Damning Evidence Against Sanna Fadera Ringleader of The Coup Plotters

This article is authored by Kemeseng Sanneh

Many are wondering why Justice Basiru V.P. Mahoney freed all the accused persons and only convicted the ringleader, this story has answers to your question as it seeks to explain the judgment. In the early hours of 20 December 2022, the Gambia was greeted with a foiled coup attempt announced by the Gambia Government. On 29 December, the Gambia Government organised a press briefing informing the public of a foiled coup attempt and said they have apprehended the people involved. In January 2023, a case of treason, inciting mutiny and concealment of treason was filed by the State (prosecution) against five (5) junior soldiers and a policeman with allegation they had prepared or endeavoured to overthrow the Government of The Gambia by unlawful means. The accused persons were (Lance Corporal) SannaFadera, (Sergeant) GibrilDarboe, (Corporal) EbrimaSannoh, (Corporal) Omar Njie, and (Sub-Inspector) FabakaryJawara – the only policeman in this trial. The charges were two counts of treason, two counts of concealment of treason and incitement to mutiny. 

All the Accused Persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and the State (Prosecution) was called upon to prove their case. Justice Mahoney said the criminal offences of treason and concealment of treason are serious in nature which attracts the most severe punishments, particularly death in certain circumstances and life imprisonment in other circumstances. After calling eight witnesses, the prosecutions closed their case and each of the accused persons gave evidence in defence. At the closure of the prosecution’s case, Corporal Omar Njie made a ‘no case submission’ and succeeded as he was acquitted and discharged by the court. 

 LAWYERS’ ARGUMENTS 

The Prosecution filed written brief on 9 August 2023, arguing that they have proven their case beyond reasonable doubt to enable the court to convict and sentence the accused persons. The Prosecution submitted that they had proved that the Accused Persons prepared and endeavoured to overthrow the Government of The Gambia. They argued that the evidence is corroborated by other witnesses, the telephone printouts and the operational plan. They also argued that similarly, the counts of concealment of treason have been proved. 

Counsel for Sanna Fadera and Fabakary Trawally filed their brief on 12 September 2023. They also argued on the issue of whether the Prosecution has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. They referred to the evidence of PW1 (Corporal Barra Touray) arguing that his evidence was contradictory and that although PW2 (YayaManjang) corroborated the evidence of Barra Touray, none of the witnesses corroborated each other. And further that conspiracy having not been proved, both the substantive offence in Count 1 and the conspiracy in Count 2 were bound to fail. Counsel for Gibril Darboe filed his brief on 11 September 2023 in which he argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were based on hearsay to the extent that no reasonable court could convict on it. Counsel’s main argument was that the Prosecution had failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel for Ebrima Sannoh filed his brief on 14 September 2023 in which he argued two issues. One was whether the elements of the offences have been proven beyond reasonable doubt and whether the State has discharged the burden of proof. Counsel argued that Ebrima Sannoh’s telephone number did not appear on the telephone printout of the 1st Accused (SannaFadera) which debunks the prosecution’s case that he communicated with Sanna Fadera. Counsel also argued that the witnesses who mentioned Ebrima Sannoh never properly identified him and that the standard and burden of proof had not been discharged. 

Justice Mahoney said that based on the law and facts of the case and the addresses of Counsels, the issue to be determined is whether the Prosecution has proved the offences in the counts beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence and the law.

The Judge mentioned that Section 38 of the Criminal Code provides that a person charged under sections 35 (Treason), 36 (Concealment of Treason) or 37 (Spying) of the Criminal Code shall not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. 

“It is therefore imperative that in proving the commission of the offences beyond reasonable doubt, that there is corroborative evidence to support the primary evidence for each of the offences under Section 35 and 36 of the Criminal Code.” Section 179 of the Evidence Act defines corroboration as follows: “Corroboration consists of independent evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms in some material particular the evidence to be corroborated and connects the relevant person with the offence, claim or defence.” 

Justice Mahoney relied on the decision in Lang TombongTamba vs The State & the decision in Sarjo Fofana vs The State, Criminal to say “the corroborating evidence must be independent” and “the corroborating evidence must confirm or support in some material particular the evidence to be corroborated.” TESTIMONIES OF ACCOMPLICES The Judge held that most of the prosecution witnesses were accomplices to the case. 

On the applicability of the testimony of an accomplice, Justice Mahoney said while it is clear that an accomplice is a competent witness, it may be dangerous to act on such evidence alone as the evidence of an accomplice might have its purpose to serve. “I am of the view that an accomplice is a tainted witness. The evidence is admissible, but must be treated with caution,” he said. He said an accomplice is generally a partner of the accused person in the commission of the crime with which the accused is charged. He explained that prosecuting authorities often have to resort to the use of accomplices as witnesses in situations where it would be otherwise difficult to prove the case. “Under the Evidence Act therefore, once a witness is determined/ identified as an accomplice the court should not convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of that accomplice. Unless it warns itself on the record that it recognises the danger of doing so,” Mahoney said. Justice Mahoney stated that one accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. “It does not matter how many witnesses the prosecution calls, if they are all accomplices they cannot corroborate each other,” Mahoney said. 

Identifying the Accomplices Prosecution Witness One, Barra Touray, testified that he was told by the 1st Accused Person (SannaFadera) that he wanted to overthrow the Government and in subsequent conversations with Fadera he asked for the operational plan. Touray said he was informed of the 18 December 2022 meeting and that the meeting was successful. He was arrested in connection with the alleged coup, charged and the charges were later dropped. He was then placed in protective custody until he testified. He confirmed that initially, he told the police he didn’t know anything about the coup plot, he wrote two to three statements – the last one two days before he was discharged. 

“On these facts, it is glaring that PW1 (Barry Touray) was an accomplice. He had knowledge of the alleged coup and did nothing about it. He was an accessory before the fact in that he aided and abetted the principal – the 1st Accused (SannaFadera) to commit the alleged offence,” Mahoney said. Justice Mahoney said Barra Touray’s admissions that he initially did not cooperate with the investigation and wrote two or three statements coupled with the fact that he was placed under protective custody; raises alarm bells as to his credibility and the risk of his evidence having its purpose to serve being a tainted witness. “His evidence must be treated with the utmost caution,” Mahoney said. 

Prosecution Witness 2, Yaya Manjang, said he was approached by Mustapha Jabbi and the 5th Accused (FabakaryJawara) about the latter’s nephew (SannaFadera) wanting to make a coup d’état. He told them what charity to give out, and referred them to a marabout in Mauritania. “He also knew about the alleged coup and did nothing about it. He aided and abetted the principal to commit the alleged offence. He also was arrested, detained and released over a period of several days. On the facts, he is also an accomplice,” Mahoney said.

Prosecution witness 3, Captain Mamat Jobe, said he was informed by 1 Accused (SannaFadera) of his intention to overthrow the Government. He was shown an operational plan. He said he was on study leave and would not do anything to hamper it. He said it was the following day after 1st Accused told him of the alleged coup that he reported to Major Lamin Njie. From there, he kept on pursuing his superiors about the alleged coup resulting in the meeting of Majors Lamin Njie and Alagie Njie and the military intelligence officer when they called the 1st Accused. Subsequently, he and his superiors reported to Defence Headquarters and ultimately when he ran out of patience, he reported to the State Intelligence Services. “On the facts, although Mamat Jobe knew about the alleged coup, and may have abetted the principal, his intention was to foil the coup and thus lacked the mensrea for the offences. He is not an accomplice,” Mahoney said. Prosecution witness 4, Mustapha Jabbi, often referred to as the driver, said he was introduced to 1st Accused (SannaFadera) by the 5th Accused (FabakaryJawara) as the person wanting to overthrow the Government. He said he took Sanna Fadera to wash in the bush: he took Fabakary Jawara to marabout for Sanna Fadera, he contacted his uncle to help with the marabout in Mauritania and he drove the accused persons to Kafuta for a meeting. “He was involved in the alleged coup, he aided and abetted the principal and did not do anything about the alleged coup. He was arrested, detained, charged and later discharged. He initially denied involvement during investigations with the police. He was put under protective custody. On the facts Mustapha Jabbi is an accomplice,” Mahoney said. Prosecution witnesses 5 and 6 are police officers involved with the investigation. Prosecution witness 7, Karamo Jatta, a soldier said he met the 1st Accused (SannaFadera) in Farafenni where the latter told him about the coup being ready. That he had 200 jujus and asked him to mobilise men. He was shown the operational plan and took photos of it. On 18 December 2022 he joined the Accused persons (excluding Fabakary Jawara) at the alleged meeting in Kafuta and witnessed the details of the alleged planned coup. He, however, said he wasn’t going to be a part of it. He said he reported it to the higher authorities on 12 December 2022. “There is ample evidence that he was part and parcel of the alleged coup. The only issue is his intention. But, what evidence is there that he reported the issue to higher authorities and which higher authorities?” Mahoney asked. Mahoney said the police witnesse (PW6) in the case said he came across Karamo Jatta’s name when he was analysing the call logs. PW6 said Karamo Jatta was invited and interviewed and his telephone was recovered which contained audio conversations, photos and documents including the operational plan. “Based on the facts, it can only be concluded that PW7 is an assumed accomplice,” Justice Mahoney said. Prosecution Witness 8, a military intelligence officer (name withheld), from the facts of the case, Justice Mahoney said cannot be regarded as an accomplice just as the case of Mamat Jobe.

Evaluation of the Evidence Section 35 of the Criminal Code makes provision for the offence of treason. The law further provides that where a person commits treason he or she shall, on conviction, be sentenced to death. Justice Mahoney said the elements of the offence of treason are: (a) that there was a preparation or endeavour; (b) that the preparation or endeavour was to overthrow the Government of The Gambia; (c) that the preparation or endeavour was by unlawful means; and (d) that the preparation or endeavour was done by the accused persons. The elements of the offence of conspiracy to overthrow the Government are: (a) that there was an agreement by two or more persons to prosecute a common purpose; (b) that the common purpose was the unlawful overthrowing of the Government; (c) that the persons commenced or joined the prosecution of the common purpose; and (d) the agreement was by the accused person and others. SannaFadera “From the position of the law on accomplices set out above, it is apparent that I must exercise great caution in relying on and giving weight to the evidence of PWI and PW2. I also must state that I did not find their testimonies very convincing and their demeanour also did not call for them to be held in high esteem. I shall not give much weight to their evidence,” Justice Mahoney said. “All this evidence put together leaves me with no doubt that the 1st Accused (SannaFadera) organised and attended the meeting in Kafuta to prepare for the overthrow of the Government of The Gambia,” Mahoney said. Gibril Darboe He said the evidence against 2nd Accused (GibrilDarboe) in respect of the offence of treason is only available from PW4 (Mustapha Jabbi), the driver who gave evidence of driving Sanna Fadera, EbrimaSannoh and Karamo Jatta to GibrilaDarboe’s Compound in Kafuta where a meeting was held and the evidence of PW7 (KaramoJatta) who was part of the meeting at the compound of the Gibril’s who gave details of what transpired at the meeting. “As mentioned previously, both PW4 and PW7 are accomplices. Some independent evidence is necessary to corroborate their evidence. As stated before, an accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. Although I could rely on the evidence of an accomplice after properly warning myself, for the offence of treason, the evidence must be corroborated. The extra-judicial statement of the 2nd Accused is entirely exculpatory. The call log does not help in proving the offence without other substantive evidence to be corroborated. I find no corroboration available or no sufficient corroboration available. The fact that the 1st Accused Sanna Fadera) spoke to the 2nd Accused person (GibrilDarboe) over the phone is not enough. In the circumstances, the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the 2nd Accused as concerns treason within the requirements of the law.” Ebrima Sannoh Justice Mahoney said the evidence against Ebrima Sanoh in respect of the offence of treason are contained in the testimony of PW4, the driver, who said he drove Sanna Fadera, Ebrima Sannoh and PW7 Karamo Jatta to the compound of Gibril Darboe in Kafuta where a meeting was held and the evidence of PW7 who gave similar evidence but included details of the meeting. “There is nothing in the extra-judicial statement of the 3rd Accused for the Prosecution to rely on. Again both PW4 and PW7 are accomplices. An accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. Just as for the 2nd Accused, the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the 3rd Accused as concerns treason within the requirements of the law.” Fabakary Jawara Justice Mahoney said the evidence against Fabakary Jawara in respect of the offence of treason are contained in the testimony of PW4 (Mustapha Jabbie) concerning taking him to a marabout on several occasions and the evidence of PW2 (YayaManjang), one of the marabouts consulted with regards to the coup d’état. “Both PW2 and PW4 are accomplices. Just as for the 2nd Accused (GibrilDarboe) and the 3rd Accused (EbrimaSannoh), the Prosecution has not proved the guilt of the 5th Accused (FabakaryJawara) as concerns treason within the requirements of the law.” On the count of conspiracy, Justice Mahoney said it must be proven that there was an agreement by two or more persons to prosecute a common purpose. “Now, as stated under Count 1, there is evidence against the 1st Accused that he prepared to overthrow the Government,” Justice Mahoney said. He said the evidence of PW3 (Captain Mamat Jobe), PW4 (Mustapha Jabbie), PW7 (Karamo Jatta) and PW8 (military intelligence) and the call log are all against the 1st Accused (Sanna Fadera) only. He acquitted and discharged the accused persons of treason. The only person convicted and sentenced was Lance Corporal Sanna Fadera after he was found guilty of Treason contrary to Section 35 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code. The judge acquitted and discharged all the accused persons including Sanna Fadera of the charge of conspiracy. He also acquitted and discharged Sanna Fadera of incitement to mutiny and is hereby acquitted and discharged. SENTENCE “Having heard Counsel for the 1st Accused make a plea in mitigation for the 1st Accused who has just been found guilty and convicted of Treason contrary to Section 35 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code, and having heard the Director of Public Prosecution in his response, in passing sentence, I consider that in the absence of violence, the death penalty is not appropriate. The alternative is life imprisonment, but Section 29 of the Criminal Code is there for a purpose: whenever the Court determines that a lesser sentence is appropriate, it may invoke Section 29. The aggravating factors in this case are that the offence is Treason – preparing to overthrow the Government of The Gambia by unlawful means. This, the law generally frowns upon as the only way to change a Government is by elections as constitutionally provided. The mitigating circumstances on the other hand are that there was no violence employed in the commission of the offence. The convict is a young person engaged in the Army and working as a lab technician having graduated from the University of The Gambia with a Bachelor’s Degree in biology and chemistry. He has no previous convictions. I believe the severity of the offence deserves some period of imprisonment but considering the conditions of our prisons, I believe imprisonment for life would be very harsh in the circumstances. I will therefore invoke Section 29 of the Criminal Code and impose a lesser sentence on the convict. I believe this was done previously in other Section 35 offences. In all the circumstances, I will impose imprisonment on the 1st Accused – convict and sentence him to 12 (twelve) years imprisonment for the offence of Treason.”

Victims Reparations Bill Passed By The National Assembly

On 1st November the National Assembly passed a bill to provide reparations of victims. This bill was among many bills brought in by the attorney general and minister of justice Dawda Jallow. On the floors of the National Assemby the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dawda Jallow presenting the Bill titled Victims Reparations Bill 2023, informed lawmakers that the Bill seeks to establish a Reparations Commission whose responsibility is to review reparation paid out by the TRRC and make necessary adjustments, receive, evaluate, process and make a determination as to new victims who were not identified by the TRRC. Justice Minister Jallow said “The Bill seeks to create and maintain an up-to-date database of victims, develop and publish guidelines and procedures for the granting of reparations. The Bill also seeks to establish a victims’ fund which shall consist of, among other sources, monies generated from some of the proceeds of sales of ex-President Jammeh’s properties. He added that it also seeks to create a point system that will be used by the Commissioners to determine the reparations payable to victims. Eventually, the debate on the Bill proceed and availed the lawmakers to weigh in their inputs and views on the Bill. For his part the member for Wuli East Constituency Hon. Suwaibou Touray said the time is apt, adding that it is seeking to redress long standing human rights violations of people who actually require remedies. “I believe many people have their rights violated at some point and they have no way of seeking redress” says The PDOIS Parliamentarian The maestro politician further outlined that the Bill is an opportunity for those people to come before the agency to seek redress, adding that many were affected during the Second Republic but that some may be interested in restitution instead of monetary compensation. He added that it is apt that there is a domestic law to make a provision to prohibit the violations done by state agents, and that the Commission should continue training security and judicial officers as they have a critical role in ensuring that these violations do not continue. Member for Banjul South, Hon. Fatoumatta Njai, said “I support the Bill, but not the way it is presented to us. We were voted through tough elections to come and defend, and protect their rights in the country as citizens of the country. The reason that provision is given in the Constitution for the President to bring this Bill as a matter of urgency has been abused because I don’t see this as matter of urgency.” She admitted that the Bill is of benefit to the community, but to what extent, and they need to look into the provision to ensure that it is taken through the right stage and due processes. Member for Kantora and Majority Leader, Hon. Billay G Tunkara, explained that the change of government happened in 2016 and the TRRC was set up to probe heinous crimes against humanity during the Jammeh regime, He said down the line, there is the need to give compensation to the victims and to ensure healing as a nation, saying “Putting the Bill before the next year’s budget session will ensure adequate resources and to have support from partners to make sure that the victims are given the attention they deserve.” He added that seven years down the line, it is apt and timely to bring the Bill to ensure that the victims are compensated. Honourable Sanna Jawara, Member for Lower Saloum, said the Bill is long overdue, but stressed that the need for the mover to explain to them the time frame of the Commission and the monies that will be utilized to ensure compensation for the victims. He also asked the Minister to state the mechanisms in place that will be utilized to account for the monies that will be generated to provide compensation; adding that once the Commission starts, grants and donations will come and there is the need for transparency and accountability. He also called for inclusion of all the victims and not to be limited to only those who appeared before the TRRC, stating there are still some victims that did not appear before the TRRC and they deserve to be included. Hon. Amadou Camara, Member for Nianija, said that the country has been yearning for compensation and reparation for the victims, and now that the Bill has been brought up it is a welcomed move, in the efforts to provide the compensation and reparations to the victims. Hon. Kemo Gassama, Member for Lower Baddibu, said that though he welcomes and supports the Bill, he doesn’t understand the reason for bringing the Bill under Certificate of Emergency, adding that the assembly will commence its ordinary session in less than two-weeks time to come. Serrekunda West Lawmaker, Hon. Madi Ceesay, said “I am not against the Bill. What I am against is the urgency attached to it. We know victims have suffered and they will continue to suffer. We are very much in support of the Bill, but we want justice to be done to the Bill.” If the Bill had come under normal circumstances, he said it will avail them chance to have interface with larger communities than victims themselves, adding that there are both direct and indirect victims. Member for Sami, Hon. Alfusainey Ceesay reiterated that there was no need to bring the Bill under Certificate of Urgency, but that there is no lawmaker who is against the Bill, adding that it amounts to excluding the victims in the Bill that seek to secure a law for them. When it is brought under normal circumstances, he said, the victims and other stakeholders will have opportunity to have their inputs incorporated in the Bill. Member for Foni Jarrol Constituency, Hon. Kebba T Sanneh, was one of the few who was critical of the Bill. He said that there is need for them to know who the victims are. The Bill, he said, needs to go through committee stages so that they can really screen the Bill to know who the victims are. The National Assembly Member for Foni Kansala, Almameh Gibba, has criticized the Bill, stating that it is not progressive and is instead a witch-hunt as it mentions Yahya Jammeh, the former president, four times. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dawda Jallow, tabled the 2023 Victims Reparations Bill, as per the recommendations from the Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). The Bill was passed by the members. The Victim Reparations Bill, 2023, is the first of several bills the government submitted to the parliament in this extraordinary session. Next to be tabled was the TRRC Bill by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dawda Jallow.

Italy: Deal to detain refugees and migrants offshore in Albania ‘illegal and unworkable’

Responding to the announcement that the Italian and Albanian Prime Ministers yesterday signed an agreement to construct two centres in Albania in which to detain people rescued at sea by Italian ships, including people seeking safety, Elisa De Pieri, Regional Researcher at Amnesty International said: People rescued at sea by Italian authorities, including those seeking safety in Europe, are under Italian jurisdiction and cannot be taken to another country before their asylum request and individual circumstances have been examined. It is as simple as that. Elisa De Pieri, Regional Researcher at Amnesty International This agreement is about refoulement, a practice which is banned under international and European law, and for which Italy has already been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights. It is illegal, unworkable, and it must be scrapped. “Italy has claimed that the people detained would remain under Italian jurisdiction, but the reality is that the deal will be used to circumvent national, international and EU law. That could have devastating consequences for people seeking asylum, who could be subjected to lengthy detention and other violations, outside the scrutiny of Italian judicial authorities. The European Commission has already made it clear that EU asylum law cannot be applied outside the EU. “While details of the agreement are yet to be disclosed, a number of concerns are already emerging. Amnesty International calls on the Italian government to uphold its international law obligations on non-refoulement, to guarantee asylum and calls on the European Commission to ensure that member states do not breach the asylum acquis.” Background Refoulement is the practice of sending anyone to a country where they are at risk of human rights violations. Protection from refoulement is a basic right of asylum seekers and refugees. Non-refoulement is a core principle of international refugee law, as part of customary international law, it is binding on all States. The principle of non-refoulement is also enshrined in EU law in Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 and 19 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The European Commission already made it clear in 2018 that extraterritorial application of EU law is currently not possible. Italy has already been condemned for violation of the non-refoulement principle by the European Court of Human Rights in 2012 for in the Hirsi Jamaa v. Others case.

Nigeria: Amnesty International and others demand justice for victims of enforced disappearances in Northeast

Responding to the Nigerian government’s receipt of our application filed with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice to demand justice for cases of enforced disappearances recorded in the Northeast of Nigeria, Isa Sanusi, Amnesty International Nigeria Director said: “By allowing the military to carry out thousands of enforced disappearances in the country’s Northeast and subsequently failing to genuinely and effectively investigate and prosecute those responsible, the Nigerian government has violated its international and regional human rights obligations and has failed victims. “The ECOWAS Court represents one of the few remaining avenues for accountability and justice for victims of enforced disappearances in Northeast Nigeria and their families, who deserve to know the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. The ECOWAS court can help bring about justice by clearly calling out as human rights violations the failure of the Nigerian authorities to properly investigate and prosecute.” We welcome the receipt of our application by the Nigerian government, symbolizing that this is now a pending case, and the victims will get their day in court. But this is just the first step. We call on the Nigerian authorities to cooperate closely with the Court in its proceedings, to conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation into all cases of enforced disappearances in Northeast Nigeria, and where admissible evidence exists, to prosecute all those suspected of criminal responsibility in relation to the disappearances. Isa Sanusi, Amnesty International Nigeria Director Background In its 2015 report, Stars on their shoulders. Blood on their hands, Amnesty International concluded that Nigerian security forces have committed war crimes and other serious human right violations, including enforced disappearances, during the course of its military operations in Northeast Nigeria against the armed group, Boko Haram. The whereabouts of thousands of people detained by Nigerian forces in the Northeast still remain unknown. To date, Nigerian authorities have failed to conduct genuine, independent and effective investigations and prosecutions of these crimes. Last month, Amnesty International, together with the Sterling Centre for Law and Development and 23 victims and survivors, filed a case at the ECOWAS Court to seek long-awaited justice, truth and reparations for those disappeared and their families. Source amnesty international

IGP Reaffirms Commitment To Police Reform

The Inspector General of Police Abdoulie Sanyang reaffirmed his commitment to reforming The Gambia Police Force during a visit to in-service training for traffic officers on November 7, 2023, at Police Training School in Banjulunding. Under the leadership of IGP Sanyang, The Gambia Police Force is actively engaged in reforms aimed at meeting international standards and transitioning into a model of democratic policing. These reform efforts encompass various units, including the mobile traffic unit, which is currently undergoing comprehensive training in traffic management. The training spans fundamental skills to advanced techniques, equipping officers with the necessary tools to better serve the public. During his address to the officers, IGP Sanyang emphasized the vital role of the training in these ongoing reforms and extended recognition to the German trainers for their contributions. The Gambia Police Force remains steadfast in its dedication to improving services provided to the public through these reform initiatives.

In The Case Of Health Ministry Officials Satang B. Houma Testified As PW 1

State First Witness Testifies In Health Ministry Officials Corruption, Forgery, Theft, Conspiracy, and Economic Crimes Trial In the Corruption, Forgery, Theft, Conspiracy, and Economic Crimes trial involving three Ministry of Health officials, the state has called its first prosecution witness (PW1). The accused are Balla Kandeh, Omar Malleh Ceesay, and Muhammadou Lamin Jaiteh, three(3) Health Officials were Arraigned for corruption, forgery, theft, conspiracy, and economic crimes total of 19 charges were brought against them. When the case was called the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) A.M. Yusuf informed the court of the readiness of the state to proceed with the hearing and present their first witness to testify. However, Counsel Lamin L.S. Camara, representing the accused persons, noted that the original indictment lacks the statements of the witnesses expected to testify. Additionally, the voluntary and cautionary statements of the accused persons were also not attached to the original indictment. Counsel Camara requested that the defence be provided with all necessary documents that the prosecution intends to rely upon in the trial before the commencement of the hearing. The presiding Judge Justice Ebrima Jaiteh directed the DPP A.M. Yusuf to ensure the defence is supplied with the required documents they intend to rely on for their preparation. The state Conusel promised to supply all the documents. Subsequently, the state called its first witness, Satang B. Houma, who informed the court that she was the Financial Controller of the Project Coordination Unit of the Ministry of Health. Satang B. Houma, also told the court that she is a Chartered Accountant, and stated that she began working with the Ministry of Health in January 2018. When asked if she recognized the accused individuals, she identified two of them – Balla Kandeh (the 1st accused person), who was the Project Manager of the National Malaria Control Program (NMCP) when she joined the Project Unit, and Muhammadou Lamin Jaiteh (the 3rd accused person), who was later appointed as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health. Regarding her role as the Financial Controller of the Project Coordination Unit, Satang B. Houma explained that her office is responsible for the financial management of the Ministry of Health. She testified that her unit handles the finances of development partners' projects. "The Program Unit submits requests to the Project Coordination Unit, which verifies whether the requests align with the approved budget. If approved, the funds are endorsed for disbursement by the Permanent Secretary," she explained. At this point, since the defence is yet to receive the witness statements, as well as the voluntary and cautionary statements of the accused persons, Justice Jaiteh instructed the witness to pause her testimony until the defence is provided with the necessary documents. The case was then adjourned to November 8th, 2023, for the continuation of the hearing at 12:00 Source Kexx Sanneh

Witness In The Police Shooting Says He Heard Six shots

The second prosecuting witness in the alleged PIU shooter case yesterday confirmed that he heard the sound of a pistol six times during the incident at Sukuta-Jabang Traffic Lights. In his examination in chief before Justice Jaiteh of the Banjul High Court, Bakary Jarju said that during the hit of the act, it was difficult to count under pressure, adding that he counted and heard six gunshots. He explained that the first shot was discharged and hit the police officer with the AK47, the second shot was fired at the other officer who was scrambling with the shooter, the third shot targeted the female officer, and the fourth one was fired at the roundabout. He said the shooter immediately bent to the right, meters away he turned and fired another shot while on the run. PW2 further explained that he could not see the shooter clearly because they were behind and chasing him. He, however, described the shooter as a tall, slim man and was wearing ‘kaftan’. In his examination in chief, L.J. Darboe, defence counsel for the first accused person, asked PW2: “As a military officer, was it your function to collect evidence to crime scenes?” Jarju indicated that it was his function to gather evidence at crime scenes as military personnel. He took an oath to protect lives and properties of people, and protect the territorial integrity of this country, he said. After the scene, he explained, he found an empty case of pistol which he eventually handed over to his friend Omar Jallow for confirmation and finally handed it to Inspector Bah, after he was made to understand that Mr Bah was a police officer at the Anti-Crime Unit. The case was adjourned until 13 November 2023 for continuation of examination in chief of PW2

26 Persons Convicted For Violating Operation Clear The Roads

At least 56 people were last week arrested for being non-compliant with the police operations designed to dismantle illegal structures of the highways. Twenty-six were arraigned before a court and sentenced to pay a fine of D1000 each after they pleaded guilty. The rest are expected to be arraigned before the court today to answer to the charges levelled against them. This development was confirmed by the acting police spokesperson, Cadet ASP Modou Sissaho during a short visit by the GPF Taskforce headed by Landing Bojang and accompanied by Police Commissioner King Colley and other senior officers to Abuko where 51 cattle were confined as a result of loitering on the highway in various places. The said cattle were eventually taken to a designated place in Abuko, where owners were expected to come and identify their livestock. National Livestock Owners Association (NALOA) which is among the GPF Taskforce was also given the responsibility of ensuring that any cattle owner who comes to identify his or her animal pays a fine of D5,000. According to PRO Cadet ASP Sissaho, this fine of D5,000 per head of cattle was agreed by the GPF Taskforce headed by Landing Bojang and assisted by Police Commissioner King Colley. He cited that the initial arrangement per cattle was D5,500 but the Taskforce reduced it to (D5,000) per cattle. The police PRO explained that one of the reasons for coming up with the D5,000 fine is to ensure that livestock owners take full responsibility of their animals. “This will serve as a deterrent to others,” he said, while indicating that serious accidents sometimes occur as a result of cattle loitering on the road. He emphasised that GPF has established a monitoring team for the operation to clear the road and anyone found wanting will face the full force of the law. He added that the operation spares no one as it is national duty. Ebrima O. Jallow, president of NALOA, confirmed that the confined cattle were picked from various locations within the Greater Banjul Area and West Coast Region. He said this was part of the operation to clear the road. He seized the opportunity to plead with the Taskforce to reduce the said charges for the cattle owners as things are difficult.

SPECIAL SECURITY OPERATION REMOVES FIFTY-ONE CATTLE FROM OUR HIGHWAYS

The Livestock Owners Association's component of the task force has successfully removed fifty-one (51) cattle from our highways, spanning from Brikama Nyambai to Brusubi Turntable. As previously announced, cattle owners have been reporting to Abuko to identify their cattle. Following this process, the task force has returned twenty-two (22) cattle to their respective owners after they provided evidence of ownership and witnesses. For each cattle, the owner is asked to pay D5,000.00 and issued a strong warning that if these cattle are found on the roads again, owners will be prosecuted. The public, especially cattle owners, are reminded to keep their animals off public utility areas, and anyone found in violation will be subject to the above-mentioned penalties

Burama Sanneh, Gambia's Result-oriented Diplomat

When Burama Sanneh was appointed a Gambian diplomat in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a lot of eyebrows were raised, with many people questioning why this political genuis gifted with the mastery of words would venture into a wrong field. There was opposition in both the camps of the governing National People’s Party and the opposition. Most people described Fabou’s appointment as a blunder which would boomerang negatively on the NPP grassroots politics. 

The Kiang Batelling Nyancho heard it all but decided not to waste his energy on a response. His strategy was to Walk the Talk and allow the result to Speak for Itself. As a pragmatic loyalist to the spirit of nation building, Fabou is set for his mission to serve his country and her people with sincerity and due diligence. His goal was to add meaning and flavour to the Gambia’s diplomatic business in Saudi Arabia. It didn’t take long for Gambians to blow Fabou’s trumpet. How he had mobilised human and material resources to evacuate Gambian students from the war torn Sudan remains on the lips of Gambians. 

In July this year, Mr. Sanneh was praised for standing up for Gambian pilgrims at Jeddah Airport. Gambian historian Dembo Fatty, who described Fabou a NYANCHO TRUE AND TRUE, wrote below statement about the diplomat on his Facebook page. 

This past Saturday our group was scheduled to fly out from Jeddah to Gambia. We were scheduled to fly out 9.20am which was pushed further. We shared a waiting lounge with some Nigerian pilgrims and the place was jam packed with many standing without seats. After about an hour, the Nigerians left much to the relief of the Gambian pilgrims that were standing and so we took advantage of the empty seats that were available. Some twenty minutes later, some airport officials asked us leave the area that was occupied by the Nigerian pilgrims to be used by Indian pilgrims. We were almost about to leave when Fabou Sanneh intervened and told the Gambian pilgrims not to leave and from afar I saw him talking to the airport officials that the Gambians will not give up their seats for Indian pilgrims. Whatever his line of argument was, I don’t know but it looks the officials backed out and the rest was history. I would have been one of the Gambian pilgrims to give up their seats having already endured extended period of standing in the hall. Thank you for standing up for your people. We appreciate your efforts and many grateful pilgrims salute you. You were a Nyancho true and true that day. 

Fabou understands that success in any field hinges on one’s ability to network well. His intensive efforts to search for opportunities for Gambian youths in Saudi Arabia paid off after he networked with one Saikou Touray. This led to the trial of four young female soccer players and a coach in the persons of Aminata Gaye, Adel Mendy, Teddy Sirreh Jatta, Elizabeth Ndeke and coach Modou Lamin Nyassi. Fabou broke the news on his Facebook page. The five young Gambians arrived in Jeddah on Tuesday for trials with Al Nors AJ Academy in Jeddah. Coach Nyassi will help set up the training manual and other logistics for Al Nors AJ Academy. This came as a result of an MOU I signed with two female soccer clubs to scout talent from the Gambia. The two clubs are also building female soccer academies in the Gambia while one of them, Al Intillaga sports club, promised to build and develop a sister club under their name in the Gambia. This is what we call economic diplomacy. On behalf of the office and staff of the consulate in Jeddah, we seek your prayers for the success of these girls as will certainly open gates for others. This was all possible through one, Mr. Saikou Touray, who has been the source of connection. Mr Touray has been a resident of Jeddah for over twenty years, and his quest for development partners for the Gambia is adorable. May Allah help him in his dreams. 

Who then will dispute that Gambian Consular in Jeddah is not producing exceptional results? A diplomat who cannot produce results is not worth the salt. 

Ends

Ansarudeen Fraternity Chief Meets Gambia High Commissioner

Imam Bai Ebrima Cham, Chief Executive of Ansarudeen Fraternity paid a courtesy call on H.E Dr Fatou Bensouda, High Commissioner of the Gambia in U.K . Sheikh Bai Cham was accompanied by Mr. Ebrahim Nyass and Aji Suma Secka to present a special letter of invitation for their 27th years of Gamo by the fraternity in the United Kingdom. Sheikh Bai Cham and his delegation presented a framed ornament and decorative mat to Her Excellency and reiterated the group’s promise to work closely with the Mission. Sheikh Cham said His work in religious and community affairs is to ‘unite African community and create a good and brotherly relation between the Gambia and other African countries such as Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, etc. through their activities and fraternity.” The Ansarudeen fraternity engages in inculcating good ethics in the younger generation and also imbues the values of spirituality. He went on to state that, “the High Commissioner can expect his support and collaboration to help the Mission achieve its goals.” Bai Cham finally thanked his delegation for their support and commitment and equally commended the High Commissioner for her open-door policy. On her part, H.E Dr Fatou Bensouda commended Sheikh Bai Cham and his delegation for the special courtesy visit and invitation. She equally reiterates that “her doors are open to meet and discuss with Gambians on every issue of national importance.” She will continue to maintain an open-door policy. Her Excellency emphasised that “it is the duty of the older generation to lay a concrete foundation for the betterment of the future generation.” Gambians according to H.E Bensouda should be ‘one family and close ranks, work together and be each other’s keeper.” She confirms to Imam Ebrima Bai Cham that, she will God-Willing grace the occasion. The GAMO will take place on the 28th of October 2023 at 139 Ormside Street, SE15 1TF. Ends

Legal practitioners And Police Prosecutors Trained On Tabacco Control Laws

On the 3rd Nov 2023, the training for legal practitioners and police prosecutors across the country on tobacco control came to an end. This training was organised by the Non communicable Disease unit of the MoH with support from WHO. According to the participants, this intensive training has helped enhance their understanding on tobacco control policies, laws and regulations in the Gambia, the sub region and globally. The training further created a more cohesive environment between legal practitioners, police prosecutors and public health experts in a bid to creating an enabling environment for comprehensive tobacco control efforts. World Health Organization (WHO) The Gambia Police Force Attorney General's Chambers & Ministry of Justice ,the Gambia Judiciary of The Gambia Justice Defenders Gambia Bar Association Female Lawyers Association, Gambia Ministry of Interior, The Gambia

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