Email Gambia News to a friend
Print version
Comment on This Gambia News

Gambia: Court Can Hear Fatou Jaw Manneh’s Case

Magistrate Buba Jawo of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court has ruled that the court has jurisdiction to hear the Fatou Jaw Manneh case.

He made the ruling after Mr Lamin Jobarteh, counsel for the accused, objected that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the offence preferred against his client was allegedly committed in America and not in The Gambia.

Mr Jobarteh had also submitted that the charge sheet lacked reasonable information about the person the accused had granted an interview and the name of the newspaper that carried the interview.

Mr Emmanuel Fagbenle, the Director of Public Prosecutions who represented the state, said Mr Jobarteh should have objected to the question of jurisdiction before the accused took her plea.

Mr Jobarteh countered that the state counsel’s objection was not genuine, saying that he had expected the state counsel to tell the court the authority that says that he could not raise any objection.

According to him, the Amendment Act provides that objections to formal defects could be taken and there was no need to go into the substance of such defects.

He said the Act stated where a plea had already been taken, the case had to proceed. He submitted that in law and as a matter of practice, objections could be raised at any stage of the hearing of any case whether criminal or otherwise. He therefore submitted that the state counsel’s objection was not genuine and urged the court to overrule it.

The state counsel maintained that since the accused had already taken her plea, her counsel could no longer raise any objection at that stage.

At that point, Magistrate Jawo allowed Mr Jobarteh to continue with his submission.

Mr Jobarteh argued that they were concerned about where the publication was made and to whom the accused granted interview. He cited Section 110 of the constitution to back his argument. He said if the concerns he had raised were not considered, they would be denied reasonable information that the accused had been alleged to have committed. He cited sections 113 (5D) CPC and 133 (5E) to back his argument.

He urged the court to strike out the charge sheet for want of uncertainty. He again referred to sections 52 CPC and 53 CPA to back himself. He argued that the time limit of the alleged offence is six months after which the court could not hear it, considering the fact that the offence was allegedly committed in America. He finally urged the court to dismiss the charges against his client not only for duplicity but also for defects in form and procedure, substance and for uncertainty, for failure to provide reasonable information.

The state counsel in his replied that under the laws of The Gambia, the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. He urged that in normal course of events, articles posted in the Internet are for the whole world to access.

According to him, the submission made by Lawyer Jobarteh was irrelevant. He cited sections 113 (D) and (E) to back his argument.

He urged the court to uphold the charges and overrule the defense counsel’s objections.

Magistrate Jawo then ruled that no defects would invalidate the charge sheet.

He therefore adjourned the case until 12th April 2007 for hearing