Multiple Witnesses Testified In Police Shooting Case

The two defendants are facing murder charges in connection with the shooting of police officers. Ousainou Bojang is charged with murder and terrorist attack. He is accused of causing the death of two police officers and injuring one, while Amie Bojang is charged with accessory after the fact to murder. She’s alleged to have aided or abetted Ousainou Bojang after a shooting incident occurred in Sukuta/Jabang Traffic Light. The case proceeded with cross-examination of the first state witness Ismaila Bojang (soldier) by lawyer Lamin J. Darboe for the first accused (Ousainou Bojang). When the case was called, ER, Dunga F. Faye and C.C Jobarteh appeared for the state, while Lamin J. Darboe represented the first accused and Lamin Mboge & H. Farage represented the second accused. Counsel J. Darboe asked the witness, “Have you made a statement to the police?” The witness replied, “Yes.” “When did you make the statement?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “It was on the 14th of September,” the witness answered. Counsel Darboe then asked, “If you see the statement, can you recognize it?” “Yes, I can,” the witness replied.

“How can you recognize it?” Counsel Darboe inquired further. “What I said on that day, if I see it, I will recognize it,” the witness explained. “Did you sign it?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, I signed it, and it has my name,” the witness confirmed. Counsel J. Darboe then showed the document to the witness and asked whether that was a copy of the statement. After going through the document, the witness indicated to the court that it was indeed the statement. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked whether the witness knew where the original copy was, and the witness said it was with the police. Counsel Darboe applied for the state to produce the original copy of the statement. Justice Jaiteh ruled that the state should produce the original copy of the witness’s statement. Counsel for the state, Dunga, then informed the court that the original copy was with her and handed it over to the court. It was shown to the witness, and he confirmed that the document was the statement he made. Counsel Lamin J. Darboe applied for the statement to be admitted in evidence as an exhibit, and there was no objection from the state counsel. The statement was admitted and marked as D1. “On that date, 12th September 2023, what time did you leave the barracks for training?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I left the barracks in the early hours of the morning to work at the Army Barracks at Fajara. After finishing work around 15:00, I proceeded to the beach,” the witness replied. “Where did you meet your colleagues, Mr. Jallow and Jarju?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “At the Gambia Armed Force training school,” the witness responded. “When did you leave the beach for Yundum barracks?” Counsel Darboe asked. “After 7 p.m. or after Magrib prayers,” the witness answered. “When you arrived at the Sukuta traffic light, do you recall the time?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, I don’t,” the witness replied. “Do you know who gave you a lift to the traffic light?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “No, I don’t know the person,” the witness answered. “Where were you dropped off at the traffic light?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Opposite the petrol station,” the witness replied. “Do you know the name of the petrol station?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I don’t know,” the witness replied. “You said you crossed the road. Where did you cross, and where did you go?” Counsel inquired. “We crossed the road towards Jabang direction,” the witness explained. “When you crossed the road, where did you go?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I was standing near a building around the road, facing Jabang,” the witness replied. “At that point, what was the distance between you and the police officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I can’t give an accurate measurement of the distance,” the witness replied. “You said you were behind the officers?” Counsel Darboe confirmed. “Yes,” the witness answered. “Do you know how far you were from the officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “Do you recall the location of the first officer who fell on the ground with his AK47?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “At the same spot on the other side of the road,” the witness answered. “What side of the road? Because I think you are on the side,” Counsel Darboe asked for clarification. “The road is divided into two, and I was standing on the Sukuta side while officers were on the Jabang side,” the witness explained. “Apart from your colleagues, are you aware of any other person who witnessed the incident?” Counsel Darboe asked. “People were many there,” the witness replied. “Where were you when the female officer was shot?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Before the female was shot, I decided to intervene,” the witness replied. “So, why couldn’t you prevent the female from being shot?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, because the distance was far and I knew that he possessed a firearm,” the witness explained. “But that did not prevent you from pursuing the shooter,” Counsel J Darboe asked. “Yes, it didn’t,” the witness replied. “You say the distance is far. Can you tell the court how far the distance was?” counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “When the gunman showed up, did you do anything?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, but the second officer was scrambling with the gunman,” the witness said. “Which direction did the gunman run away, and did he come towards the petrol station?” Counsel Darboe asked. “He ran towards Sukuta,” the witness explained. “You said he entered the first junction on the road to Sukuta, and you followed him into that street according to your testimony. Is that correct?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes,” the witness answered. “At this stage, how many of you were following the gunman?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “Are you the only one following the gunman?” Counsel Darboe pressed further. “No,” the witness replied. “Then it was you and who and who and who?” Counsel Darboe asked. “I know of Bakary Jarju, and Omar S. Jallow is the one I personally know,” the witness answered. “What happened to your training when three military officers couldn’t apprehend a bowlegged man?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Because we were pursuing an armed man,” the witness explained. “Then you were wrong to pursue the shooter,” Counsel Darboe stated. “We took safety measures,” the witness replied. “You said he fired his gun twice while you were chasing him. So, what safety precautions did you put in place?” Counsel Darboe asked. “We left a distance between me and the shooter, went away from the possible direction of the fire, and looked for cover,” the witness replied. “I’m putting it to you that in that street, there is no possible fire cover,” Counsel Darboe challenged. “Yes, there is,” the witness insisted. “Can you give an example of possible fire cover?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Concrete poles, fences, etc.,” the witness replied. “Where on that road was a concrete pole erected?” Counsel Darboe asked. “At the first junction in the street,” the witness clarified. “What distance did you leave between yourself and the gunman?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. “I put it to you that you made up the story because you never entered that street,” Counsel Darboe challenged. “No, I entered,” the witness asserted. “So how far had you gone in that street while pursuing the shooter?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Very far,” the witness replied. “All along with Mr. Jarju and Jallow?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, they were behind me. But I noticed it was Bakary who was next to me when I lost sight of him,” the witness clarified. “Who?” counsel Lamin J. Darboe asked the witness. “The shooter,” the witness replied. “Do you know the person the shooter spoke to for 2 to 3 seconds, as per the evidence-in-chief?” Counsel Darboe inquired. The witness answered, “No.” “Can you describe the distance?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Almost 400 meters,” the witness replied. “And in the end, it was a futile pursuit?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes,” the witness admitted. “You said you collected two empty gun casings,” Counsel Darboe stated. “I recovered one, and Bakary recovered one, and we handed over both to the police,” the witness replied. “Do you know the particular police officer?” Counsel Darboe asked. “No, I don’t know him,” the witness replied. “And you picked up the empty gun casings with an empty hand?” Counsel Darboe clarified. “Yes,” the witness confirmed. “Were you not aware that this is a trial scene?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “Yes, I was aware, but the crowd had already encroached on the place,” the witness explained. “When you arrived at the scene, did you see any police officers?” Counsel Darboe asked. “Yes, I saw police officers who were on traffic control,” the witness replied. “Where were the officers who were shot?” Counsel Darboe inquired. “I don’t know, but I know they were taken for medical treatment,” the witness replied. “Do you recall the time you returned to the crime scene?” Counsel Darboe asked. “It was about 21:23,” the witness replied. “So, how long did it take you to follow the shooters and return to the crime scene?”Counsel Darboe questioned. “I can’t tell,” the witness replied. At this point, counsel J. Darboe requested the witness’s statement and asked him to read from Omar. The witness read until he mentioned that at 21:12, the shooter fired the gun. Counsel J. Jobarteh asked the witness to stop reading at that point and told the witness that 21:12 was the time he pursued the shooter for 400 meters and returned to the scene in only 12 minutes. “Yes, it is possible because we are trained in BFT, which allows us to run 800 to 900 meters in 9 minutes,” the witness explained. The counsel for the second accused Amie had no questions for the witness, and the witness was discharged. The second witness of the state Bakary R. Jarju began his testimony in the case. The witness, Bakary R. Jarju, said he’s a member of the Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) attached to the GAF training school and is resident in New Yundum. During questioning by state Counsel Dunga, Jarju confirmed that an incident occurred on September 12, 2023. When asked to provide details, he recounted that he, along with Ismaila Bojang and Omar Jallow, went for training at Senegambia beach. He testified that the purpose of the training was their selection for special training to be held in Turkey. After their training session, while returning home around Maghrib prayers, they got a lift and were dropped at Sukuta Traffic Light Junction and they decided to buy dinner (Afra). Jarju (the witness) explained that they crossed to the other side of the road, which was divided in two, and stood on a veranda behind three police officers. One officer had an AK-47 rifle and was seated in the center. Witness Jarju said he heard a gunshot and immediately turned to the direction of the shot. He saw the officer with the AK-47 down, adding that he assumed it was a negligent discharge. He further testified that another officer who was seated on the left side stood up, and a struggle ensued between him and the shooter. Witness Jarju said that was the time he realized the situation was not normal and the shooter fired a shot at the officers. He (the witness) testified that the shooter then took a step back and shot the female officer before fleeing to the Sukuta Traffic Lights roundabout. He said as people gathered there, the shooter fired more shots, this time and that was the time he (Jarju), was able to distinguish the sounds of weapons due to his military training and recognized the type of weapon from the sound as pistol. He revealed that along with Ismaila Bojang and Omar Jallow, he pursued the shooter. During the chase, the shooter fired a shot but he couldn’t determine its target. He alerted Bojang to take cover when the shooter turned and fired again. They decided to take cover behind a fence, anticipating potential danger from someone armed with a pistol at close range. While continuing the pursuit, the shooter entered an incomplete building in a dark area without electricity, adding that he (witness) proposed using the fence as cover, but Bojang suggested that they follow the shooter instead. He said he (Jarju) emphasized the risks of entering an unfamiliar territory, poorly lit area without weapons and advised Bojang for them to return to the scene to gather evidence which Bojang agreed. He testified upon arrival using his phone torch lights with Bojang, they searched the area and discovered two empty bullet casings. He said he identified the casings as “live rounds” that had been fired, as the bullets were missing. He further testified that an officer named Sowe approached them during this search, initially unidentified as a police officer. Eventually, Sowe revealed himself as a CID officer, and Jarju apologized for not recognizing his status earlier. Sowe asked to speak with him and Sowe suggested moving to his white pick-up truck for privacy. There, he requested water to drink which Sowe provided and he explained to Sowe that they had come from Senegambia and heard gunshots and saw a man who was the shooter and pursuit him, but they could not apprehend him. The witness (Jarju) said he handed over the empty bullet casings to Jallow his colleague, who then handed them to Officer Sowe. When asked to describe the shooter’s appearance, the witness (Jarju) describe that he’s tall but couldn’t accurately describe his cloth color but is a haftan, he said the shooter is slim and wore ankle-high covered shoes. The witness (Jarju) highlighted that his primary focus was on identifying the shooter’s weapon, but despite it being nighttime, he could identify the weapon as pistol because the distance was approximately 20 to 25 meters away, allowing him to observe it clearly. He finished his testimony and he is expected to be cross-examined by Counsel Lamin J. Darboe on Monday. source foroyaa.gm

Gam Housing CEO to 2 Years Imprisonment

Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally has handed Lamin Mboge, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Gam Housing Estate Agency a 2-year jail term for obtaining money by false pretence. CEO Mboge was charged on Tuesday, 23 February 2021 with obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 288 of the Criminal Code. The particulars of the offence alleged that Lamin Mboge on or about 5 May 2020 at Brufut fraudulently induced the complainant, with the intent to defraud, and received an amount of Three Million Dalasi (D3, 000,000). The brief fact revealed that the convict (Lamin Mboge) entered a signed agreement with the complainant (Yahya Ceesay) in which Mboge agreed to sell his registered landed property located in Brusubi to the said Complainant for a total sum of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dalasi (D4,500,000). The complainant, in accordance with the agreement duly signed thereof made a part payment of Three Million Dalasi towards the aforementioned agreement in order for CEO Mboge to transfer title in his name. CEO Mboge, subsequently having received part payment from Yahya Ceesay, has been unable to neither transfer title of the property nor provide a refund of the complainant’s amount paid to him. The land in question also had third party issue. Mboge pleaded not guilty in response to the charge of obtaining money by false pretense. The prosecution in proving its case called three witnesses and tendered some exhibitis. Exhibit “A” which was a copy of a cheque of D500,000 issued to the accused Lamin Mboge by PW1 (Yahya Ceesay) dated 5 May 2020 and the same was paid to CEO Mboge and comes with attached receipt issued by the accused. Exhibit “B” was a sale agreement between Lamin Mboge and Yahya Ceesay dated 5 May 2020. Exhibit “C” is a bank statement showing an amount of Two Million Dalasi paid into Lamin Mboge’s account from Yahya Ceesay with four receipts from GT Bank (Exhibit F). Exhibit “D” was a bank statement indicating bank transfer of D500000 to Gam Housing. Exhibit “E” was a witness statement of the complainant dated 3 July 2020. Exhibit “F” was four cheques on different dates issued to PW1 via Guarantee Trust Bank. At the close of the prosecution’s case, CEO Lamin Mboge gave unsworn evidence in court. He stated that his defense for denying the charge is premised on the fact that the transaction between him and the complainant is contractual and since the complainant violated clause 5(b) of the contractual terms, civil matter should have been instituted against him but not criminal where both parties may remedy the breach as stated in their sale agreement. The accused told the court that he relied on clause 6 of their agreement, stating that it is agreed that payment should have been made to his own account (Lamin Mboge) but instead the complainant made the payment through his company account which is completely different from him. As a result, his defense is that he is not the right person to be sued and instead the company should have been sued for obtaining money by false pretense. In his defense, the accused stated that, the property was in his name and it was his right to proceed and sell his property since valid title was in his name and pursuant to one high court decision, only person with valid title may transfer. He added that fraud is obtained during the time of sale, and at the time of sale the property was in his name. Mboge testified that the cheques referred to by the prosecution were forcefully obtained from him and that the cheques are irrelevant to the matter at hand. He further stated that the matter at hand is obtaining money by false pretense and not bounce cheques. During cross examination, it was established that the landed property in question is in another court in which Abdoulie Cole, the first purchaser of the landed property sued Lamin Mboge and the Sheriff Division. That case was registered around 2022. It was further established that the monetary transaction between the accused and the complainant in this case was some time in 2019 or 2020. The prosecution then put it to the accused, Lamin Mboge, that the land in question he clandestinely sold to the Complainant, Yahya Ceesay belonged to Abdoulie Cole at the time which is why Abdoulie Cole instituted an action against the accused before the High Court. The accused’s response to the above during cross examination was that, he cannot agree because the time of signing the first agreement with the complainant, the said property was registered in his name and at that time there was no encumbrance or third party claim. The Prosecution further put it to the accused that, in his defense, the accused had no opportunity to produce ownership evidence relating to the property confirming that the property was registered in his name at the time he entered into the contract with the complainant. The accused person’s response to this was that, the prosecution already tendered as that was what he remembered. The Prosecution, again, put it to him that he already sold out the said property to Abdoulie Cole and continue to receive money from Yahya Ceesay which the accused knew to be true thereby defrauding the complainant, Yahya Ceesay. The accused reacted stating that is incorrect. The accused in proving his case with respect to the charge, informed the court that he wishes to present at least 3 witnesses or more. Eventually the accused was only able to call one (1) witness, DW1 and the other witnesses DW2, and DW3 were subpoenaed by the court upon application made by the accused. As a result, the following were tendered as exhibit: Exhibit “A” is a document from Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation from the Seller, Lamin Mboge. Exhibit “DLS1”- a search letter dated 5th May 2020 with serial number 392/2020 KD. Exhibit “DPAL”- a Power of Attorney with serial number 348/2020 PA. Exhibit “DDA1”- a deed of assignment with serial registration number 392/2020 KD. Bakary Sanneh, the first defence witness said he is a retired civil servant who witnessed something pertaining to the transaction between the accused and the complainant. He testified that sometimes the accused gave him a power of attorney to follow up his cases and other things. He stated that he remembered that one time the accused went to Lands Office in his presence to terminate a deal between himself (i.e the accused) and one Mr Cole because the accused had a new buyer herein Yahya Ceesay. Magistrate Krubally cited the provisions of S.287 and S. 288 of the Criminal Code. Section 287 of the Criminal Code defined false pretense as: “A representation made by words, writing or conduct, of a matter or fact, either past or present, which representation is false in fact, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true, is a false pretense” Section 288 of the criminal code further provides that: “A person who by any false pretense, and with intent to defraud, obtains from another person anything capable of being stolen commits a misdemeanor, and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of three years.” The Principal Magistrate said the key elements in determining false pretense under S.287 and S.288 are: False representation (fraudulent misrepresentation), Intention to deceive and Reliance by the complaint (obtaining i.e anything capable of being stolen). “Giving regards to the fact that all the ingredients of obtaining money by false pretense pursuant to S. 288 of the Criminal Code has been proven. I hereby, state that the accused is guilty for the offense of obtaining money by false pretense within the meaning of S. 288 of the Criminal Code. I therefore, hereby find the accused herein Lamin Mboge guilty of the offense with which he stands charged and I shall convict him accordingly.” After convicting him, here was what Lamin Mboge said in his plea of mitigation: “Giving the fact that I am a first time offender, I am a responsible man taking care of two kids and also operating business wherein a lot of people owe the business and I have been trying very hard to recover. Furthermore, I have put up a lot of efforts to negotiate with the complainant herein, but such efforts proved futile because the complainant does not accept any payment plan. The laws of this country provides for compensation to be settled on agreement or by installment. The fact that I have proof of a property handed over to me by a closed relative to sell and settle the complainant, I am able to have a credible customer willing to pay for same more than what the complainant is asking for, but his condition was the process of transfer must be completed before he can effect payment. I therefore guarantee to this honourable court to temper justice with mercy by giving me the chance to conclude sale which is basically the process of completing the transfer within a period of one month. I shall do my best to settle the complainant’s balance of two million eight hundred thousand dalasi. It will be impossible for me to complete that sale process if I am not at my (sic) freedom to complete the sale process and settle the complainant, it will be very important giving the fact that the interest of the complainant is only to receive his money back. This court has power to award compensation and it has the power to give me up to one month to be able to settle the complainant in full. At the same time, I will be grateful if the court can allow court bail to continue whiles I am in the process of settling the complainant. More so, payments I am expecting from people apart from the sale of the property will be impossible for me to receive if I am not at liberty. Therefore, I shall be very grateful to this court to consider that the interest of the complainant is to have his money to be recovered. I shall also be grateful again if the court considers that and give option of fine, that the minimum level be considered to enable me pay same because I have been going through serious financial difficulties by finding it difficult to receive moneys from people. I think this court is a reasonable one. Finally I urge the court to consider my application to settle any compensation within the stated period of one month and the fact that compensation shall be paid to the plaintiff, clearly indicates that it is in the interest of justice for the court to order for compensation or it will be must appropriate.” In passing his sentence, Principal Magistrate Krubally said: “Giving regard to all these circumstances above from the well couched mitigating circumstanced by the Accused makes me preface the following remarks below; “That is, from the year 2020 up to date now 2023, why didn’t the accused really give the victim’s money back to him? Instead he leaves him to continuously suffer daily economic losses with his family and business? More so, it is indeed very intolerable for one to obtain money from the other by false pretence which the accused knew he was doing at the time he was dealing with the complainant. It is of criminal nature that this court as court of justice shall never entertain. With regard to the accused application for fine, well since it is a statutory jurisdiction and discretion pursuant to section 29 3) of the criminal code, I hereby grant same and so order that pursuant to the said section 29 3). I order that he (the accused herein Lamin Mboge) pays a fine of D50,000 Dalasis in default to serve one year in prison. Now pursuant to the application of the prosecution on compensation stating that since the victim herein Yahya Ceesay suffers huge economic losses which is indisputable, pursuant to Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be read together with Section 31 2 of the Criminal Code, I hereby grant such application and so order that the said Accused herein Lamin Mboge compensates the said victim herein called Yahya Ceesay the sum of Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dalasis in default to serve Two Years in prison. The sentence terms herein made against the said Accused shall run concurrently.”

Joint Security Team Continues to Demolish Stalls

The Road Cleansing Exercise, jointly carried out by the National Road Authority (NRA), Police Intervention Unit (PIU) of The Gambia Police Force (GPF), and armed personnel (Soldiers) from The Gambia Armed Forces (GAF), yesterday, 30th October continued to remove illegal structures along roadsides in the Greater Banjul Area. Officials from the Physical Planning Department are part of a task force conducting this exercise. The national road-clearing exercise started on the 19th of October 2023 in Old Jeshwang. The personnel carrying out the exercise are currently in Tallinding going towards Latrikunda. The initiative includes the demolition of permanent and temporary structures and installations that are in breach of the law governing road safety and public order. Mr Lamin Jabbie, a shopkeeper around the Tallinding Market, said the national clearing exercise is not bad, but the authorities should have provided a place for the vendors before they started demolishing their stores. “I am not against the exercise because if you look at the highways, you will agree with the fact that the exercise has yielded some dividends. The road is now clean and wider than it used to be and people are freely working along without interruptions,” he said. He added that for him, it was only his veranda that was removed. “I used to pack some of my goods under the veranda of my shop because my shop is small, but now I have no choice, I have to squeeze everything inside,” he explained. Madam Fatou Camara, a street vendor, said she was asked to remove her umbrella and table from where she used to station them, which she did but had no place to relocate her stall. “It is very devastating to some of us, for me I have no other place to relocate myself. I have been selling here for the past ten years and this is where I get my fish money and other basic provisions for my children because I am a single parent,” she lamented. Madam Camara said the authorities should have come up with alternatives before the exercise. “I don’t have a place inside this market (Tallinding Market) that’s why I decided to place my stall here and fend for myself. If I am asked to relocate, I don’t know where to go to,” she emotionally expressed. Some victims whose stalls and shop verandas were pointed out for demolition voluntarily removed them, but some decided not to remove theirs, making the authorities remove them on their own

GPF-GPST TRAIN OFFICERS ON SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT POLICY

The Gambia Police Force has successfully concluded a week-long training on the selection and recruitment policy with support from the German Police Support Team (GPST) in The Gambia. The training took place at the NaNA Conference Hall on October 6, 2023. During the closing ceremony, Serap Bahadir, the project coordinator, emphasized the critical importance of this training. She highlighted that selection forms the bedrock of a reputable police force. Adeleine Bassangeh, Commissioner for the Kanifing Police Division, represented the Inspector General of Police (IGP) at the event and expressed his delight and appreciation for the continuous support provided by GPST in the GPF's ongoing reform agenda.

Gamtel Partners With Huawei

Recently the management of Gamtel and Huawei reached a strategic partnership agreement to upgrade and expand Gamtel's network backbone. The upgrade includes the deployment of several 7 DWDMs and OLTs to improve bandwidth to address the increasing unprecedented service and coverage demands in the ICT sector. As a partner to the numerous carriers within and outside the borders of the Gambia, and a key player in the Gambia government's digitalization initiatives, we remained committed to this cause, and as always taking a lead role in building the information technology super highway. We are thankful to the Gamtel and Huawei teams for the tireless efforts and their continuous support.

Gambian Former Jungler Faces Trial In America

Michael Correa, an alleged member of former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh’s notorious “Junglers” death squad, is scheduled to stand trial in Denver, Colorado, starting September 16, 2024. Correa faces charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture. The historic trial is a major step towards truth and justice for Gambian victims and the first ever trial in the United States based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. US District Court for the District of Colorado The trial will take place in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, which is in Denver, Colorado, USA. Former Gambian president Yahya Jammeh ruled the country with an iron fist between 1994 and 2016. During these years, the Gambian population suffered widespread human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence. Defendant Michael Correa is alleged to be a member of the “Junglers” death squad, a paramilitary unit set up by Jammeh. Correa allegedly participated in the torture of several individuals in March and April 2006. Correa was arrested in September 2019 in the United States for immigration violations. A coalition of NGOs called on US law enforcement to investigate Correa for torture as well. In June 2020, he was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit torture and six counts of torturing specific individuals. He pled not guilty to these charges. This case is brought under the US torture statute under the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The statute allows the US government to prosecute anyone found in the United States, regardless of their citizenship, for torture committed outside of the United States. “The prosecution of Michael Correa is welcome, but similar prosecutions have been rare in the United States. In fact, this is only the third prosecution to move forward to trial under the Torture Act, which was enacted almost 30 years ago, and only the first against a foreigner. To ensure that the United States is not a safe haven for those who commit atrocities abroad, the United States must make better use of the universal jurisdiction tools at its disposal,” said CJA Senior Staff Attorney Ela Matthews. At the time of his indictment, Correa was the first individual to face criminal investigations outside The Gambia for atrocities committed during the Jammeh regime. Since then, two other universal jurisdiction cases have moved forward. In March 2022, Bai Lowe, another alleged member of Jammeh’s Junglers, was indicted in Germany for crimes against humanity. He is currently on trial. In Switzerland, former Gambian Interior Minister Ousman Sonko is scheduled to stand trial for crimes against humanity in early 2024. Benoit Meystre, Legal Advisor at TRIAL International, said: “These investigations and trials – outside of the country where the crimes were committed – not only contribute to reducing impunity regarding the massive violations that took place in The Gambia, but are also a way to encourage the Gambian authorities to investigate and prosecute cases in the country itself.” Despite the efforts made by The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) to document past violations, the Gambian government has to date taken few steps to bring perpetrators to justice or to respond to victims’ demands for accountability and reparations. Although the Gambian government adopted a plan to implement the TRRC recommendations on May 12, 2023, implementation has remained slow. “The recent announcement of a collaboration between the Gambian Ministry of Justice and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to establish an internationalized or hybrid mechanism to prosecute the highest-ranking perpetrators of the former regime –including Yahya Jammeh himself– is a positive development,” he said “Until this court is established, the trial of Michael Correa, and the trials of Jammeh’s alleged accomplices in other national courts, will be essential pathways to justice for victims.” Source: San Francisco and Geneva

Former Finance Director Lamin Suso was ‘incompetent.’

Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Basse Area Council (BsAC) has told commissioners at the Local Government Commission of Inquiry that the former finance director, Lamin Suso was ‘incompetent.’ Ousman Touray made this disclosure on Tuesday and when asked as to why he made the assertion, he maintained that Mr Suso was actually engaged in shady transactions that proved detrimental to the Council. Touray also stated in his written statement to the Commission that Lamin Suso engaged in dubious activities. He recalled that before Lamin Suso took over as finance director, the Council’s bank accounts were ‘not red’, making reference to an incident that happened in 2021 after Lamin Suso took over. On how Lamin Suso was appointed, the witness said the appointment was made by the Local Government Service Commission upon recommendation by the Establishment Committee of Basse Area Council. He said he challenged the recommendation of the Establishment Committee through a letter sent to the Ministry of Regional Government and Lands querying the decision of the Establishment Committee. However, Touray told the Commission that though the Ministry did not reply to his letter, they went ahead to appoint Lamin Suso. He indicated that it was noble intentions that inspired his interest in working for the Basse Area Council. As a former senior budget officer at the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (MOBSE), Touray said that considering his experience, he sought a job at the Basse Area Council with the aim of elevating the council by changing the status quo. However, he said, he did not succeed. As a matter of fact, auditors held the ex-CEO and the former finance director responsible for the massive unaccounted funds belonging to the Council. Auditors also uncovered and outlined that there was a very weak administration at said Council during the tenure of the witness, an administration that had no regard for rules or procedures established by law.

NAWEC Signs Contract With Partners

The National Water and Electricity Company (NAWEC) on Thursday signed an $18.6M water infrastructure enhancement project with partners as the country prepares to host the OIC Summit later this year. The OIC Gambia Secretariat, through the government of The Gambia, secured $22.5M in funding from the Saudi Fund to improve critical water infrastructure in the country. NAWEC yesterday formalized the contract for the civil works component of the water project following the signing of the contract agreement with Pabi Ford Company, OIC and Cityscapes Associates at its Head Office in Serekunda. Speaking before the contract was signed, the Managing Director of NAWEC, Nani Juwara, said: “Today is an important day for all of us. We will be witnessing the signing of a water project funded by the OIC Secretariat with the support of the Gambia government. As we are all aware, The Gambia will be hosting the OIC conference this year. As part of the infrastructural developments, the OIC Secretariat has identified the water sector as a critical component that requires attention. And we are lucky to receive funding to the tune of about 22.5M dollars for this particular project. And there are components to the project as highlighted by the project manager. We have the consultancy component, water borehole component…that is the drilling of boreholes and also we have the component for civil works. The contract we’ll be signing today is for the civil works.” According to Mr. Juwara, the water project will lessen the water stress of Gambians. “We are really very excited today, knowing this is going to be a project that is going to alleviate the suffering of our people.Currently, the demand on water is already very high and unfortunately, we are not meeting the demand as at now. So many communities are going for days, weeks and months without water,” the Nawec MD stated. He added: “I am very hopeful that the implementation of this project will help to, at least, minimize some of those constraints we are facing because this project is going to provide some production boreholes, a transmission network for raw water supply, and also a distribution network for clean water and also construction of some elevated tanks.” He said NAWEC “is really” excited and grateful to the Gambiagovernment, OIC Secretariat and Saudi Fund for their support to the Gambia government. The Gambia OIC Secretariat’s boss Mr. Yankuba Dibbaexplained that the project should’ve been implemented almost 20 months ago. “As the saying goes…it’s better late than never. OIC Secretariat has actually arranged funding for five strategic projects and sorry to say, this is the last of our projects that is being started,” he explained. Mr. Dibba made an impassioned call to the implementing partners to treat the project with greater urgency because according to him, the project is being funded by a grant. “Unfortunately, what is even more of a concern is that it’s agrant. All our other projects are loans but this particular one is a grant. And it should be treated with more urgency than all the other projects. I am delighted to be here to sign this project and I am sure the Saudi Fund will be delighted too,” he stated. He reiterated the appeal for timely delivery. “There is no issue with regard to accessing funds as long as we are doing the job in a timely manner and bringing it to the quality that it requires. Also, I implore all players to ensure we do our best in terms of timely delivery and in terms of quality that the job requires. It’s a public good. Gambians are yearning for clean and adequate water,” the OIC Gambia Secretariat boss pointed out. The signing ceremony was, among others, witnessed by senior staff of NAWEC, representatives of the firms and NAWEC’s board chair Crispin Grey Johnson.

Opposition MPs Protest Against Former President Bill

Opposition Parliamentarians yesterday protested by walking out of the National Assembly shortly before NPP members passed the Former President Bill into law. This development followed the presentation of the bill, which was brought to the National Assembly, by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The opposition legislators boycotted the session over the bill tabled with a certificate of urgency. The House speaker put a question for the bill to be considered going with a certificate of urgency, which caused a commotion. Later, it was put to a vote as to whether it could go with a certificate of urgency. However, 30 lawmakers voted for it to be considered as a certificate of urgency while 17 voted against which happened to be the minority camp namely the United Democratic Party and PDOIS NAMs. Speaking to journalists shortly after the walk out, HonourableAlhagie S. Darboe, the Minority Leader and the member for Brikama North, highlighted the reasons why they boycotted the bill. Some of the reasons he highlighted include the fact that the former president will have the same salary as the sitting president, three cars and drivers, cooks, an office, and a residence. They also argued that the bill was passed urgently without proper scrutiny. “For the former president bill, we did not want to associate ourselves with anything we feel will not be done for the best interests of the Gambians and that is why we decided not to take part because they feel we don’t have the numbers and yes, we don’t have the number, so they will use their number against us to do anything they feel like doing. We will not be a part of that. “We will like the bill to come the normal way. We give it to the relevant committee to scrutinize and do necessary consultations report back, and we put the input of the people diligently,” he highlighted. Meanwhile, the members of the National People’s Party (NPP), nominated members, some independent members and members of the No To Alliance remained in the chambers to consider and pass the bill. If the bill is passed, a former president will earn the same salary as the sitting president; have three cars and drivers, cooks, an office and a residence. He will be treated the same as a sitting president

Parliament Passed Former President Bill

The bill titled Former President's Bill 2023 has been passed by the National Assembly and will become law once the president assents to it. The bill was introduced in parliament by the Minister of Justice under a certificate of urgency. However, the minority side of parliament disagreed with the urgency of the bill, resulting in a voting process. The majority side voted for the bill to be considered under a certificate of urgency, with 30 votes in favor and 17 votes against from the minority. Eventually, the urgency of the issues was accepted, leading to the minority side walking out of the chamber. This left the bill in the hands of the majority side to be debated and decided upon, resulting in its successful passage. Alhagie S. Darboe, the minority leader, explained their decision to boycott the session to journalists, stating that they did not want to associate themselves with anything that may not be done in the best interests of the Gambians. "The bill grants the former president the same salary as the sitting president, along with other benefits such as three cars with drivers, cooks, an office, and a residence," he explained. The minority leader, Alhagie S. Darboe, expressed concerns regarding the thorough scrutiny that such a bill requires. He mentioned that the certificate of urgency would not allow them the opportunity for proper scrutiny. He argued that the bill should follow the normal procedure, which involves referring it to a relevant committee for scrutiny, consultation, and reporting back to them, ensuring the input of the people. Hon. Suwaibou Touray of PDOIS emphasized that they are not against the bill itself but believe it should undergo proper scrutiny through the normal procedure. He highlighted that the bill deals with taxpayers' money and therefore requires careful examination. The minister, in introducing the bill, explained its purpose and reasons. He said the bill seeks to repeal and replace the Former Presidents (Office, Allowances and Other Benefits) Act [Act No.16 of 2006]. The minister highlighted that, currently, when a president ceases to hold office, they enter retirement without any formal pension from the state, adding that the bill proposes an annual pension and office expenses for former presidents to maintain the dignity of the Office of the President. He added, "The bill also aims to recognize and show gratitude for a former president's service to The Gambia, which extends beyond their term of office,". The minister believes that many Gambians would not want to see their former presidents living the remainder of their lives destitute, and the bill proposes a one-time six-month lump sum gratuity payment to assist the outgoing president in transitioning to post-presidential life. The minister added that even after leaving office, a former president remains a public figure and continues to perform certain informal public roles. He emphasized that other public servants, including those in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, qualify for a pension. "It is therefore fair that a former president also be provided with a pension and additional office facilities to enable them to fulfil duties that arise from their unofficial public status," Minister Jallow explained. He said the bill also includes provisions for an official state funeral for former presidents upon their demise, as a way to show the nation's final respect. "To preserve the dignity of the former first family, the bill proposes a monthly allowance equal to twenty-five percent of the deceased former president's pension to be paid to the surviving spouse,". Finally, Minister Jallow said the bill aims to make life after the presidency modestly comfortable. He added, "The benefits provided by this bill will serve as an incentive for sitting presidents to voluntarily vacate office, thus encouraging them to avoid undue elongation of their stay in power,". He concluded that the bill will help to prevent political instability, which is a common phenomenon in many parts of Africa

My Response to Yankuba Dampha, the Political Virgin Who Spares No One

It has never been my intention to respond to Attention Seekers and Political Virgins, especially at this time of our political struggle, considering the fact that we have very important issues to deal with. However, psychologists believe that if a lie is drummed up ten times without being called out and exposed as a lie it becomes the Ultimate Truth in the end. Therefore, I have no option but to give a fitting response to Yankuba Dampha who was formerly disguised as Maxi Jones. I cannot sit by and allow the likes of Yankuba to rain fallacious and calculated lies on my personality. Yankuba, who is known for falsely accusing decent people over the years, has the audacity to accuse me of calling their newly formed group members Greedy People. He even labeled me as a Disgruntled Person without providing proof or evidence to his followers about why and how I have become a disgruntled person. He insulted me by describing me as a so-called NPP supporter. Yankuba also questioned why I supported one Kaw Yerro's suggestion that all those who want to empower the NPP should go through the existing structures of the party. Yankuba said since Kaw Yerro was among the founding fathers of the 3 YEARS GOTNA movement he (Kaw Yerro) must not call himself an NPP supporter. He sounded as if he is mandated to choose who becomes the NPP member. Even President Barrow does not sound like Maxi Jones. To set the records straight, I have never called anyone or a group of people greedy throughout my civil discourse. All those who follow me know it is never my character to label others. My only crime - there is any - is to agree with Kaw Yerro that all the groups that intend to empower the NPP need to work with the party's existing structures so as to avoid duplication of efforts and fear of undermining each other. I support any lofty or progressive idea without minding the carrier. It is unwise for any party or group to bank on only ideas of its members. Only those bankrupt with wisdom, knowledge and experience think that way.  Yankuba Dampha has a legacy of character rudely attacking many people and undermining decent and patriotic citizens. I have no reason to be disgruntled because I have got what I wanted in politics. I decided to support President Barrow who has been winning elections since 2016. I can proudly tell you that my candidate Adama Barrow won all elections in my Jarra Central constituency. The people of that region can attest to my efforts during election campaigns. I must tell you that unlike you, I have always been there for the Gambia and the Gambian people. I voluntarily resigned from the Gambia National Army in 1995 to join politics and fight for the liberation of my people. You joined the struggle when your close relative – the late Mr. Dibba of the Gambia Transport Union – died in police custody. Your cowardly and selfish tendencies could not allow you to show your face hence your fictitious name MAXI JONES. WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE!  Yes, Kaw Yerro might be a member or founder of the 3 YEARS JOTNA but how many of the so-called 3 YEARS JOTNA members are enjoying the company of the NPP party and the government. Also remember that most of the people you worship today were die-heart APRC supporters, most of whom only joined the NPP for greener pastures. Most of you cannot be proud of winning votes for President Barrow in your constituencies during the past presidential elections. In fact, you were on record campaigning against President Barrow's party. You defended supporting the PPP for being the party of your parents. You are the one known for being disgruntled and untruthful when it comes to party politics.  Please live your life and stop going after people who do not even bother your existence. As a highly cultured person, I have decided to apply some limitations because I heard you call some individuals in Nokunda as your uncles who happen to be my brothers. Out of disrespect which is a manifestation of your true character, you called me Jarra Boyo. Clearly, you know that some of your uncles and aunties are my age mates. Please let the sleeping dog lie in peace. I don't want to be provoked into doing what is not my true character. MANDIKOLU KO WULU NUKUNTANG KONTONG YA WANYARE.

"Stop Confusing Matters Melville Roberts" Dida Jallow Halake

The IEC followed what they think the law is, as we all must! I don’t know what Mr Melville Roberts Esq. is talking about! The IEC is NOT “interpreting” the law! They are simply following the law as they understand it to be (that is Lawyer Lamin J Dabo’s point!). All of us follow the law in our daily lives ... as we know or think the law to be. If we are wrong, then the court (which “interprets the law”) tells us we are wrong and holds us accountable. So, Mr. Melville Roberts Esq, the IEC decided for themselves what they think the law is ... just as you and I are free to decide for ourselves what we think the law is! They are simply following the law – as they think the law to be. Stop confusing matters by saying that “the IEC is interpreting the law”! No they are NOT! It is the court that interprets the law ... not me, not the IEC and NOT even an eminent Oxford University Lawyer like yourself! Lawyers give an “opinion”, which is NOT an “interpretation” – something that is reserved for the courts! As I argued on WhatsOnGambia three days ago and as Lawyer Lamin J Dabo wrote on GunjurOnLine yesterday, “Sabally does not have a snowball’s chance in hell” of winning in court. The facts are against him:- 1. A Commission of Inquiry has stated that he should be banned from holding public office for life; 2. Section 90 of the Constitution says that he who has abused or misused his office should be banned from being a candidate for the National Assembly. Case closed. End of. The IEC is on solid grounds. PS: Momodou Sabally has declared himself to be “The Gambia’s Julius Malema”, so we might soon see him wearing red overalls in the streets of Banjul ... and leading a revolution, a new 10-Years JOTNA?! Dida Jallow-Halake, Notting Hill, UK.

The Momodou Sabally National Assembly Nomination Saga: Sad but Lawful

● He is a towering intellectual and first rate orator, served simultaneously as Secretary General and Minister of Presidential Affairs under His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhagie Dr Yahya A. J. Jammeh (the Professor). In that role he met all stripes of leaders domestic and international and participated in the great public dramas of the day at the policy councils of the Gambian state. Allowing for the authoritarian vagaries of the system installed by the Professor, Momodou Sabally (Sabally) was for a year the great supervisor of the Public Service, sounding board of the President, his preeminent confidant, and primus among the Ministers. Having presided, or somewhat participated over the hiring and firing of senior government figures, including some cabinet colleagues, he knows a thing or two about policy and its implementation. After all, he is the Gambia’s Pen and vigorously expresses his enlightening and entertaining perspective on the burning public questions of the day. If his great and controversial mind was a source of joy and annoyance to the intellectual community, they were projected on a larger canvass when he joined the United Democratic Party (UDP) and campaigned vigorously for its agenda across the country, thus making himself a household name. No surprise therefore that Sabally’s expression of interest in contesting the Busumbala Constituency for the UDP in the April National Assembly Elections captured public attention. The run-up to nomination day on 10 March was crowded with great excitement as Sabally has all the ingredients of a great parliamentary statesman: intelligent, outspoken, controversial entertaining. He may be among the few candidates capable of generating cross party support at the polls but for the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) decision to reject his application for nomination under the UDP ticket. According to the IEC, Sabally was adversely mentioned in THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC BODIES, ENTERPRISES AND OFFICES AS REGARDS THEIR DEALINGS WITH FORMER PRESIDENT YAHYA A.J.J. JAMMEH AND CONNECTED MATTERS The Government’s White Paper on the matter as concerns Sabally states at paragraphs: 216:- Mr. Momodou Sabally started at the Central Bank as an Economist from 1999 to 2009. He was Director of Budget at the Ministry of Finance from 2010 to 2013. He was appointed as Acting Secretary General in June 2013, and then subsequently confirmed as Secretary General and Minister for Presidential Affairs in the same year. His service was terminated in June 2014. 217:- The Commission found, inter alia, that during his tenure as Secretary General, Mr Momodou Sabally was signatory to various public accounts and was involved in the withdrawal of large sums of public funds, some of which were not accounted for, on the instructions of former President Jammeh. The Commission found that Mr Momodou Sabally and former President Jammeh are jointly and severally liable for the said amounts of money misappropriated by former President Jammeh. 218. The Government notes that Mr Momodou Sabally’s many involvements in the financial transactions of former President Jammeh, which was not part of his official duties, especially as Secretary General, demonstrate the enthusiasm with which he facilitated these transactions. His conduct fell far short of the standard of professional conduct expected of the Head of the Civil Service at the time. 219. Consequently, the Government accepts the Commission’s recommendation that Mr Momodou Sabally should not serve in any public office again or be appointed as Director for any State Owned Enterprise for at least ten years. Mr Momodou Sabally is hereby banned from holding public office for the remainder of his life. He is also banned from holding any director positions in any State Owned Enterprises in The Gambia for ten (10) years. Both bans are effective from the date of publication of this White Paper. The monies shall be recovered from the assets of former President Jammeh. Clearly, a member of the National Assembly is not a public office holder (see section 166 (4) (a) of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution). Viewed in isolation, this provision would appear to suggest the IEC was wrong in rejecting Sabally’s application for nomination as a candidate in the upcoming National Assembly Elections. However, the IEC specifically rejected Sabally’s application for nomination on the basis of section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution that “no person is qualified for election as a member of the national assembly if he or she has been found by a report of a commission or committee of inquiry (the proceedings of which are have been held and published in accordance with the relevant law) to be incompetent to hold public office by reason of having acquired assets unlawfully or defrauded the state or misused or abused his or her office, or wilfully acted in a manner pre-judicial to the interests of the state, and the findings have not been set aside on appeal or judicial review”. It is common knowledge that Sabally lodged an appeal against the adverse mention, and the bans imposed on him, by the Janneh Commission, and the Government. Until they are “set aside on appeal or judicial review”, section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution continues to operate against him. A convicted prisoner remains a prisoner until his appeal is allowed. On the particular facts of Sabally’s case, his impediment remains pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. As to whether the IEC has the competence to interpret section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution at its level, I merely state it is performing a legally permitted intermediate gate keeping function which can only be conclusively ratified by a competent court where its perspective is contested. However, the Janneh Commission Report and its accompanying White Paper are public documents available to the IEC and it can act upon them where deemed necessary. Albeit on contested understandings, it is far from clear that the IEC operated outside the law when it rejected Sabally’s application for nomination as UDP candidate for Busumbala. With the clarity of section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution, he appears not to have a snowball’s chance in hell in overturning the IEC decision. Of course the cases of the current Chief of Protocol, and the likes of Mamburay Njie, were given lighter treatment by the Government, and these were picked on by observers. What is clear is that they and others similarly situated cannot contest in National Assembly elections under the law. As to the protests that the law is differentially applied, I suggest the facts are distinguishable in that the Sabally saga was triggered by the National Assembly qualification regime. On a lighter note, maybe we should proceed with Mr Bumble when confronted with the postulation that as between him and his wife he was “… the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction." Mr Bumble protested that “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience” I urge Sabally to deploy his immense talents in helping others this election season and to accept that on current facts, he cannot serve as a National Assembly Member until his appeal is allowed. Lamin J. Darbo