As Prosecutor Addresses Court in Lamin Fatty’s Case

The ongoing sedition trial against Fatou Jaw Manneh was yesterday deferred on account of the absence of the defence counsel, Lamin Jobarteh, at the previous sitting when the hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, 22 May 2007 before Magistrate Buba Jawo of the Kanifing Court.

State counsel Emanuel Fagbenle informed the court that yesterday’s sitting was meant for continuation of cross-examination but that counsel Jobarteh had in fact called to inform his colleague, Mrs. Wood, that he had had a delay on his way back to Banjul from upcountry where he travelled. He added that counsel Jobarteh therefore asked the court’s indulgence for a short adjournment. The court granted the application. The next sitting is scheduled for 1st June 2007, when the defence counsel is expected to continue his cross-examination of the witnesses.

Meanwhile in the trial of another journalist, Lamin Fatty, also yesterday at the same court before Magistrate Buba Jawo, Prosecutor 1748 Mballow was at hand to address the court. Lamin Fatty has been charged with publishing and broadcasting false information.

In his submission, prosecutor 1748 Mballow told the court that the accused stood charged with false publication.

He said the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge, adding that the prosecution subsequently called three witnesses, namely Samba Bah, Lamin Cham, a police officer, and Malamin Ceesay of the Major Crime Unit. He said the prosecution also tendered four documents, such as Exhibit A, a copy of The Independent; Exhibit A1, The Independent’s rejoinder; Exhibit B, the cautionary statement of the accused and Exhibit B1, the voluntary statement of the accused.

Recounting the evidence of the witnesses, Prosecutor Mballow submitted that Samba Bah testified that he was the former SOS for interior. He further recollected that Samba Bah said that on 24th March 2006, he received a telephone call from a relative who alerted him to the fact that The Independent edition of 24th – 26th March 2006 had a story about his arrest. He stated that Samba Bah did testify that upon receipt of the information, he went on to register his complaint with the Manager or Editor-in-Chief.

He said Samba Bah went on to say that The Independent media company had published that he was arrested, and that he had in fact found a vendor with several issues which he read through to confirm his name, matched with his picture, among those said to have been arrested. He said Samba was told to call back later by which time the manager would have been in. He added that Samba called the same office and spoke to one Sulayman Makalo, who promised to publish a corrigendum to rectify the mistake in the story.

Prosecutor Mballow further submitted that Samba Bah told the court that he was never arrested in connection with the 21st March 2006 coup plot, stressing Samba Bah’s statement that the publication had caused him embarrassment. He also said that Samba Bah pointed to Lamin Fatty as the author of the story, noting that Samba Bah said he would never be satisfied with the subsequent corrigendum.

Still addressing the court, 1748 Mballow touched on the evidences of PW2 and PW3 and said that their testimonies corroborated each other.

He submitted that in view of the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses, the following facts have now emerged before the court:

1. The publication of false information was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

2. The charge of publishing false information has been confirmed by The Independent’s apology to Samba Bah.

3. The by-line to the story is Lamin M. Fatty.

4. It is also very clear that Lamin M. Fatty is the accused. He submitted further that the accused confirmed in his evidence-in-chief when he said that the publication of 24th-26th March 2006 was reported from a press release, adding that the publication had the accused person’s by-line.

5. That the accused worked for The Independent media company as a reporter and that those are facts.

He submitted that the physical element of the offence was properly charged by the prosecution. He further submitted that Samba Bah or none of his family members were contacted by the accused for clarification, charging that this was gross negligence on the part of the accused and that it was done deliberately. He countered that nothing in the publication confirmed that it was a press release by the government.

He further submitted that the accused and The Independent media company both committed the offence of false publication as parties to a crime, citing an authority to back his argument.

He finally submitted that the exhibits corroborated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and urged the court to convict the accused.

At this juncture, Lawyer Camara, defense counsel, applied for the case to be adjourned so that he could reply to the prosecutor’s address.

The magistrate adjourned the case to the 29th May 2007.