventh prosecution witness, Sub-inspector Bakary Drammeh, a police officer, said he recorded the statement of Alagie Fatty and Kafu Bayo at the Mile 2 State Central Prisons.
He said he cautioned them and obtained both cautionary and voluntary statements from them. Both thumb-printed the statements and he signed them.
The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them and the state applied to tender them.
When the accused persons were asked if they had any objection they decided to remain silent. They was tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits.
The accused persons were all asked if they had any questions for the witness, but they remained silent.
The eighth prosecution witness, Foday Kombo Sillah, attached to the Gender and Child Protection Unit at the police headquarters in Banjul, said he recorded the statements of Lamin Sonko and Fatou Jawara at the NIA.
He took the court through the same process of obtaining the statements. The statements were shown to him in court and he identified them and the state applied to tender them.
When the accused persons were asked if they had any objection they decided to remain silent. They were tendered in court and marked in evidence as exhibits.
The accused persons were all asked if they had any questions for the witness, but they remained silent.
The state counsel A.M. Yusuf then applied for a stand-down to enable them decide whether to call a witness or close their case.
The matter was then stood down for an hour.
The case was witnessed by the UDP deputy party leader with some supporters of the UDP and family members, who came all the way from Banjul and other places to witness the case and also brought along food, clothes as well as money for the upkeep of the accused persons.
The accused persons were escorted from Jangjanbureh prison in a truck by the security.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2016 : 12:08:31
|
Non Service of Brief Delays Solo Sandeng’s Habeas Corpus Case
By Rohey Jadama
Foroyaa: June 28, 2016
The Habeas Corpus Case filed by lawyers for the production of Ebrima Solo Sandeng did not proceed yesterday 27 Solo Sandeng 2June, 2016. The court maintained that the respondents were not served with the applicant’s brief of argument.
The case was yesterday scheduled for adoption of written briefs before Justice Eunice Dada of the Banjul High Court but the state told the court that they were not served with a copy of the applicant’s brief of argument.
When the case was called, Lawyer Lamin S. Camara told the court the applicant has filed their brief of argument pursuant to the originating summons. He further told the court that they filed it on the 21 June, 2016 and that he believes the respondent’s have been served.
Responding to Lawyer Camara, State Counsel Binga D told the court that they are yet to be served with the said brief of argument.
At this juncture the court clerk was heard saying the state has been served and the court clerk was seen handing over a copy to the state counsel Binga D in court.
Justice Dada said in the absence of any affidavit of proof of service the state is not served.
At this juncture, Counsel Binga D requested for 12 days to file the respondent’s brief of argument. However, Barrister Camara objected to the 12 days requested by Lawyer Binga D. He further argued that at the last adjourned date parties were given 7 days.
Justice Dada in her ruling ordered the state to file their brief in 7 days and 2 days for the applicant’s counsel to reply on points of law.
The case was adjourned till 7 July, 2016 at 2pm for adoption of briefs.
It could be recalled that Ebrima Solo Sandeng, the National Organising Secretary of the United Democratic Party was arrested on 14 April at the Westfield Junction while engaged in a protest. Since his arrest he has never been seen or heard from in public.
Source: http://www.foroyaa.gm/archives/11022 |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2016 : 21:23:46
|
April 14 alleged protesters’ bail appeal adjourned for ruling
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The Gambia Court of Appeal yesterday adjourned the bail appeal of the 14th April alleged protesters for ruling.
The appellants are Bubacarr Gitteh, Baba Ceesay, Ebrima Janko Ceesay, Lamin Camara, Alagie Jammeh, Lamin Jatta, Ebrima Jadama, Pa Ousman Njie, Kekuta Yarbo, Bubacarr Jah, Muhammed Jawneh, Babucarr Touray, Sagan Secka, Lamin Sonko, Modou Touray, Lasana Beyai, Lamin Marong, Alagie Fatty, Nogoi Njie, Fatoumatta Jawara, Fatou Camara, Kafu Bayo, Ebrima Jabang, Modou Ngum and Kalilou Saidykhan.
They are appealing against the bail ruling of Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High Court.
The case was presided over by a panel of three judges, Justice O.A. Adogoke, Justice Edrissa Fafa M’bai, and Justice Awa Bah.
When the case was called, Lawyer Yassin Senghore announced her representation for all the appellants, and told the court that the appellants were absent and are in the custody of the state.
Defence counsel Senghore then applied to adopt the appellants’ briefs of argument filed on 21 June 2016.
She further urged the court to admit the appellants to bail.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Barkun said he thought the defence counsel would bring it to the notice of the court that 14 out of the 25 appellants were released.
He further told the court that he did not see the necessity for their appeal, when they were released and discharged from the case.
At this stage, he went through the names of the 14 people who were released.
In response, Lawyer Senghore told the court that they were aware that some of the appellants were released, but how they were released and the condition of their release was unknown to defence counsel.
The DPP then told the court that the 14 people were released on 15 June 2016.
However, Justice Awa Bah interjected and asked the DPP how come they were released on 15 June, because on 16 June they were in court, which ordered for the filing of briefs.
The DPP responded that they had a problem with communication.
He further told the court that the 14 people were released by Justice Abi of the Mansakonko High Court.
However, when the DPP was asked by Justice Bah whether he had the copy of the order releasing the 14 appellants, he responded in the negative.
While adjourning the case until 26 July 2016, for ruling, Justice Adogoke said the briefs of both parties were adopted, and further said it was in the interest of justice for the copy of the order to be furnished with the court before the next adjournment date.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2016 : 08:44:43
|
NOGOI NJIE SPOTTED AT BANSANG HOSPITAL
Abdoulai G. Dibba
Foroyaa: July 13, 2016
An eye witness informed this medium that Nogoi Njie, the vice chairperson of the female youth wing of the United Democratic Party Nogoi Njieis currently admitted at the Bansang Hospital.
According to the eye witness, Madam Njie who is admitted at the women’s wing of the hospital was escorted to the said facility by prison wardens on Saturday 9 July 2016.
Nogoi Njie, one of the accused persons of the April 14 demonstrators at Westfield is standing trial at the Banjul High Court which was later transferred to Mansakonko.
When Nogoi and her co accused appeared at Mansakonko, they were remanded at Janjanbureh Prison.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11567 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2016 : 22:26:59
|
WHERE IS LAMIN SARJO?
Foroyaa Editorial: July 19, 2016
QUESTION OF THE DAY
WHERE IS LAMIN SARJO?
Lamin Sarjo is an apprentice driver who is said to be 18 years old. He is not charged. The driver and transport have been released while he, the apprentice to the driver who was transporting people to the court proceedings involving the UDP leadership and members, is still in detention without trial.
Such a person should not be under detention, because of the fact that he is not charged with any crime. The authorities should quickly look into this case and release him accordingly. A young man like him should have been in high school, but instead he is struggling to learn a skill in order to become productive. Any day he spends in detention affects his development. It is unjust to expose him to detention at this age without any justification that he has been charged with an offence.
LAMIN SARJO MOVED FROM CRR PRISON TO MILE TWO
By Mustapha Jallow
Foroyaa: July 19, 2016
Information from a reliable source indicates that Lamin Sarjo, has been transferred from Janjanbureh Prison in the Central River Region (CRR) to Mile II Prison in the outskirts of Banjul.
He is said to be still held at prison without court appearance or release.
Lamin Cham, a youth leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), corroborated the information that Lamin Sarjo, has now been moved to Mile prison some days ago. He added that the 18 year old boy is not part of those who were arraigned before Justice O. Ottaba of the Special Criminal Division of the Banjul High court on Tuesday, 12 July 2016.
‘‘It’s only Lamin Sarjo that is currently held incommunicado without trial. We are making effort to secure his release because his name was not part of the charge sheet and some others who were detained alongside him have been finally taken to court,’’ he asserted.
Young Sarjo, was part of the 36 supporters who were arrested by the PIU around Kanifing on 9 May while en route to the Kombos from Banjul after attending a court trial of the UDP leader and other members.
He is also a nephew and apprentice of Malang Sarjo, a commercial ‘gele gele’ driver, who was part of those UDP supporters who were released on bail on 30 June at the police headquarters in Banjul. Both are residing in Mandinaring in Kombo North.
At the time of going to press, a source informed this medium that Malang’s ‘Gele gele’ was returned to him before the Eid ‘Koriteh’.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Trial of April 14 alleged demonstrators
