By Mathew K. Jallow, Associate Editor

            Fatou Jaw-Manneh’s Trial

One piece of good news that has come out of Banjul in the past several days has to do with the ongoing Kangaroo trial of Fatou Jaw-Manneh. The comparison of this case to a Kangaroo Court has nothing to do with disrespecting Magistrate Buba Jawo or even the government’s prosecutor, rather it is meant to highlight the efforts by the government to manufacture charges and attempt to silence dissent and preempt critical opinion from a wary media that has steadfastly refused to condone the lies, deception and inhuman treatment of our citizens. When the government made its decision to amend the charges, the first natural reaction was that of disbelief and to some degree, fury too, but after carefully analyzing the legal implications of amending of the charges proffered against Fatou Jaw-Manneh, there appeared a silver lining in this almost tragic situation. From the legal point, the government prosecution will move to amend a charge only when having come this far in the trial, the prosecution is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot get a conviction on the original charges. Therefore, amending rather than dropping the charges is a way for the prosecution, representing the government in this case, to save face, even as the original case disintegrates for lack of merit. Any good Defense Counsel would of course prefer that all charges be dropped and their client exonerated from any wrongdoing, rather than agree to amend the charges, but it is within the government’s authority to exercise the amendment prerogative. However, since amending Fatou Jaw-Manneh’s charges will effectively be like moving the goal posts to favor a score, the law is clear in that any subsequent charges must carry a lesser penalty in the case of a conviction. This in effect means that by amending the charges, the court has cleared Fatou Jaw-Manneh of the more serious felonious sedition charge; reducing it to a lesser misdemeanor charge. The legal argument here addresses the issue of a possible double jeopardy, which may arise if after amending the charges Fatou Jaw-Manneh is still put in a situation where she has to defend against another felony charge. The magistrate who should, or better still, who must be impartial, has the duty to protect the defendant from any possible double jeopardy. By ruling in favor of the prosecution in the motion to amend the charges, the magistrate has in effect accepting the prosecution’s position that a conviction on the original charge cannot, based on all the facts of the case, be won. The argument that can be made for double jeopardy as a travesty of the law is meant to prevent the government from widening the goal post to make it easier to secure a conviction. No one should be tried twice for the same offence, especially in this case when the charges and accusation leveled against Fatou Jaw-Manneh are blatantly untrue and legally unjustifiable. Yahya Jammeh has all the power of the law tucked safely under his belt, and he is sparing nothing in exercising this power in the most brutal and unfair manner. Innocent Gambians have been and continue to be dragged through a court system that has little credibility, that is tainted with corruption, and that exists solely to serve the interest of Yahya Jammeh.

Beyond that, the performance of the state’s witness on cross-examination was as bad as it could get. Defense counsel Lamin Jobarteh successfully demolished the credibility of the witness Basiru Gassama, further putting the government’s evidence in legal jeopardy. If the government’s witness cannot be believed, then the case will fall apart like dominos. Counsel Jobarteh clearly reduced Gassama to an incompetent liar who is willing to do anything, even to perjure himself in order to get a conviction for his god and master Yahya Jammeh. If Mr. Gassama cannot read and understand the newspaper article the primary evidence around which the entire case against Fatou Jaw-Manneh is built, then evidently he cannot make a judgment as to whether the article is seditious or not. The logic is simple, if Mr. Gassama cannot comprehend the contents of the article, he will be unqualified to form any legal or non-legal opinion about it; most certainly not make any judgment or judgments about the seditiousness or libelous ness of its contents. This simple fact is not only grounded on law, it is grounded on very simple common sense. If the witness is unbelievable, the magistrate should acquit. The state’s first prosecution witness did not fair much better either. The cross examination clearly showed that he did not know what he was witnessing and testifying to. His testimony was not supported by evidence, because he failed to document an interview with Fatou Jaw-Manneh whom he is now trying to have convicted and thrown in jail. Further, he did not even know the newspaper in which the supposedly seditious or libelous article was published. But wait, it gets worst. At the beginning of the cross examination, the first witness who is hiding his identity because he is a coward, said and I quote, “the accused admitted to have granted an interview to a newspaper, but could not say which newspaper…” end quote. But at the end of the interview, in an apparent contradiction of his previous statement, the witness admitted that, I quote, “ the accused never told him that she had granted an interview to any corporate entity”. Given the performance of the two prosecution witnesses, where is the legal basis for continuing this case one more day? As for the witness shouting in court, it is not surprising, because in Jammeh’s Gambia, even the once sacred grounds of a courtroom can now be reduced to a pig’s mud pit for the government’s witnesses to wallow in. That is how low our courts have descended, it is how much Jammeh has damaged the reputation of our system of justice and it is how much respect our judiciary has lost.

Finally, it clear from Magistrate Buba Jawo’s turning of Fatou Jaw-Manneh’s court case back to the Justice Department that the case as a whole has no legs to stand on. Clearly Magistrate Jawo had the capacity to dismiss the charges and close the case, but the way he chose this route has perhaps something to do with not wanting to bruise the vain ego of Yahya Jammeh, which could cost him his job. From the Chief Justice to the newest legal practitioner, everyone it seems, is running scared of Yahya Jammeh. In Pakistan, the President’s removal of a judge has caused a firestorm of angry protests to the extent that the President is in constant fear for his life, and right now President Musaraf is almost a dead man walking. Magistrate Jawo should have mustered the courage to tell the government that its case is ridiculous, and that the government should never again bring frivolous cases that are a waste of the court’s time and limited resources. Now that Fatou Jaw-Manneh’s case may resurface again before another magistrate or judge, we will wait and see what Yahya Jammeh will dictate to the court. Meanwhile, the government has wasted enough of Fatou Jaw Manneh’s time, and she should be back in the U.S to continue with her university education. By the way, I saw where Jammeh told civil servants he would circumcise anyone who denies their wives permission to come to Kanilai village. Ouch that hurts, but the cowards sat there and took it instead of getting up and walking away. Slavery is back and alive and well in Yahya Jammeh’s Gambia. But, coming back to Fatou Jaw-Manneh’s case again, it is time to let her come back to the U.S. to continue her work and education.