As the findings of the high court spread all over the world that Solo Sandeng died in custody without immediate report being given to the Coroner of the death and that public inquiry will be conducted, it will become increasingly indefensible to keep Darboe and Co. who were protesting with a clear conscience to know his whereabouts behind bars.
Every person of conscience would clearly see that the omission of the state gave rise to the actions which are now conceived as criminal conduct. How then do we signify the omission? Is Ebrima Solo Sandeng’s body at a mortuary somewhere? He was not convicted at the time of his death. A person should be deemed innocent until he/she is proven guilty or pleads guilty.
If his body is buried, what law did they rely on to do so? Why was the family not informed on the day of the death and asked to take the body for proper burial?
The questions are many. The answers being given are few. The questions will increase as long as the state keeps Darboe and co. behind bars. The omission of the state cannot be swept under the carpet or glossed over. It is material to this case and the state should be so advised by its legal counsel. The indefensible is indefensible and should be recognised as such. Simply saying that there is a commission of inquiry is not enough. The law talks about a coroner’s inquest and not a commission of inquiry. Rule of law is to do what the law says.