We have been focusing on politics in this column with the objective to document the contemporary 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 have a better understanding of the evolution of politics in the Gambia as well as help forge a future genuine democratic dispensation for our homeland.

In the last edition, we have published the PDOIS petition to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights on the 19th June 1990 on wrongful registration of voters during the first republic which took the Commission a period of five years to take a decision.

In this edition we will cover the end of proceedings on the case of the Point Journalists who were standing trial for the publication of a report likely to cause fear and alarm to the public. Let us continue from where we stopped.

MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT

According to the Foroyaa publication of Wednesday 6th September 1995, "The Magistrate, Mr. Oniya, began by saying that the accused were standing trial for publication of a report likely to cause fear and alarm to the public contrary to Section 59 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap l0 Volume III, Laws of The Gambia, 1990.

That the first accused, Pap Saine, was charged alone in count 1 as follows- Pap Saine on or about the 30th March, 1995 in Banjul in the Republic of The Gambia, published in The POINT Newspaper of Vol. 4 No. 30 issue 0796-0794 a report on the front page that there was a revolt at Mile 2 containing the words to wit:- A large contingent of well armed military police last Monday surrounded the Mile 2 Central Prisons as reports went around that the inmates there had planned to break out into the streets to demonstrate against their feeding conditions- which report is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public knowing That the 2nd and 3rd accused, on the other hand, were charged in count 2 as follows: Badara Sow and Braima Ernest on or about the 30th March, 1995 in Banjul in the Republic of The Gambia published in The POINT Newspaper of Volume 4, No. 30 issue 0796-0794 report on the front page thereof headed "4 Detained Officers At The RVH' containing the words to wit-

"Four detained officers were yesterday seen at the RVH with heavy escort...

Reliable sources have it that they were involved in Monday's demonstration at the Central Prison, which report is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public.

Magistrate Oniya indicated that the prosecution called eight witnesses after the first accused pleaded not guilty in count 1 and second and third accused pleaded not guilty in count 2; that the prosecution tendered so many documents which were admitted and marked exhibits A-N; that exhibit A is the most prominent because it is the newspaper copy containing the offending reports complaint of; that it was admitted after the defence made heavy weather about it not being hand signed by the publisher, that the court had ruled that since the printers and publisher's identities were printed on the last page and it

was stamped by the Registrar General's office as the copy duly filed; that most of the other exhibits were statements by persons who were interviewed about the incident carried on the front page of exhibit A, that is, the newspaper.

That at the end of the prosecution story, the defence entered a 'no case submission' on behalf of all the accused persons; that A.M. Drammeh addressed the court on behalf of the first accused whilst Mr. B. Jallow addressed the court on behalf of second and third accused;. The magistrate then went on to quote section 166 of the CPC. He then went on to say that in respect of first accused, Pap Saine, it was not the whole story contained in the column under the heading 'revolt at Mile 2' that was being complained of; that it was the portion contained in count 1 of the charge which has been reproduced at the earlier point in dispute that he is the writer of the story in a newspaper to which he is one of the publishers; that this satisfied one of the elements of the offence for which he is charged; that the important question is whether the report can be said to be likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or disturb the public peace, knowing or having reason to believe that such statements, rumour or report is false and if it is found to be false whether he took necessary steps to verify the accuracy of the report; that it will be necessary to define some terms.

He then went on to refer to exhibit H for the meaning of revolt as thus: to take part in a rebellion; to be in a mood of protest or defiance; to feel strong disgust; to cause a feeling of strong disgust; that from the definition of revolt, which the court accepts, '1 hold that for prisoners to refuse to come out of their cells, refuse to eat and requesting to see the minister before they could drop their protest amounts to some form of revolt against constituted authority, that this in essence means that the heading of the story was correct".

The magistrate then went on to define key words such as fear and alarm from the Oxford Modern Dictionary; that the words may not in some cases mean exactly the same thing but they may have the same lexical connotation in that the operative word is the expectation of danger, difficulty or pain; that going back to the particulars of the offence as stated in the charge sheet it is obvious that the publication referred to a past incident within a limited area of Mile 2 Prison, a situation that was promptly dealt with by the armed and security forces; that the incident referred to happened three or four days before it was reported; that there was nothing in the report which suggested that the incident was continuous or likely to reoccur; that even if the report was false, the important thing is whether it was likely to cause fear and alarm to the public; that two of the prosecution witnesses had said they were scared when they read it; that one of them is a police officer and the other a convicted prisoner, who from his appearance and disposition lacks credibility under section 144 (1) of the Evidence Act.

He then continued: "I am afraid that from the portion of the publication complained of in count 1 of the charge, the evidence before the court and the provision of section 59(1) of the CPC, the prosecution has failed to show that the published words could in this circumstance cause fear and alarm in a reasonable person. I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the most essential element of the offence against the first accused. Calling him to enter his defence is like deliberately embarking on a wild goose chase; that the first accused person, Pap Saine, is acquitted pursuant to Section 166 of the CPC."

The position of the magistrate in the case of 2nd and 3rd accused was however acquitted for lack of evidence.

Was The Constitutional Drafts Man Withdrawn By The British Government Or Not?

Mr. Paul Fifoot's coming was preceded by a controversy as to whether he was withdrawn by the British Government or not.

Mr. Fifoot was scheduled to come to assist the Constitutional Review Commission. Some wondered whether Mr. Fifoot was invited because the Constitutional Review Commission has reached an impasse and could not proceed with its task. Speculations were rife.

When the Government announced that the mandate of the Commission was extended by three months, FOROYAA received many enquiries.

According to Foroyaa their position was that the only announcement that should be deemed authentic is one issued by the Commission since it is an independent body; that they had learnt that the work of the Commission was proceeding smoothly and that no time frame had been given yet regarding when the work would be completed.

They also said they received information that the Commission would issue notices whenever it deemed it necessary to inform the public the progress of the Constitutional Draft which had already been made.

They said when they learnt that Mr. Fifoot the Drafts man had arrived; Foroyaa's Suwaibou Touray contacted him for further clarification and caught up with him at the Parliament Building on 5 September, 1995.

Interview With Paul Fifoot

FOROYAA: What is your exact role in respect to the constitutional review process?

Mr. Fifoot: Well, I am a drafts person. I draft in constitutional language exactly what the commission members give me in words.

FOROYAA: What happens after you do your drafting?

Mr. Fifoot: They will look at it again and tell me whether they are satisfied with it or not. If they are, we proceed; if not I draft that particular provision again until they are satisfied.

FOROYAA: Now, the other controversial point is that the Constitutional Review Commission was originally given three months to finish its work. This work should have been completed in August. However, it is indicated that because of the alleged delay in the drafting, the time for the completion of the work of the Commission has been extended to another three months. So, how long do you think the drafting process would take?

Mr. Fifoot: I will not be able to tell you exactly how long it will take because after the overall drafting, the members of the Commission may want to make amendments here and there but other than that I can assure you that it is going to be pretty quick.

FOROYAA: Thank you for your cooperation.

Mr. Fifoot: It is a pleasure.

FOROYAA' S COMMENT

The Paper commented that it should now be clear that the Constitutional Review Commission has not asked for assistance in reviewing the Constitution. What it has asked for is a drafts person so that their recommendations based on all the relevant contributions they have received from the Gambian people will be put in a constitutional language. Mr. Fifoot is providing such assistance.

See next edition as we follow the trend of events as they unfold during the transition period in 1995.