[ad_1]
The Inspector General of Police (IGP) charged Mr Dibba with sedition contrary to Section 51(1)(a) of Book I of the Penal Code of the Laws of The Gambia 2009, punishable under Section 52(1)(b) and (c).
The National Police Chief alleged that in May 2024, Diba recorded and released a WhatsApp audio accusing the President of “greed, immaturity, rudeness and stupidity” with the intention of inciting contempt for the President or the government.
Defense attorney Borry S. Touray asked the second prosecution witness, Ousman Gibba of the police Special Investigation Unit, whether they had conducted any polls since the audio began to determine its impact, but the witness replied “no” to his question.
Witnesses confirmed in court that the accused, Mr. Diba, was a politician and a member of the United Democratic Party.
He also confirmed that there have been no demonstrations in the country over the audio since it began airing, and he has not seen any reports in Gambian newspapers of anyone harboring ill will towards the president over the audio.
PW2 further confirmed to the court that he had not seen any group submitting a petition to the investigation panel expressing dissatisfaction against the President because of the audio.
Attorney Borry S. Touray also asked the witness about the audio whether any movement or association had been formed to try to disrupt the state order, and the witness answered “no”.
It will be recalled that Diba’s lawyer, Boli, announced their intention to challenge the charges before filing their plea.
Lead counsel Borry Touray argued that the charge under section 51(1) was “merely a definition” and not the actual offence outlined in section 52.
He asked the court to dismiss the charge as it did not give the court the power to impose any criminal sanctions.
In his response, Commissioner Sanneh, representing the IGP, argued that the charges were justified and cited Sections 51 and 52 to support their claims. He asked the court to dismiss the application by lawyer Touré and proceed with the hearing of Diba’s complaint.
On June 6, 2024, Chief Justice Muhammed Krubally ruled on an oral application filed by Ebrima Dibba’s legal team.
In his ruling, the Chief Judge supported the view of attorney Borry S. Touray that the charges against Ebrima Dibba violated the terms of the erroneous clause.
Chief Magistrate Krubali stressed the importance of laying charges under the appropriate law when prosecuting an individual suspected of committing an offence, adding that the purpose of filing a criminal charge against an individual is to inform him or her of a crime, wrong, improper act or statement that he or she has committed, thereby violating existing laws.
“It is vital for any authority with the power to charge anyone to be very cautious and aware of the above offences while charging anyone because at the end of the day, the person charged with the above offences will be judged by the judicial authorities and in turn by the public where impatient people may view him in a negative light,” the chief magistrate said.
The case was adjourned to September 9, 2024.
[ad_2]
Source link
