Denmark Update:Kudos Kim for that Positive response!!!

Kudos Kim for that Positive response!!!

I am appealing once again for you to complement our efforts in inserting my identity in the system of GambiaAffairs web blog,in order
to avail readers the opportunity to know the owner of the web blog.It is obvious that everything is being managed and done by me here in the Gambia.
And I also buy reports from freelance journalists who want to sell their reports for publication.Stories on the web blog have the bylines of their various authors.
I am going all this just to give enough stuff to our readership and to exceed their expectations on me.We are on the ground, so we  are in better position to give better report about the Gambia than any other website in the world.
It is because of your support that i am able to establish this web blog.For that been the case your attention is highly solicited.
Can you also help us to know the number of people reading the web blog and their destinations.

Please help and put my details on the web blog.However your attention is highly solicited.
By Saikou Ceesay
Editor
Gambiaaffairs Web blog in Banjul,the Gambia.
I now work with the Banjul base Independent Daily Newspaper.

---

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

Gambia Update:We Never Intent to Defame President Jammeh, Pap Saine, Sam Sarr Tell the Court

We Never Intent to Defame President Jammeh, 

Journalist Pap Saine, Sam Sarr Tell the Court

As Pap Saine, the Co-Publisher and Editor of the Point Newspaper and Sam Sarr, Managing Editor of Foroyaa Newspaper took the witness box yesterday, in the ongoing six journalists' trial at the High Court in Banjul, both men have stated that they had not under any circumstances intent to defame President Yahya Jammeh.

First to take the witness box was the Point Newspaper's boss, Pap Saine, who told the court that for thirty-nine years he has been practising journalism, but had never been charged with any seditious or defamatory offence.

The Dean of Reuters Correspondent for West and Central Africa, narrated how he was on that fateful day of June 15th 2009, asked to report to the NIA Headquarters in Banjul.

Pap Saine (DW5), while in the witness box informed the court that his names are Pap Babucarr Saine and that he lives in Latrikunda Sabiji. He said he is a publisher and media practitioner.

DW5 testified that he could vividly remember on 15th June 2009, at around 1:30 pm when Ebrima Sawaneh, the accused number one called him on the phone and told him that there were two NIA officers at the office, who requested that he(Sawaneh) and Pap Saine should report to the NIA Head Office.

DW5 adduced that upon arrival at the office, he went with others- Ebrima Sawaneh, Sarata Jabbi Dibba and Emil Touray to the NIA.

DW5 stated that when they got to the NIA Headquarters in Banjul, after a few minutes they were invited to the conference room of the agency, when one NIA officer came and told him that they have been invited for questioning in connection with an article published in the Point Newspaper, captioned "GPU's reacts to the President interview".

According to him, they were each given the said article and quizzed about the author of the piece.

In response, he said it's a press release from the GPU.

DW5 further told the court that he simply published the said article in the interest of democracy and press freedom as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human and People's Right, of which the Gambia is a party.

DW5 also informed the court that prior to that, the paper had earlier published the interview of the President, among other things, on the death of the late Deyda Hydara. He reasoned that it was out of the same conscience that he had authorised the publication of the article in the Point Newspaper.

He noted that as the article is neither malicious nor seditious, he decided to publish it in the public interest. He added that since the constitution of The Gambia put special emphasis on the need for divergent views to be upheld, in particular, the independent media, he decided to publish it.

DW5 said that "when they interrogated me this was my response to them."

He went on to state that, they were on the following day asked to write their cautionary statements, to which they accordingly complied.

Still testifying, DW5 adduced that there was neither a name of a security officer on exhibit (D), nor was it signed by any security officer.

When availed with exhibit A and B (Foroyaa and the Point Newspapers, respectively), DW5 testified that only those papers were shown to him.

 "I published it because the article was not seditious and defamatory and the article never stated that President Jammeh and the government of The Gambia have a hand in the killing of the late Deyda Hydara, in both the two exhibits," he stressed.

Defence witness five, further testified that he was made to write his name on exhibit I (the email from GPU), under the directives of NIA officers, which he said was not authored by him, but the President of the GPU, Ndey Tapha Sosseh, whom he said, is also the source of the article.

DW5 adduced that "there is no alleged seditious, nor defamatory issue contained in exhibit (I) and the email was from GPU@qanet.gm, and page 3 of it was from madenba@worldbank.org".

DW5 further stated that during 39 years of his journalism practice, he had never been charged with seditious or defamatory offences.

Noting that all practicing journalists are not members of the GPU as alleged by PW2 and PW3, he told the court that he is not a member of the union.

DW5 further added that he was among the founding members of the GPU, when it was formed in 1979, and that he served as Treasurer then, that is from 1979 to the 1990s.

DW5 further stated that after becoming a Media Chief, he's naturally disqualified by the constitution of the union to be a member of the GPU, instead he could only be contacted for advice when members deem it fitting.

On whether he is aware of the charges leveled against him, he replied in the positive.

DW5 also testified that, he did not publish any seditious and defamatory material in the Point and Foroyaa Newspapers.

When cross-examined by Sam Sarr, as to whether he had at anytime before the arrest discussed the GPU's statement with him, DW5 responded in the negative. Asked whether before their arrest, he had made the statement available to him, DW5 again replied in the negative.

Sam Sarr further asked DW5, whether he had asked him to publish the said statement. In reply, he said said no.

When posed to him whether he knows Nian Sarang Jobe, DW5 replied "very well". Sam Sarr further quizzed where she is resident, DW5 said "she is in Dibba Kunda, in the Gambia".

Still elaborating, he said Nian Sarang Jobe had traveled out of the country to Senegal for medical treatment, that's when Hydara was killed on 16th December 2004. But, he said Nian came back in July 2005, and has since then been living in The Gambia.

When cross-examined by the Director of Public Prosecution, Richard Chenge, as to whether he is a founder member, and whether there was any formal registration, DW5 answered in the positive.

On whether there was naturally the name of members in the registrar, he replied "Yes".

At this point, Mr. Saine put it to the DPP that "anything he wants to know about the GPU must be referred to the Secretary-General of the union.

DPP further asked "Since you became a media chief, the name still remains there?" In reply, DW5 responded "I don't know".

DPP then asked "Did you go and erase your name?

In response, Mr. Saine said "GPU is a body of members and a registered organisation".

When put to him that whether by publishing the article, he intent that the people of the Gambia should read it. In response, he said as a publisher he only publishes material for the public to decide.

Asked whether GPU is hitting back to President's interview, Mr. Saine replied "that's your opinion."

Mr. Saine at this juncture raised an objection in the way and manner, in which DPP posed questions to him. As he put it, "DPP wanted to beat me down".

Furthermore, he said "I only published the article in the interest of democracy and press freedom as stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human and People's Rights, which the Gambia is a party".

He further adduced that he does not have any hatred for the President and the government of the Gambia.

On whether any GPU member came to him to disassociate himself from the article, he responded in the negative.

According to him, on that very day of June 15th 2009, when the paper came out in the morning he was at the Banjul Magistrates' Court to hear a judgment relating to his citizenship, in which he was acquitted and discharged.

In his testimony, Sam Sarr, the Managing Editor of Foroyaa Newspaper, said his names are Samuel Osseh Sarr, and that he lives at

No.1 Sambou Street

, in Churchill's Town.

Sam testified that he is a media practitioner and the Managing Editor of Foroyaa Newspaper. Sam Sarr adduced that the responsibility of what to publish and not to publish falls on him. He said apart from publishing, he also taught for 33 years and that he has been in the field of journalism since 1987.

He adduced that on Thursday 11 June 2009, he opened his email box and found a request for publication from Ndey Tapha-Sosseh, GPU's President.

"I examined the contents of the article and discovered it was a reaction to what the President said in an earlier interview with the GRTS," he added.

According to him, the interview had at length dealt with some allegations concerning the death of some Ghanians in the Gambia and at the same time the killing of Deyda Hydara.

The sixth accused explained that Foroyaa's office had recorded the President's interview with the GRTS. He also told the court that he has the recorded version of the video cassette, which he later tendered in court and marked as "Defence 6 exhibit A".

He further testified that Foroyaa also published a summary of the said interview in their edition No. 66/2009, dated 8-9 June 2009. 

"In that article titled President Jammeh's interview which dealt on the killings of Ghanians, as well as what was said on Deyda Hydara as at that time, the transcribed version of which was published in Foroyaa was done but not completed," he testified. The issue was then tendered and marked as Defence no. 6 exhibit B.

He testified that the President in that interview stated that he has nothing to do with the killing of Deyda Hydara.

According to him, Foroyaa Newspaper's approach was to ensure the publication of divergent views and dissenting opinions.

He further stated that when he received GPU's email from his inbox, he took it into account and reflected on certain statements that were made by the President.

He said the fact that Ndey Tapha Sosseh is the President of the GPU and that she's specifically concerned with the issue of Deyda Hydara, he thought it's unfair not to grant her access for the publication on a pertinent issue.

He adduced that he did not consider the publication to be a 'hit back' to the President, rather the President had expressed his views and Ndey Tapha Sosseh was also allowed to state her view as, according to him, this is what democracy is all about.

"What we expect on major issues of concern to the public should be handled through debate rather than otherwise," he stressed.

"I always work on the premise of God faith with public interest and pursuit of the truth," Sam Sarr added.

 "My Lord Newspapers have the responsibility to scrutinise the executive and occasionally such criticisms have effects, such as the publication relating to the collection of dues by some people who claimed that they were doing it for the July 22nd celebrations, but when this was criticised the authority issued a release to say that those who were doing it should desist from the practice. This, according to him, is the role of the media.

At this juncture, the sixth accused who is representing himself, urged the court to play the cassette to show the portion relating to Deyda Hydara.

Meanwhile, Sam Sarr proceeded to inform the court that on 15th June 2009, while he was teaching he was arrested by three NIA officers, led by PW2.

"I was taken to the NIA office until the time I was leaving. I had never been told the reason of my arrest neither I was told my right to access a legal practitioner," he explained.

He said on 16th June 2009, he was asked to write his statement and when he asked the reason of his arrest he was told that it was in connection with the publication, which was contained in exhibit A (Foroyaa Newspaper).

Sam Sarr informed the court that he is a publisher and he has not seen anything wrong with what he had published in the paper.

 He further stated that after reading the last paragraph of the article and after carefully considering that the statement is not seditious nor defamatory he decided to publish it. He adduced that, the issues which were raised in that interview and recorded in the video cassette are issues of concern to the author and as such, he decided to publish it.

He further testified that, if the cassette is played he would extract one or two statements of the interview.

Sam Sarr further tendered the transcribed version of the video cassette, which was marked as Defence No. 6 exhibit (c).

He testified that after reading the interview made by the President, he found out some inaccuracies in the interview. "I felt it necessary, in particular, this issue of the Senegalese and absence of the two ladies who were in the same vehicle with Deyda Hydara, and then asked myself the question whether the President was properly informed," he stated, adding that it was the same reason why he found it necessary to publish such.

DW6 further adduced that "I further asked myself a question whether the President was well-informed."

And then stated that by publishing such, the President of the Republic of the Gambia will have the opportunity to reflect and conduct necessary investigation.

"I publish in public interest, and the alleged defamatory and seditious article is really an expression of the GPU's President, which could serve as a valuable advice for the President and government of the Gambia," he added.

DW6 testified that before the publication of the alleged publication "I have discussed with nobody and nobody ever communicated to me apart from the email that was received from Ndey Tapha Sosseh; I have not forwarded the statement to any body, individual, a web site or newspaper; I simply published because that is my job."

"The charges are clear from my conduct and the circumstances of this case that I have no intention to bring hatred on contempt or to excite this disaffection against the people of the President and the government of the Gambia. In fact that is not my style. Hatred and division does not carry society forward, what is of value is the information for the public and ensuring the exercise of divergent views, to give meaning to the alleged defamatory statement that the statement is accusing the Gambia government and  the President as being responsible for the killing of Mr. Hydara is unreasonable," he told the court.

He further elucidated that at the time of the publication; he did not have any intention to defame the President or the government of the Republic of The Gambia, noting that the statement is not derogatory nor contentious and did not ridicule anyone.

(To be continued)

Author:Saikou Ceesay,Banjul

Source: Pictures: Pap Saine (1)

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

Gambia Update:Briton Fined For Breaking Aviation Regulation

Briton Fined For Breaking Aviation Regulation

A Briton was on Wednesday convicted and sentenced by the Brikama Magistrates' Court for contravening the Civil Aviation Regulations.

He was given a light sentence to pay a fine of D30, 000, in default to serve three months in prison.

Samuel Marry was arraigned on a charge of interfering with the crew on board an aeroplane, in contravention of Section 64 (1) of the Civil Aviation Act.

He pleaded guilty to the charge.

According to the charge sheet, Mr. Marry sometime early this year, at the Banjul International Airport while on board flight No 151 from the United Kingdom to The Gambia used abusive language in the plane, and upon arrival at the Banjul International Airport the matter was reported by the pilot.

Principal Magistrate Mahoney presided over the case.

---

Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.

Denmark:Where is Horsens Folkblad Kim Jensen!!!

The Where about of Kim Jensen,a Danish journalist previously working with Horsens Folkblad
Newspaper in Denmark is a source of concern to us here at the GambiaAffairs.
This gentle, Kim, who has contributed immensely in helping building the potential of Gambia during his two week trip to the Gambia is a great source of concern to Gambian journalists as we speak now.The aforesaid trip was sponsored and facilitated by the Twinning Project some in 2007.
We sincerely miss his contact and contribution in the web blog.However this web blog is being welcomed and commended by many both in abroad and at home for its credibility in giving substantial news items.If there is any need for factual,reliable and authoritative news consult us here at Gambia Affairs web blog.

We are sending this message across the world for Mr.Kim Jensen to contact us in earnest.
His contribution is urgently needed by swarm of journalists behind GambiaAffairs.
He can contact us @ ceesay202@yahoo.com

Author:Saikou Ceesay,Banjul

---

With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.

Gambia Update:In Journalists Trial, Judge overrules No Case Submission, One Acquitted and Discharged

In Journalists Trial, Judge overrules No Case Submission, One Acquitted and Discharged Lamin S. Camara counsel for Ebrima Sawaneh, Pap Saine, Sarata Jabbi Dibba, Pa Madou Faal, Abubacarr Saidykhan and Bai Emil Touray, journalists standing trial on charges ranging from seditious publications; conspiracy to published seditious publication and criminal defamation, yesterday made a "no case to answer" submission on behalf of his clients. However, his submission was overruled by the presiding Judge, Justice Emanuel Fagbenle and ordered for the accused persons to enter their defence. In his submission, Counsel Camara submitted that the accused persons are charged with five counts of conspiracy to publish seditious publication, publishing seditious publication and criminal defamation. He submitted that prosecution premises on three witnesses who are all state security agents and noted that prosecution have failed to make a prima facie case. He submitted that for a 'no case' submission to succeed, three requirements must succeed. That is, the elements or ingredients were not proven by the prosecution and in that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus and the mens rea. Secondly the evidence by the prosecution was thoroughly discredited and thirdly the evidence proven by the state is unreliable tfor no reasonable court to convict an accused person. He, at that juncture, referred the court to Nigerian criminal law, All Nigerian Law Report and the Queen's Bench Division. Counsel Camara submitted that having regard to this, have the prosecution made a prima facie case? "I respectfully submitted that they have not". Camara further submitted that the prosecution called PW1 and tendered exhibits A to L and PW1 testified and tendered exhibit A (the Foroyaa) and Exhibit B (the Point newspaper) containing the alleged seditious publication in addition to the cautionary statements of some of the accused persons, with the exception of the sixth accused Sam Sarr which specifically said he took in the present of other witnesses and read it to them. He expressed that thus, it is obvious from the exhibits tendered that PW1 tendering of the exhibits is inaccurate and exhibit C to H was obtained with no security officer present and it is clear that none of the security officers read the statements. Counsel Camara submitted that PW1's evidence is really unsafe for the court to rely on it which is clear from exhibit C to H that none of the security officers signed the cautionary statements and it is incorrect to say PW1 read the cautionary statements. Counsel Camara submitted that PW2 testified and said he arrested the sixth accused person and in the process arrested the 5th accused, Abubacarr Saidykhan, when he attempted to take photo of the security agents that came to effect the arrest. He submitted that the 5th accused made no incriminating offence. Mr. Camara submitted that PW2 professed his opinion with regards to the content of exhibit A (Foroyaa Newspaper) and said his opinion implies the alleged seditious implication means and quoted PW2 who ealier said "the President and his government has a hand in the killing of Deyda Hydara" but failed to show where that is in the statement. He therefore submitted that there is no such publication contain in both Foroyaa and the Point newspapers as this witness have not shown the alleged offences. Camara submitted that it is try law that he who alleges must prove. He added that the court could not go on a voyage to put flesh on the skeleton of prosecution evidence. He submitted that the prosecution have all the need to prove their case. He adduced that an important clue of the witness' statement mentioned that he was present when the cautionary statements were taken except for the sixth accused person Sam Sarr. He adduced the witness said he was also present when the cautionary statements were read to the accused persons which was never said by PW1. Counsel also submitted that there came inconsistency in PW1 and PW3 and PW3 admitting under cross-examination that there is no name of a security officer who purportedly took the cautionary statements and further to that there is no evidence that the accused persons confessed to be members of Gambia Press Union in their cautionary statements and having various link to the alleged seditious publication. Counsel Camara further submitted PW3 finally admitted that such statements were not contain in exhibit C to H. He added that the evidences of this witness is inconsistent with PW1 to a very material particular and also inconsistent to the evidence of PW2 who arrested Abubacarr Saidykhan the 5th accused who was arrested for taking a photo, which made the evidence of the prosecution unreliable and inconsistent, hence they have been totally discredited. Counsel Camara submitted that PW3 tendered exhibit I, J, K and L, which he said were obtained from their various e-mail inboxes of the accused persons and wrote their names on the mail that contain the seditious publication. Counsel Camara submitted that PW3 failed to prove to the court where the seditious publication is contained in the e-mail addresses then copied and attached the various publications to exhibit L and was asked whether the e-mail addresses of any of the accused persons amount to publication, which he replied in the negative. Counsel Camara submitted that PW3 tendered exhibits A and B (Foroyaa and the Point newspaper respectively) and showed the court two different paragraphs contained in exhibit A and B and said they formed the basis of his opinion. Camara submitted that these two paragraphs are different and the meanings are two different things. "I submitted that a mere production of exhibit A and B does not suffice a prima facie case,"  he added that "the prosecution must go the extra mile to prove the seditious intent of the publication" adding that the test applied is a reasonable mind differ from person to person and he submitted it is obvious that the reasonable is any one who can sit at the 'ataya' vous  and open a copy of Daily observer, Foroyaa and the Point or the common mind in his garden that is reasonable standard. Counsel Camara submitted that the opinion of the witnesses are immaterial, and added that the icing of the cake was when PW3 said, "my opinion is not important."  He submitted that why then rendering his opinion? Counsel Camara stated that it is tried law, and then read the particulars of count one before the court, submitting that PW1 and PW3 have not laid any evidence on count one. He added that even one ingredient have not been proven and there is no evidence that these accused persons are members of the GPU and the court have to be certain on what to do and it is only evidence that can help the court. He submitted that counts one and four, that is conspiracy charges, and the rest of the charges does not prove the evidence of conspiracy. He submitted that it is try law that conspiracy is the meeting of the mind for illegal enterprise and submitted that no evidence have been laid for the meeting of the minds for illegal publication. Counsel Camara stated that the only influence brought before the court is erroneous that is, "because they are journalist and therefore they are members of the GPU" which is incorrect and at best circumstantial. He stated count 5 is on criminal defamation and none of the witnesses said clearly that anybody has been defamed before this court and the estimation of any person or thing have been reduced. He submitted that the prosecution did not make a prima facie case and the three conditions have not been met. At this juncture he referred the court to the State versus Yusupha Dukureh, which states that "mere suspicion and simply and circumstantial evidence is not enough for a prima facie case". Camara further referred the court to Ubanatu against the Commissioner of Police, the Law Report of Nigeria and the Obiter dicta of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which he read before the court. He submitted that, "having regard the evidence before the court, the prosecution have failed to make a prima facie case as in Mensah and other versus the Republic in 1979 Ghana law report, at the High Court of Ghana and the matter before the court is seditious which is the written material and not outside to determine the seditious intent and other circumstance must be considered". That is the public feeling, and the explanation of the appellant must be considered. He submitted that the court to acquit and discharge the accused persons for the prosecution dismal failure to prove a prima facie case. For his part, the sixth accused, Sam Sarr , who is representing himself, submitted that the prosecution have not adduced enough evidence to make a prima facie case and that the evidence adduced must be adequate and must prove every element of the charge. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove to the court that "I have any intent to defame the President of the Gambia or the Government of the Gambia" which is required of any charges relating to libel. He submitted that the prosecution had also failed to prove that the publication has been done with intent to bring into hatred or content or excite disaffection against the person of the president or the Government of The Gambia. He stated that the Prosecution had failed to prove to the court that he had conspired with any of the accused persons or others at large to publish any defamatory or libelous matter. He stated that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and their evidence adduced must be only sufficient to call an accused person to enter his defence or rebut the allegation. Mr. Sarr stated that as submitted by counsel of other accused persons even a single element has not proven a prima facie case and submitted for him to be acquitted and discharged by the court. Replying to the 'No case' submission, Richard N Chenge submitted that they had made a prima facie case, and that the question of credibility does not arise at all and it is the court that shall look at evidence whether or not it is contradictory.  He added that once the prosecution have given material evidence it is the court to decide whether to go or leave which he said is only known at the end of a case. DPP submitted that whether the court might believe it or not, the prosecution has proven the ingredients, since the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is to establish that the accused are members of the GPU and made a publication in the Point and Foroyaa. He stated that any objections from the defence that the accused are not members of GPU was not only adduced by the defence but in the exhibit tendered in court. DPP referred the court to exhibit K which he said indicates that all the accused persons are members of the GPU. He submitted that the statements are clear that they are members of the GPU. He stated that "in fact Emil Touray the 7th accused, in exhibit L gave his address as in the statement as GPU". DPP added that thereby "admitted to be a member". Director of public Prosecution further submitted in exhibit E that Sarata Jabbi Dibba admitted to being a member of GPU and adduced that Sarata Jabbi Dibba said that Ndey Tapha Sosseh had informed her of her reaction to the interview made by the president as she adviced her to drop it since it may lead to problems. Richard Chenge submitted that Pap Saine the second accused person, stated in exhibit D that he Pap Saine authorised the publication. He stated that exhibit D mentioned Pa Modou Faal as the treasurer of GPU and the statement in the internet shows that all the accused persons are members of GPU. He further submitted that the statement tendered were never objected and described the objection as medicine after death for admissibility. He stated that it is tried law that a person cannot approbate and probate. He submitted that PW1 and PW3 only said why they arrested the accused persons. He submitted that the issue is one of intent that is the mens rea. He stated that even the devil does not know the mind of the person. He added if from the publication which stated the Government cannot be exonorated is an allegation of murder which he said even the deaf persons can attest to the seditious publication. DPP submitted that the prosecution have proven more than a prima facie case and urged the court to reject the 'no case' submission. Defence objected to the reply made by the prosecution arguing that prosecution missed the point on the authority of Menseh. Camara submitted that defence have made objections to the cautionary statement by objecting to the admissibility of the statement and not the vague content of the statement. Thirdly, Camara stated mere publication is not enough as the law of the land requires that mens rea must be proven and otherwise will amount for the accused to prove their innocence, and urged the court to uphold the no case submission. Sam Sarr cited section 51 sub section-(2) of the CPC which says evidence of his conduct and circumstance must be proven. The court ruled against the no case submission and acquitted and discharged the 5th accused person Abubacarr Saidykhan whose action was only taking pictures of the security officers and not conspiring or making seditious publication as brought in the charges. At this juncture the defence made an application for the court to provide them with its ruling as they intend to appeal to the Court of Appeal but the court overruled the application arguing that there is no such motion before the court and the court will proceed hearing the case, as the charges are alleged criminal charges. In the circumstances, defence called Ebrima Sawaneh, the first accused, to open his defence and his testimony follows in the next publication. Source: Pictures: Justice Fagbenle, presiding High Judge (1), Antouman Gaye lead defence counsel (2) and Abubacarr SaidyKhan, Acquitted and Discharged (3)

---

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

Gambia Update:Three Police Officers Jailed

Three Police Officers Jailed

Three police officers: Lamin Jammeh, Sissawo Badjie and Sheikh Sowe, charged with negligence and aiding eleven trial prisoners to escape from lawful custody at the Bundung Police Station were on Monday 27th July 2009 convicted and sentenced by the Bundung Magistrates' Court.

The 1st accused was sentenced to one year's mandatory jail term, while the 2nd accused received a mandatory jail term of nine months, and the 3rd accused got a six months mandatory jail term.

The presiding magistrate, Kumba-Sillah Camara, pronounced that these sentences would serve as a deterrent to others.

In her judgement, Magistrate Kumba-Sillah Camara stated that "the accused were charged with the offence of negligence and aiding eleven trial prisoners to make their escape from lawful custody". She said the three accused persons pleaded not guilty, noting that the prosecution called four witnesses in support of their case while the defence called three witnesses.

She pointed out that the convicts had confirmed before the court that on the day in question they were on duty at the said police station. She further adduced that all the convicts confirmed to the court that the cell door was locked.

She posited that as a result, "the court found it as a matter of fact that the accused had been careless and should be ashamed of the act, because they have a duty to oversee the station."

She further revealed that the convicts' evidence that they tried to stop the prisoners from escaping does not mean that they were not negligent.

She finally added that the prosecution witnesses' evidence collaborate each other by providing all the valuable facts before the court, adding that the prosecution have proven their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The convicts in their plea of mitigation begged for mercy.

---

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

Editorial:Gambia:Good Governance is the Best Policy,Believe it my Friend!!!

Good Governance is the Best Policy,Believe it my Friend!!!

Picture:Saikou Ceesay,Banjul
can be reached www.ceesay202@yahoo.com

The defiance of Niger's leader Mamadou Tandja in going ahead with a referendum on his third-term plan, despite international pressure against it, is yet another sign that Africa remains plagued by the strongman syndrome. Apart from few examples, presidential succession in Africa is fraught with crisis or violence that leads to untold loss of life and perennial political instability. Both Kenya and Zimbabwe are still reeling from the aftermath of presidential succession; and South Africa barely averted a succession crisis. It all boils down to the question of bad governance. The African strongmen are so intoxicated by power that fear being impotent without it.

Some of the tactics of the strongmen are bizarre: constitutions are tempered with to enable an incumbent leader to rule without any term limit; the legislature is packed with stooges and bootlickers who bend themselves over backwards to legitimize damnable ambitions of an incumbent. In countries such as Togo and Gabon, the presidency is now a family corporate business where sons succeed fathers without regard to the values of a republican state. It is for this reason that much of Africa, from the point of view of democracy, is regarded as a sight for sore eyes.

There is much that is wrong with leadership on the continent. When state resources are plundered with reckless abandon by the very people who are entrusted with their management, a country sinks: infrastructure decays and social and economic obligations are left unattended to. As a result, poverty takes centre stage. When leaders are richer than their countries, that is no good governance; it is executive daylight robbery. In such a situation, the people are left to fight over the crumbs that fall off a leader's table. This has given rise to sycophancy as a survival strategy in many an African country.

The antidote, as we see it, is that good governance remains the best policy for the continent. In this context, leaders have to be faithful to their electoral promises and keep faith with the people from whom they derive their mandate. They have to govern transparently without recourse to brute force when they are called upon to give account of their stewardship. They have to manage state resources for the benefit of everyone, without enriching themselves and their allies at the expense of the masses. It is only in Africa that people take a public office as a springboard to sudden and unexpected opulence. In other parts of the world, a public position is seen as an opportunity for service to the community.

Despite the gloom that has enveloped much of the continent, we are ever so optimistic that the African people will transcend this sad phase of their development.

"Good government could never be a substitute for government by the people themselves".

---

Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.

Gambia Update:The Trial of Seven Journalists Continue

The Trial of Seven Journalists Continue Tuesday, July 28, 2009 The trial of the seven journalists: Ebrima Sawaneh, Pap Saine, Sarata Jabi-Dibba, Pa Modou Faal, Aboucarr Saidyhan, Sam Sarr and Bai Emil Touray, yesterday continued in an open court at the High Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle. The proceedings started with cross-examination of the second prosecution witness (name withheld). Antouman Gaye, the lead defence counsel, began by asking the witness whether he knows the six accused persons and whether they are members of the Gambian Press Union (GPU). The witness responded in the affirmative, saying they are all journalists. He added that their profession also make them members of the G.P.U. He posited that being a journalist serves as an evident for him. Furthermore, under cross-examination he said he knows Abubacarr Saidykhan, the 5th accused person as a journalist, and a member of the GPU. He further adduced that he also knows Sarata Jabbi Dibba, whom he said, is the 1st Vice-President of the GPU. At this juncture, Antouman Gaye asked him whether he knows Modou Sanyang of GRTS, and he answered in the positive. Further asked whether the entire anchormen and women and reporters of GRTS are members of the Gambia Press Union. He retorted "I don't know." PW2 further explained that he picked up the 5th and 6th accused persons and handed them to the NIA headquarters. He went further to say that, he read exhibit A (that is the Foroyaa Newspapers), a day after the article which the President of the G.P.U reacted to an interview on the GRTS Television. He said after reading the piece, he made an opinion that the government of the Gambia and the President are implicated in the killing of the late Mr. Hydara, the co-proprietor and editor of the Point Newspaper. Antouman Gaye then asked him to go through the article and state where it was mentioned that the President and the Gambia government are involved in the killing of Deyda Hydara. The witness, however, stated that it was not stated in the article. "It is not stated in the article, but when I read the article I understand actually what they are saying," he argued. The defence then put it to him that when the article is given to each and every person in the crowded courtroom, each person will have his or her own opinion of the article. Antouman Gaye put it to PW2 that his opinion was erroneous and arrived at "no basis". PW2 responded that it has basis since it is on the papers. When asked how long he has been a security officer, he answered "for over 30 years." At that juncture, Antouman Gaye put it him that as he is entitled to his opinion, so others are entitled to theirs. PW2 again resorted to a short reply, "I don't know". He further put it to the witness that, he is evading the questions, which shows that he (PW2) is not a competent witness, but a "compellable witness." Counsel Gaye further submitted that PW2 was deviating in answering the questions and he (PW2) answered "I am not". At that point, PW2 ended his testimony. Richard N. Chenge then applied for his witness to stand down from the dock. Richard N. Chenge, the Director of Public Prosecution informed the court that he has his last witness to call who was present in court. Following the calling of the third and last prosecution witness  (also name withheld) in the witness box, the DPP asked him to recall his mind to the 15th of June 2009, and whether he knows all the accused persons. He responded in the affirmative. PW3 adduced that he knows the second accused person, Pap Saine, whom he said is the Publisher and Managing Editor of Point Newspaper and also a member of the Gambia Press Union. He also said that Sarata Jabbi-Dibba is the 1st Vice-President of the Gambia Press Union and also a freelance journalist working with the Point Newspaper. Pa Modou Faal, he said, is the Treasurer of the G.P.U and a sports reporter with the Point Newspaper. He said he also knows the 5th accused, Abubacarr Saidykhan as a photojournalist with Foroyaa Newspaper and also a member of the Gambia Press Union. He further elucidated that Sam Sarr is the Editor-in-chief of Foroyaa and a member of GPU, and that Bai Emil Touray is the Secretary-General of the same union and works with Foroyaa Newspaper. He testified that on 15th June 2009, he received an order to invite members of the Gambia Press Union in connection to a press release relating to an interview made by the President about the dead of Deyda Hydara. He said after their arrest, they were questioned about the aforementioned article, the source of the article and the distribution of the article and the role each played in the publication of the same. Still testifying, PW3 said that during investigations, Sam Sarr was invited from Foroyaa, while Ebrima Sawaneh came from the Point Newspaper. He told the court that Sam Sarr was not co-operative and did not answer any question. He said that Ebrima Sawaneh of the Point Newspaper had revealed that Pap Saine, the second accused, asked him whether he (Sawaneh) have received the said press release. He further testified that during investigations, it came to light that Pa Modou Faal had downloaded the article from his inbox to his memory stick, and then gave it to Ebrima Sawaneh, which was later published without unedited. He continued that Pap Saine is the Publisher of the Point Newspaper. He said that, according to Sarata Jabbi Dibba, she received the article through an e-mail from Ndey Tapha Sosseh, the President of the Gambia Press Union, who urged her to look for space in the Point Newspaper for publication. He told the court that Pa Modou Faal downloaded the message and gave it to Sawaneh, the 1st accused for publication. He adduced that he came to learn about that through Sarata. PW3 was asked by the DPP whether he had found out from Pap Saine, if space was given. He posited that it the space was obviously given since it was published. DPP further asked the witness "what is this message about". He answered that it is a press release from the GPU President. The last witness told the court that Abubacarr Saidykhan did not disassociate himself from the press release and was "obstructing our officers who went to invite Sam Sarr." Still testifying, PW3 said the sixth accused, Sam Sarr, indeed published the article in Foroyaa Newpaper. He said that Bai Emil Touray, the 7th accused, during the investigation revealed that the message was to be carried out, since they could not do much to consult with other members to stop the publication.  PW3 further stated that both the accused persons had accepted receiving the press release through an e-mail. PW3 further stated that they facilitated in accessing their e-mail boxes and the messages were printed out from each of their email boxes and marked according to their names, which PW3 identified in court. The DPP then applied to tender the document as exhibits in court. Lamin S. Camara raised an objection in tendering the document arguing that the proper foundation have not been laid as the said documents are computer print out and are sort to be tendered as exhibits in court, for the simple reasons that the foundation for the reception of the document have not been laid to render it admissible, as stipulated in Section 22 of the Evidence Act. He argued that statements produce by computer, in compliance with Section 22 sub section- (1), is mandatory with "shall" and all conditions listed in sub section 2-(a) must be met before they are laid. Lamin S. Camara further submitted that the witness did not tell the court the functions of the computer, how the information was fed into the computer, whether the computer is functioning regularly and how the information came by conjunction, noting that all these conditions must be satisfied. Counsel Camara went on to read Section 22 of the Evident Act, saying that this section is the most difficult and the longest part of the Evidence Act of 2004. Camara then defined computer "as a means of any device for processing and storing information, any reference been derived from other information is a reverence to it being derived by calculation comparism or any other person". "The witness needs to lay all foundations to tender the documents. Compliance of Section 22 is not negotiable and admission of any document of this nature produced by computer," he stated. Richard Chenge, in his reply, stated that what is said in Section 22 is subject to rule of the court and Section 3 subsection- (1), the case of admissibility is relevant and the witness facilitated with the accused to produce the documents and it will be ridiculous to object to a document they produce. DPP further submitted that the accused should not gain from what they choose to do. Further objecting Lawyer Camara submitted that relevance is not the sole determinant for admissibility. He submitted that it is a try law that the statue are to be interpreted literally and should be clear from the wording and language. Lawyer Further submitted that "Section 3 sub section-(1) should be read in tandem with other rules that qualify it and Section 3-(1) the operative words of Section 3-(1) and Section 22 (1) is contained in the same Act which is an Act of Parliament". However, the court found the document tendered as relevant to the issue before the court and then dismissed the objection raised by the defence. During cross-examination by Lawyer Camara, PW3 said that he was not present went the cautionary statements of the accused were taken, but he confirmed that PW1 had cautioned Pap Saine and recorded his statement. PW3 further testified that there is no indication in the statement that PW1 had indeed cautioned Pap Saine before taken the statement. When he was given exhibit G for confirmation, he said the cautionary statement of Bai emil Touray reads "reserve my statement for posterity". He said neither did he take any statement nor was he present at the time of recording the statements of the accused persons. PW3 said that Abubacarr Saidykhan recorded himself and no officer had cautioned him. PW3 testified that this trend applied to all the other accused persons, except Sam who refused to make any statement. PW3 stated that the message (article) was sent to more than 18 people, as it was copied to lots of people. PW3 when given exhibit C to H to show any indication as to whether there was any officer present at the time of undertaking the statement, he responded no. And then lawyer Camara asked him when you caution somebody, are you not obliged to write it down, he replied in the affirmative. Camara further asked PW3 whether he knows Tijan E Bah, he replied in the affirmative but he claimed that he neither know where he works nor did he knows whether he is literate in English. PW3 stated that he is not familiar with computers but only to check mails. PW3 further stated that there is no publication in exhibit I. At this point, Counsel Camara put it to PW3 that whether downloading an email tantamount to publication. In reply, PW3 responded in the affirmative. Counsel Camara then put it to PW3 whether he personally investigated the matter, he said "no I was part of the panel that invested the matter". PW3 further testified that he did not know every member of the GPU nor did he know the criteria for their membership. PW3 then testified that all accused persons had confessed that they are pressmen, but did not mention in their statements that they are journalists. At this point, PW3 was given exhibits A and B (the Foroyaa and the Point Newspapers, respectively) to trace his opinion in the articles. PW3 then said, "I did not even read the articles properly." At that juncture, he was given time to go over the two exhibits (the two newspapers) and subsequently came up with two paragraphs that he deemed to have form his opinion. When counsel Camara put it to him whether those two paragraphs are part of his opinion. PW3 answered "I don't think my personal opinion counts". Under cross-examination by the sixth accused, Sam Sarr, the witness was squeezed as to his testimony that Ndey Tapha is in Ghana and demanded his evidence before the court. PW3 in response, said "we have her address in Ghana". He further asked the witness how did he know, PW3 reacted, "I sworn to the Holy Quran that "I am speaking the truth". He then put it to PW3 whether taking pictures of him, (Sam Sarr) by the 5th accused person, Mr. Saidykhan tantamount to obstructing security officers in their investigation. PW3 responded, according to our investigations after 5th accused knew that the visitors were security operatives, then started taken snaps of photograph. PW3 confirmed that the sixth accused was arrested on 15th June 2009, but refused to say anything. Mr. Sarr then asked PW3, what was his reason of not saying anything, PW3 replied, "you said you prefer to reserve your opinion". Sam Sarr then put it to PW3 that "after 24 hours of my arrest, I was not told the reasons of my arrest." The witness replied that, "I did not remember that". Sam Sarr further asked PW3 why he (PW3) did not ask him the reason why he would not make a statement. PW3 said "I just came to ask you since you were my former teacher". Mr. Sarr then referred PW3 to exhibit A (Foroyaa Newspaper) and asked PW3 whether he could remember the President saying in that interview who killed Deyda Hydara and remarked that "let them go and ask Deyda Hydara". PW3 answered, "he said something like that". Sam Sarr further put it to PW3 that the President added that there were two ladies who are still in Senegal, and asked PW3 whether he heard the President say so? PW3 responded in the positive. Sam Sarr further asked whether PW3 knows the two ladies, but PW3 responded in the negative. Mr. Sarr further asked whether after the report that was made in 2004 was followed by further investigation, PW3 answered in the affirmative. Mr. Sarr further asked PW3 whether he (PW3) is not aware that Nian Sarang Jobe is in the Gambia since 2005. PW3 replied,"I am not aware". Sam Sarr finally asked PW3, who killed Deyda Hydara? PW3 responded "how can I know". At that juncture, the Director of Public Prosecution, Rachard N.Chenge announced to the court that, that was the case for the prosecution. Hearing continues today for defence. Source: Pictures: Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle (1), Lawyer Antouman Gaye (2), Pap Saine (3), Sam Sarr (4), Bai Emil Touray (5), Abubacarr Saidykhan (6), Pa Modou Faal (7), Ebrima Sawaneh (8) & Sarata Jabbi-Dibba (9

---

Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.

The Daily News is On-Line!!!

The Gambia's premier Newspaper,the Daily News is now on line.
For reliable,factual and authoritative news link to www.dailynews.gm
The proprietor is Madi Ceesay,former president of the Gambian Press union now an
executive member of International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).Madi is the winner of committee to protect journalists(CPJ)
2006 press freedom award winner.He is a season journalists, who is contributing his midow's mite in shaping the destiny
of Gambian media.
Writes Saikou Ceesay,editor Gambiaaffairs blog,is also working with the Daily News in Banjul.

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

GAMBIAAFFAIRS SAYS ON MONDAY JULY 27:BE WARE OF HIV/AIDS IT KILLS!!!

---

Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.

Gambia Update:Seven Journalists’ Trial Takes A Dramatic Twist

Seven Journalists' Trial Takes A Dramatic Twist,

As the Case is now Transferred to Justice Fagbenle

The team of defence counsels: Antouman A.B. Gaye, Lamin S. Camara, Neneh Cham-Chongan and Hagum Gaye, representing Ebrima Sawaneh, Pap Saine, Sarata Jabbi Dibba, Pa Modou Faal, Abubacarr Saidykhan and Bai Emil Touray, with the exception of Sam Sarr, who are standing trial on charges ranging from conspiracy to publish seditious publication, conspiracy to commit criminal defamation and criminal defamation, on 23rd July 2009, filed a motion at the Court of Appeal for Justice Joseph Wowo to remove himself from the case since the defence team bemoaned the lack of confidence in him in handling of the matter.

It would henceforth be heard before Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle, and the case is now set for continuation of hearing on Monday 27th July 2009 in an open court.

This dramatic twist occurred after the defence team challenged the neutrality of the former Judge involved in the matter and withdrew their representation in defending the six journalists. Sam Sarr, the sixth accused person is up till now representing himself.

Stating their reasons for withdrawal, outside the court's chamber, Mr. Gaye stated that, "all defence team have announced their withdrawal in the seven journalists' case at the High Court before Justice Wowo." He added that: "I know that I am not going back to his court because the court is prejudice."

Lawyer Gaye stated further "we want the case to be withdrawn before Justice Wowo". He further elucidated that they have filed a motion at the Court of Appeal, which is before the Registrar of the High Court, noting that the said motion was served to the Clerk of the Court and a date have been taken for hearing at the Court of Appeal, slated for 28th July 2009.

Author: Saikou Ceesay

Source: Picture: Justice Emmanuel Fagbenle

---

With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.

Gambia Update:Jammeh Calls for Disregard of Political Differences

Jammeh Calls for Disregard of Political Differences, As Gambia Celebrates 15th Anniversary of July 22nd Revolution

Special guest,Libyan Leader shocking  hand
with President Jammeh of the Gambia.This was the during
the Libyan Leader state visit as a special guest to July 22 Celebration
Gambians yesterday celebrated the 15th Anniversary of the July 22nd Revolution with President Jammeh, renewing his call for Gambians to discard their differences and work towards nation-building, irrespective of their political differences.

The celebration, which was graced by the Libyan leader and current Chairman of the African Union, Moamar Al Gaddafi, was characterised by a march-past by school children, security personnel, voluntary organisations and other groups.

He told thousands of people who thronged at the Arch 22in Banjul that unless Gambians change their attitudes, the country will develop but the people will remain poor.

"We should ask ourselves what is the difference between 1994 to date and 1994 back to the era of colonialism. This is the 21st century that would ensure that we are totally free and independent. But how do we develop ourselves? We have liberated ourselves from colonialism but we are under the worst form of slavery and that is poverty. How can we rid ourselves from poverty?" Jammeh reasoned.

According to President Jammeh, the reason for the celebration is to see how far we have gone and how far we have to go. "As Gambians, despite our political differences, we must work together because we have a common destiny. Let us disregard those who follow tribalism and work together and develop our country. For 15 years, how many countries have assisted the Gambia? he stated.

"The schools we built, the hospitals, the roads we are building. How many countries are assisting us? But among the international community also, we have our good friends, countries that stood by us through and are standing by us through thick and thin. We must always be grateful to those countries. If Gambia is the only developed country in Africa and the rest of Africa is backward, then we are all still very backward. We have to develop in tandem. But how do we develop as a continent? We have to look inward and work together," President Jammeh told his audience.

He said the revolution has come a long way but still there is 'longer and tougher' road to go, as he put it, he wants to make this country the best in the whole world not only in Africa. All these efforts, Jammeh stated "cannot be met unless we as Gambians and non- Gambians alike resident in this country contribute our individual and collective quotas to the development of this country".

"In 1994, when we came in to make this country the best in the world, we had only groundnuts and tourism to bank on and the Almighty Allah but 15 years today, we have petroleum and other natural mineral resources that I wouldn't announce now," he said.

For President Jammeh, development does not come from the sky, and thus called for attitudinal change, especially among the young ones.

 "Development of the countries with the so-called greener pastures did not come from the sky. The people of these countries have to work hard, endure low wages to make their countries what they are, even though some of them robbed Africa to be what they are today.

"How do you expect the Gambia to develop or Africa to develop if young Africans leave Africa and go to Europe to hustle? If you the young people leave the country, you expect your old parents and grandparents to develop it for you? No way. For us to develop this country, we have to work hard, some have to volunteer, some have to be paid but what is indispensable is the fact that we cannot develop without the participation of the Gambian youths. Let us change our attitudes", Jammeh further stated.

He said "During the colonial era, Europeans came to capture Africans and forced them into slavery; today we are independent but unfortunately young Africans risk their lives and find themselves into slavery in Europe. Tell me how many Gambians who went abroad have built good compounds in this Gambia. Why are you finding your way into mental slavery?"

 "Those who have a genuine reason to go can go but I want to assure that 98% of you would come back poorer than when you live here. No matter how long you stay there, maybe one thing you will have, a wife older than your grand father," he asserted.

Jammeh is of the view that his government has created the enabling environment for development, but he stressed that only foreigners are benefiting from it.

"Look at the construction industry, 99% of the people in the construction industry are all foreigners," he stated, and then asked what the Gambian men are doing. He, however, stressed that one does not need to go to university to become a tailor or a carpenter.

He said "in as much as we want to eradicate poverty, with the attitude we have, we would not be able to eradicate poverty".

 "Four hundred years of colonialism, if those who were responsible for Africa did not develop the continent at that time and today when we are independent, if we expect them to develop our countries, we are making a great mistake", he noted, calling on Africans to work together to regain their lost glory.

Africa, he added, was the wealthiest continent before the advent of the white man for, as he put it, if it wasn't wealthy, they wouldn't have stayed for four hundred years.

 "Thanks to the Almighty Allah, despite all what have been taken away, Africa today is still the richest continent in terms of mineral resources. Unfortunately too, we are the poorest of the poor because of bad leadership and the wrong types of attitudes we have towards ourselves", he concluded.

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

Gambia Update:African Union Raises Concern Over Trial of Journalists africa

African Union Raises Concern Over Trial of Journalists

Here we reproduce the full text of the release:
"The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, Commissioner Pansy Tiakula, is gravely concerned about reports she has received of the ongoing trial of seven journalists in The Gambia, which amongst other issues, formed the subject matter of her 22 June 2009, letter of appeal to the President of The Gambia, and in respect of which she awaits a response.

The seven journalists: Ms. Sarata Jabbi-Dibba, First Vice-President; Mr Emil Touray, Secretary-General; Mr. Pa Modou Faal, Treasurer of the Gambia Press Union; Mr. Pap Saine, Managing Editor; Mr Ebrimma Sawaneh, News Editor of the independent newspaper, The Point; Mr. Sam Sarr, Editor; Mr Saidy Khan, a reporter with the independent newspaper, Foroyaa, were on 15 June 2009, arrested in connection with the publication of a Gambian Press Union (GPU) statement, critical of President Jammeh's comments on the stalled investigation into the 2004 killing of Deyda Hydara, Co-founder and Editor of The Point Newspaper.

According to reports, all seven journalists face a six-count charge of interalia: conspiracy to and publishing seditious publication, "with intent to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of the President or the government of the Republic of The Gambia" and conspiracy to commit and criminal defamation, "with intent to bring the President of the Republic of The Gambia and the government of The Gambia into contempt and ridicule".

The Special Rapporteur has been informed that following their arrest, the journalists were detained incommunicado and beyond the constitutionally permissible period of 48 hours, before being charged before a

Kanifing Magistrate Court

on 18 June 2009, which denied bail to all, except Ms Jabbi-Dibba. She has also been informed that although on 22 June 2009, the remaining six journalists were released on bail and the matter adjourned till 7 July 2009, the journalists were unexpectedly summoned on 1 July 2009, to appear before the High Court on 3 July 2009.

The Special Rapporteur received reports that at the High Court on 3 July 2007, all seven journalists were rearrested, and that while bail was granted a few hours later to Ms Jabbi Dibba, the sixth journalist, other journalists were only granted bail on 6 July 2009.

In another letter of appeal to the President of The Gambia, dated 20 July 2009, the Special Rapporteur expressed her concern, that if indeed these reports are accurate, the government of the Republic of The Gambia will be failing in its obligations to protect the right to Freedom of Expression as expressed in Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter) and other international human rights instruments, to which the Republic of the Gambia is a state party.

The Special Rapporteur also expressed her concern that despite the fact that the charges against the seven journalists reveal no issues of national security, the High Court on Friday 10 July 2009, granted the prosecution's request to conduct the trial in camera in order to protect the identity of the state security personnel, called as witnesses.

The Speial Rapporteur is therefore gravely concerned, that such a state of affairs would be a contravention of the provisions of Article 7 of the African Charter which guarantees the right of every individual to a fair trial, and the requirement under the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (Principles and Guidelines), which supplements and reinforces the fair trial provisions of the African Charter. Principle I (f) (2) of the Principles and Guidelines provides that: "The public and the media may not be excluded from hearings before judicial bodies except if it is determined to be for reasons of public order or national security in an open and democratic society that respects human rights and the rule of law."

Whilst requesting the comments of the government of the Republic of The Gambia on all the reports contained in her letter, the Special Rapporteur drew the attention of the Gambian Government to Principle II of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa (the Declaration) which reinforces and further elaborates the provisions of Article 9 of the African Charter, which provides that "No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with his or her freedom of expression" and that "any restrictions on freedom of expression shall be provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be necessary in a democratic society'.

She also urged the government of the Republic of The Gambia, to take steps to fulfil its obligations under Article I of the African Charter in respect of the rights to Freedom of Expression, by amending all existing media laws, in conformity with Principle XII of the Declaration which, interalia provides that: "No one shall be found liable for true statements, opinions or statements regarding public figures which it was reasonable to make in the circumstances" and that public figures shall be required to tolerate a greater degree of criticism

The Special Rapporteur in her letter reiterated her anticipated receipt of an official invitation from the government to conduct a promotional mission in The Gambia in August 2009, as was requested by her office in April 2009. She also restated her sincere commitment to utilise this intended mission to engage in constructive dialogue with the government of the Republic of The Gambia on the promotion and protection of human rights in general and the situation of Freedom of Expression, in the Republic of The Gambia, in particular".

Editor's note:

In the Gambian constitution the minimum hours of detention before trial is 72 hours.

---

Share your memories online with anyone you want anyone you want.

Gambia Update:Four Minors Remanded for Allegedly Stabbing Another With

Four Minors Remanded for Allegedly Stabbing Another With

Four young boys, who are all under eighteen years of age, were yesterday 16th July 2009 remanded in custody by the Kanifing Magistrates' Court pending the filing of proper charges against them.

They were arraigned before senior Magistrate Abdoulie Mbacke of the Kanifing Magistrates' Court for allegedly stabbing another boy causing him grievous bodily harm.

The four accused persons did not take their plea as the charge sheet stated that on or about the 11th July, 2009 at Bakau Kachically they jointly assaulted one Seedy Joof by stabbing him with a screw driver and thereby causing him grievous bodily harm.

Police Prosecutor ASP Bojang told the court that he was filing a holding charge and that investigations were ongoing and the victim involved was seriously injured.

He further stated that the victim presently is admitted at the Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital.

As a result, Magistrate Mbacke said that the accused persons would be remanded in custody until the police came up with a proper charge and also to determine whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

He went on to say that the victim was in a critical condition and undergoing medical treatment.

He told the court that the medical report would be issued at the end of the treatment and without it, the prosecution would not be able to prepare a proper charge. He finally ordered that the accused persons be remanded until proper charges are filed against them by the prosecution.

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

Gambia:Journalists Are Partners in Development

Say it Aloud That We Are Partners in Development Believe it or not

Picture: Saikou Ceesay,Banjul

The news from the region about journalists being arrested, detained and sometimes charged on flimsy excuses is a cause for concern as it does not speak well of our governance system.

History has taught that government/private media relationship is often flawed for lack of trust. The media is more than a public relation institution, so any attempt to frustrate the work of the journalist can be inimical to development. Journalists have for long been seen as the enemies of the powers that be when this is not actually the case; we are only partners in development.

No doubt this has made the profession a fragile institution, needing the media as a watchdog in the face of an uncooperative government.

Journalists, however, has a 'sacred duty' to report the truth "no matter what or whose gut is cut".

Simply put, journalists are part and parcel of the democratic dispensation and their role is equally important as other segments, because of the significant role media play in raising the awareness of the public on sensitive issues affecting the life of all.

Information is not only deemed to be crucial to other sectors of the economy, but considered to be superior because of its transformative effects on them.

It is against this backdrop that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human and Peoples Rights clearly stipulates the need for freedom of information.

We kept wondering why those who are parties to this protocol and other instruments, of which our governments are signatories to, kept violating the rights of the citizenry.

"As a general rule, the freedom of any people can be judged by the volume of their laughter".
Author:Saikou Ceesay

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family

Burning Issues: Mile Two Prison Still The Same, But….

Mile Two Prison Still The Same, But….

By Sam Sarr Source Foroyaa

When I returned to Mile Two, after I was remanded in custody by the High Court on Friday 3 July 2009, I found the same conditions that I left there. Upon arrival on Friday, we were 15 in Cell Number 11 (5.3 x 3.3 metres) while the roll for the Remand Wing was 142 (compared to 148 before).  On Monday, 6 July, a new remand prisoner joined us to increase the number in our cell to 16. The place was so tight that some remand prisoners could only lie down straight without bending their knees, while asleep. In addition, the food is, as usual, in poor condition. But I discovered on my return that the leaking roof had been repaired. However, I also discovered that the condition of the prison wardens needs review. In other words, Sunday, July 5, was a rainy day. I noticed that prison wardens had no rain coats and they could not properly escort remand prisoners because they had to run under the rain to avoid getting wet. I also realised that the tight office also got wet while it was raining. When I raised my head, I discovered that the "tower man" (the guard at the roof top) was out of sight, apparently because of lack of a raincoat. And mind you, the rain was not heavy on that day. My observation is that for the hard working prison wardens to be effective and efficient in their work they need rain coats and a spacious office. Needless to say, very urgent at the Remand Wing is overcrowding. The Attorney General may be of help to the Minister of the Interior by reviewing the cases of the more than 140 remand prisoners. Let us take Cell Number 11 for example. I will narrate what the remand prisoners told me and I do hope she would investigate their claims and take appropriate action. Dawda Bah said he was charged with murder. He appeared at the Bundung Magistrates Court in 2002 and was remanded in custody. He said since then (7 years ago), he had never been taken to court. Assan Dikko said he is charged with murder. He was remanded in custody in 2001. Since then (8 years ago), he has not been going to court. Sana Sanneh is awaiting judgment. He claims that when he was taken from Mile 2 for judgment last week Monday, he was not taken to court, he was brought back to Mile Two and no new date is given. Lamin Simma was remanded in custody on Friday 19 June. He and his co-accused have made three appearances before a Magistrates Court (the last two at Brikama) but on each occasion, while the prosecution asked for the accused to be remanded in custody, he asked for an adjournment because he was not yet ready to proceed. The case of "Dad" (a security guard whose name I have forgotten is proceeding). I know nothing about the case of the humble pastor because he did not narrate his case to me and I only listened when people narrated their cases. The trial of Alieu (the Zimba) for manslaughter at the High Court is proceeding. Modou Lamin Ceesay and his co-accused (in another cell), charged with armed robbery, said he was granted bail by the Kanifing Magistrates Court in September 2008. But rather than being released on bail he found himself at Mile 2. He said he has not been taken to court since September 2008. Abdourahman Badjie's case is one of res judicata. He claims that in December he was acquitted and discharged on a charge of theft by the Brikama Magistrates' Court presided over by Mr. Olajubutu. The police at Lamin dealt with the first case. The police at Banjul who are now handling the second case claim that the cases are different. According to Abdourahman, of late when the police collect him from Mile Two, they do not take him to court, meaning that his case has not been progressing. He said he does not even know when next he should report to the court. Mohamed, the unassuming British covert, told me he had been in custody since 2006. I don't know more than this but I've never seen him going to court. Denis (surname forgotten) is a Sierra Leonean youth, who claims to be related to Tijan Kabba. According to him, he goes to court every Thursday but the case is not proceeding. He said he was granted bail but has no one to serve as surety. As for an old man (name forgotten), I understand he was granted bail and a surety was being worked out. A new remand prisoner who joined us a day before our departure said his bail was forfeited when he failed to appear in court at the appointed date. Comment If the information given is true, then the cases of the majority of the remand prisoners are not proceeding. In fact, the report I have for other cells are similar. It is imperative in the interest of justice for the Attorney General to review all cases to have a true picture of each case and to take appropriate action. It is advisable to get an independent person such as a magistrate or a legal practitioner to review the cases because some of the remand prisoners have made allegations against security forces. We mustn't forget that justice delayed is justice denied and that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Furthermore, from a medical point of view, if we ask the Minister of Health for advice she would advise us that overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions are ideal conditions for the rapid spread of infectious diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. Hence, urgent action is needed to avoid another unfortunate incident such as the beriberi case. The time to act is now rather than later. In fact the Attorney General and Minister of Justice was in the prison some weeks ago, may be for a different purpose. Even though she did not enter the cell she must have had a glimpse when she peeped in. In fact, she was not quite comfortable as she was seen pulling up her trousers as she walked on pavement on which water flowed just in front of our cell. It goes without saying that a prison is not a home for anyone. What must be borne in mind is that in a country where democracy is a sham anybody can find himself/herself in prison, irrespective of one's innocence.

---

See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family