Judge Asked Sheriff of High Court Allow Paulo Djabi Access His Money

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the Banjul High Court ordered the Sheriff of the High Court to allow Paulo Djabi to have access and be allowed to receive 25% of the monies seized from him by the Drug Law Enforcement Officer (DLEAG) The Judge said the payment is for his reasonable living expenses with his family and litigation fees for defending the criminal charges or proceedings against him. Djabi is facing 21 criminal charges relating to dealing with prohibited drugs and money laundering. His money, vehicles and motorcycle were seized from him. The money was deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia as ordered by the High Court on 31 October 2023. He made this order in a ruling delivered in relation to a motion dated 4 June 2024 and filed on 5 June 2024. In that motion, Lawyer Sheriff Marie Tambadou for Paulo Djabi asked the court to vary its orders dated 30 April 2024; in the alternative to allow him to have access and be allowed to receive 50% of the monies belonging to him and deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia. The motion of notice is supported by an affidavit of 8 paragraphs sworn to by Paulo himself and also attached five (5) documents exhibited and marked as "PJ1" to "PJ5 respectively. The State opposed the application and filed an affidavit in opposition of 10 paragraphs sworn to by Fatou Waggeh, a clerk at the Attorney General's Chambers and the Ministry of Justice. There was 1 document attached to the opposing sworn statement. Paulo filed an 11-paragraph affidavit in reply sworn by himself.

In moving his application, Senior Lawyer S.M. Tambadou for Paulo relied on the averments in the supporting affidavit and the affidavit in reply. It is his submission that the application is brought pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act, Order 25 Rule 11 of the Second Schedule of the High Court Rules and Order 6 Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the High Court Rules. It is the submission of Counsel Tambadou that the court made an order on 31 October 2023 for six (6) months pending the outcome of the investigation. Counsel Tambadou argued that section 51(8) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act limits when the order can last and no more. Counsel Tambadou argued that when the Court made an order on the 30 April 2024, extending the order of the court for two months was ultra vires. Counsel Tambadou argued that at the time the application for an extension of two months was made, there was no charge before the court and there was no need for the extension of the restraining order. Counsel Tambadou refers this court to section 51(6) of the Anti-Money Laundering 8 Terrorism Financing Act, which gives the court the power to make an order for provision for reasonable living expenses and to defend criminal charges against an accused person. Counsel submitted that this is a court of equity and refers it to Order 6 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules of the First Schedules. Counsel Tambadou refers this court to paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit and submitted that the facts are not denied and the punishment prescribed for drug offences does not exceed D50,000 the properties listed under money laundering charges are all located in The Gambia and the Applicant is innocent until proven guilty. Counsel Tambadou urged this court to grant the prayers sought and in the alternative, to make order for reasonable expenses.

In responding to the arguments and submissions of the Applicants' counsel, Lamin Jarju of Counsel for the Respondents relied on the paragraphs of the affidavit in opposition. He argued that the Lawyer Tambadou misconceived section 51(6) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. It is the submission of Counsel Jarju that Paulo did not disclose the amount of money he was seeking for reasonable expenses for his upkeep. Counsel Jarju submitted that section 51(6) (supra) refers to funds held under investment or business and allows the Applicant to have access to provide feeding, school fees and other expenses. Counsel Jarju submitted that Paulo has no bank account and the cash in foreign currency seized is €69,000 and $5000.00, including CFA; however, the seized money is the subject matter of charges in the bill of indictment. Counsel argued that the medical report contravenes section 45 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible, and Exhibit PJ4 is invoiced. Counsel Jarju submitted that the affidavit in reply should be struck out as Counsel Jarju is not the deponent and the averments are direct attacks on him. Justice Jaiteh said the import of section 51(1) (6) is that a person who has been investigated and charges filed against him or her is entitled to receive payment out of the money for reasonable living expenses and to defend the criminal charge or any other proceedings against him. He added that a criminal bill of indictment has been filed against Paulo and has engaged Counsel to defend him therefore he is entitled to receive payment from the money seized to defend the criminal charges levelled against him and this is provided under section 51(6) (2) and Counsel has attached an invoice of D250, 000 as legal fees. “This fact is not denied and the court can take judicial notice of the appearance of counsel in the matter.” Follow Everyone @highlight #CourtReporting #factualnews #thenationeye