Lawyers
in the case involving nine former NIA officials yesterday battled over their
release from custody, since the state has so far failed to bring forward proper
information before the court for prosecution.
They
were objecting to the state counsel’s application for an adjournment before
Justice Kumba Sillah-Camara of the Banjul High Court.
The
accused persons are Yankuba Badjie, Louis Gomez, Saikou Omar Jeng, Haruna Suso,
Yusupha Jammeh, Lamin Lang Sanyang, Tamba Masireh, Lamin Darboe and Babucarr
Sallah.
They
were arraigned before the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, charged with two counts of
conspiracy to commit a felony and murder on 23 February 2017, before magistrate
Isatou Janneh-Njie of the Banjul Magistrates’ Court.
When
the case was called for mention, O. Danso and B. Jeng appeared for the state
whilst defence counsel C.E. Mene, E.E Chima, B. Bouye, P. Gomez, U. Achigwe,
and D. Dayo, represented the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th accused persons.
The
3rd accused, Saikou Omar Jeng, 5th accused, Yusupha Jammeh, 7th accused, Tamba
Sireh, 8th accused, Lamin Darboe and 9th accused Babucarr Sallah were asked by
the trial judge if they want to get their own lawyers or want the state to get
them lawyers.
The
5th, 7th, 8th and 9th said they want the state to give them lawyers. The 3rd
accused, Saikou Omar Jeng, said he would get his own lawyer.
State
counsel O. Danso then informed the court that they did not yet receive the case
file from the police.
She
said the situation remained the same and no reason had been given by the
police, adding that they had written to the police, who were yet to respond.
Counsel,
therefore, asked for a short date to see if they could get the case file, and
decide whether or not to proceed with the case.
In
response, lawyer C.E Mene recalled that at the last court sitting, the court
made it clear that it is not a storage facility for cases, if the police were
not ready with the case.
It
was already one week and proper documents were not file before the court, he
said, adding that as they speak there were no proper documents before the
court.
“If
the police are yet to forward the case file to the AG’s Chambers, one month
after the accused were arrested, it shows that there investigation is
incomplete.”
The
question, therefore, was why they arraigned them when investigations are not
complete, because arraigning them means they are ready to prosecute them.
“In
this new Gambia, it is important for us in the administration of justice to
encourage investigation-driven arrest rather than arrest pending
investigation,” counsel declared.
It
showed that the arrest and detention of the accused are not driven by
investigations, and since there was no proper investigation before the court,
it means that even the plea could not be taken, counsel went on.
He
added that he was relying on section 19(5) and section 19(3b) of the
constitution.
“I
am objecting to the application, and my submission is the combined effects of
arrest that was not driven by conclusive investigation, and the arraignment of
the accused without a complete case file being forward to the AG; and the fact
that the court asked the prosecution to put their house in order and nothing
was done, is the frustrating side of the matter.”
Counsel,
therefore, urged the trial judge to exercise the court’s powers under section
19(5) of the constitution, and that for any reason the court was minded to
grant any further adjournments, it should be on strict terms for the purpose of
an expeditious trial.
Defence
counsel Chime also said he was associating himself with the submissions of
counsel C.E. Mene, but added that he wished to emphasize the fact that the
accused persons are in Mile 2 (in custody at the remand wing of the maximum
security prison located just outside Banjul), and keeping them there without
trial tantamount to justice denied and justice delayed.
“I
urged the court to release the accused persons conditionally or
unconditionally, pending the time that the state is minded to proceed.”
Counsel
Achigbue also associated himself with counsel Mene’s submission, adding citing
the fact that there was nothing before the court, in the form of a proper
charge; because the investigation that has been conducted pursuant to which
they have been arrested, has no grounds to bring any information before the
court in respect of the accused persons.
Counsel
D. Dayo also associated himself with counsel Mene’s submission, and urged the
court to grant the application.
State
counsel O. Danso in reply said the submission made by the defence counsel was
misconceived.
She
said the defence relies on section 19(5) of the constitution, which stated that
a person should be discharged within a reasonable time, and the state respects
that.
She
said the case first came up last Monday, and from then to date was a reasonable
time.
She
urged the court to grant the adjournment.
The
trial judge subsequently granted the state’s application to adjourn the case,
saying he was minded to do so in the interest of justice.
Justice
delayed is justice denied, but justice rushed is justice denied as well, the
judge added.
However,
the state must not relent in its efforts to follow up on the case file, so that
proper information before the court could be filed on or before the next court
sitting.
The
case was then adjourned until 20 March 2017, for mention.
Meanwhile,
the family members, including the wife and daughter of UDP’s late Solo Sandeng,
stormed the court house with a large crowd to witness the proceedings.
With
eyes glittering with anger, after the proceedings, they verbally attacked the
accused.
This
provoked the family members of the accused persons, who responded and there was
a clash between the families.
