Over 2 Dozens Boats Destined For Europe Intercepted

The deputy Public Relations Officer of The Gambia Immigration Department (GID) has disclosed that ‘so far’ their personnel have intercepted 27 boats at various locations in the country that were about to depart for Canary Islands through irregular means. Inspector Muhammed Bah made this disclosure on Thursday during the launch of their new initiative dubbed ‘Operation Zero Departure’, a campaign meant to discourage and deter migration through clandestine means. From the figure on the number of interceptions made, it appears that more people are attempting to embark on the journey with shifts in departure points using ‘Bolongs’ and small hideouts rivers. This operation comes as the coastal community of Bakau and the nation at large mourn the recent loss of loved ones who perished at high sea while trying to cross the Atlantic Ocean to Canary Islands in Spain. Going further, Bah meanwhile acknowledged the support of their partners both nationally and internationally, notably IOM, EU and The Gambia Red Cross Society, in their fight against irregular migration. “They’ve really made tremendous efforts during our inceptions, although there were some who were able to escape as seen in the last unfortunate incidents, which claimed many lives,” he said. Inspector Bah maintained that they have launched this new operation with the ultimate objective to deter departure or irregular migration from the country. He thus called on all to cooperate with their personnel during the operation as they are responding to a national call to save lives and properties.

Ex-Finance Director Capitalized On Broken System

The former CEO of Basse Area Council (BsAC), OusmanTouray, has agreed that the former BsAC finance director LaminSuso capitalized on a broken system that he found at the BsAC. He made this admission at the Local Government Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday when the commission’s deputy lead counsel Patrick Gomez put it to him that the non-adherence to procurement rules and other rules was a problem at BsAC before the arrival of Suso as finance director. However, the former CEO said the council’s problem was compounded in 2021 after the assumption of the finance director role by Suso. The witness said he could recall a D2M subvention from the government, adding that he[ex-CEO] received D100,000 from the money that he later paid. He said the council’s cashier Ndabah Krubally also received D300,000 from the subvention. He disagreed with the council’s former finance director that he[Suso] spent the D100,000 to pay salaries. “Lamin Suso told us that he had a problem and we gave him the D100,000 as a loan. It was not a refund for any pre-financing,” Touray stated. Touray testified that Suso tried to convince him to withdraw the money that the government subvented the council and share it among themselves. “Lamin Suso told me that when he was working at the BrikamaArea Council, they used to share the subvention,” he added. Touray said Suso used to refer to him as a man who does not want anything and doesn’t want anyone to have something. This, Touray added, was due to his refusal to share the money as suggested by Suso. He told the commission that Suso was given the D100,000 loan from the subvention as he wanted to settle personal liabilities. Still testifying, Touray said the D300,000 given to NdabahKrubally was meant for the settlement of the council’s liability to Supersonics Microfinance. When asked if payment was made to the Supersonics, Tourayreplied that he could not confirm but said he believed the money was paid to the micro-finance institution. Chairperson Jainaba Bah interjected at this point and asked the witness whether due process was followed at the time of giving Suso the D100,000 loan. Touray responded that due process was not followed. The auditors noted that the Basse Area Council was taking loans from different banks without approval from the general council and the Ministry of Regional Government. The former CEO said he used to make the decisions together with the former Chairman (Foday Danjo) and former finance director (LaminSuso). Touray said the loans were used to pay salaries but when asked to provide evidence, he said he could not. When put to him that the loans were illegally obtained, Tourayresponded that the loans were obtained in an emergency as salary payments were already due. He was further asked to corroborate his claim but to no avail. However, the commission’s chairperson referred the witness to the Financial Manual on how to obtain loans in the name of the council, and the witness admitted to wrongdoing. “For me, there was no case of emergency,” counsel Gomez said. “Yes, you are right,” the witness agreed. He said the former director of finance [Lamin Suso] was making unauthorized withdrawals, citing an instance where he withdrew D141,000 from the council’s account at Vista Bank’s Brikamabranch.

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