FOROYAA Newspaper (Serrekunda)
Suwaibou Touray
6 July 2009
column
We have been focusing on politics in this column with the objective to document the history of the Gambia and to help our readers appraise themselves with the happenings of the past. We are now covering issues that culminated during the coup period of 1994. This we hope will go a long way in helping us to have a better understanding of the evolution of politics in the Gambia as well as help us to forge a future genuine democratic dispensation for our homeland.
In this edition, we shall continue to follow the judgment delivered by the magistrate, Mr. Lamin Mboge on the trial. Let us continue from where we stopped.
According to the magistrate, the third Prosecution Witness was Ebou Njie, a photographer.
Ebou Njie (P.W.3): That he said that he saw the accused persons for the first time in court which the magistrate said was later proved to be untrue. He was not cross-examined.
According to the magistrate, the fourth prosecution witness is Pierre Mbye.
Pierre Mbye (P.W. 4): That he said that he saw Sidia and Halifa at the Education Ministry Building; that he could not remember the date; that as he was passing he saw a crowd and asked what was happening and he was told that certain people were selling newspapers; that he could recognize 'FOROYAA' anywhere; that he saw his photograph in the POINT Newspaper being sold at Methodist Bookshop. He was not cross-examined,
According to the magistrate the fifth prosecution witness is ASP Bah, a police officer.
ASP Bah (P.W.5: That he said he knows Sidia and Halifa; that on the 19th August he received instruction due to information that they were selling. 'FOROYAA'; that he went to their office with Salifu Ndure and Constable Jallow; that they admitted selling 'FOROYAA' on 18th and 19th August 1994; that Halifa gave him three copies of FOROYAA, the first dated 8th August, the second undated and the third dated 15th August. The magistrate noted that it is evident that the undated publication came after Decree No.4 came into being.
The witness produced the paper dated 8th August Exhibit H, the undated newspaper, Exhibit J, and the paper dated 15th August, Exhibit K. He said that Exhibits ,A and. K are the same; that they had three search warrants for the residence of Halifa, the residence of Sidia and as well as the office; that he instructed sergeant Ndure to get the printing machine.
Under cross-examination when Halifa put it to him that he never admitted anything to the witness because no Gambian has the right to stop him from exercising his freedom of expression, the witness said he was entitled to his opinion. When cross-examined by Sidia he said that he did not know that 'FOROYAA' was a legally established newspaper; that he had never been told that 'FOROYAA' was de-registered.
According to the magistrate the sixth prosecution witness is Alpha Yaya Jallow, a police officer.
ALPHA Yaya Jallow (P.W.6): That he said that he knows Halifa and Sidia; that ASP Bah received instruction to arrest Sidia and Halifa for engaging in political propaganda and publishing; that when the accused were taken to the police station each of them in turn were cautioned for their cautionary statement and voluntary statement to be obtained but they declined to make a statement; that their decisions were recorded. The statement forms were produced' and marked Exhibits L, M, N and N1.
Under cross-examination, he said that 'FOROYAA was a political newspaper while OBSERVER and POINT were just national papers; that Halifa told the witness that 'FOROYAA' is a legal newspaper which was being pursued in the exercise of his freedom of expression and he had nothing to say to the police because no person has yet been born who could prevent him from expressing his freedom of expression.
The magistrate indicated that it was at this stage, after an adjournment the prosecution applied to increase the number of Counts from 2 to 7
The additional Counts were as follows:
COUNT 3: Printing a newspaper in the interest of a political party;
COUNT 4: Displaying a newspaper in the interest of a political party;
COUNT 5: Distributing a newspaper in the interest of a political party;
COUNT 6: Exposing for sale a newspaper in the interest of a political party;
COUNT 7: Possessing a newspaper in the interest of a politica1party.
TWO PROSECUTION WITNESSES RECALLED
The magistrate noted that two prosecution witnesses were recalled.
P.W.2.M.A. CEESAY: He said under cross-examination that the only requirements of sect ion 3 of the Newspaper Act are the name of the newspaper, the address where it is to be published and the residence of the person who is, to be the proprietor, printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper; that when he was shown 'FOROYAA dated 17th July, l994,and asked whether they are issues dealing with the interest of a political party, the witnesses said they are issues dealing with the interest of every Gambian. At this point the magistrate commented that the charge was made under Decree No.4 and to refer to events before that date was to give retrospective effect to the decree.
Under re-examination he said Decree No.4 is not restricted to any political party.
P.W. 5 ASP Bah: He said that he was instructed to arrest Halifa and Sidia on information which was received that they were selling 'FOROYAA; He was shown Exhibit H (COMMUNIQUE NO.3) which he was asked to read. At this point the magistrate commented on the powers of the" police to arrest.' He said the police have power to arrest a suspect on reasonable suspicion ,otherwise society would be turned 'into a jungle; that the prosecutor objected to the question suggesting that he was acting like a robot and the objection was sustained..
After these two witnesses that were recalled, the prosecution now called their last witness.
Deyda Hydara (P.W. 7): According to the magistrate he said he had seen Exhibit 01 (The photograph of Halifa and Sidia selling). He produced Exhibit O Point newspaper dated l6th August 1994) which carried the photograph. 'He was not cross-examined.
The magistrate noted that at this point the prosecution closed its case.
THE CASE OF THE DEFENCE
The magistrate noted that Halifa explains why he did not write a statement that; he is one of the editors of FOR0YAA whose object is to disseminate information that is geared to serve the public interest and that he is conscious that he has the right to disseminate information without interference and did not therefore see the need to write a statement.
At this point the magistrate noted that in law nothing is absolute, everything is relative or dynamic; that the law changes according to the socio-economic and political changes taking place in our surroundings.
After, noting that Halifa said that Decree No.4 did not say 'FOROYAA' should not exist but political organs. The magistrate argued that 'FOROYAA' is an organ of PDOIS.
He noted that Halifa said that if he continued to exercise his right under the constitution ,then his right would come into contradiction with the might of the state; that the courts which have unlimited jurisdiction, would favour right instead of might.
The magistrate held that this is not the correct position of the law since the courts apply only what the law says; that in the defence of the accused they were making legal conclusions which was the duty of the court to make. He also noted that Halifa said that what they were publishing was not political propaganda; that he produced the Manifesto of PDOIS marked Defence Exhibit A: and referred to page 130 which indicated that the people should own their minds and not be owned by PDOIS.
He then said at that stage that the two were charged under Decree No.4 dated 4 August 1994 and that except in some circumstances he would only consider matters published after that date. He said the issue was whether PDOIS engaged in political propaganda after the Decree came into effect; otherwise the Decree would be given retrospective effect.
He noted that Halifa also produced a leaflet (Defence Exhibit B) published at the height of the 1992 Elections and read part of it
"Knowledge is 1ight and ignorance is darkness. A fool cannot choose good leaders. The ignorant lives in perpetual misery. To sell your card is to sell the future of your life..."
He then added that whether this was in the interest of PDOIS or not was not the issue before the court.
See next edition as we follow the rest of the judgment delivered by Magistrate Mboge on this very important political trial in Gambian history.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 FOROYAA Newspaper. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
