“We submit that it is unreasonable and unjustifiable to consider FOROYAA as an instrument of political propaganda in the interest of a political party”; Says Halifa Sallah.

We have been focusing on politics in this column with the objective to document the history of the Gambia and to help our readers appraise themselves with the happenings of the past. We are now covering issues that culminated during the coup period of 1994. This we hope will go a long way in helping us to have a better understanding of the evolution of politics of the Gambia as well as help us to forge a future genuine democratic dispensation for our homeland. In the last edition, we have stopped where the two started to give their joint address.
In this edition, we shall continue with the summary of the joint address as presented by Halifa Sallah on the 21st of September 1994. Let us continue from where we stopped.

The last prosecution witnesses P.W.7 was Mr. Deyda Hydara who he said simply identified Exhibit 0 and Exhibit 01 which was also printed in POINT 16th August Issue.
This he said is the sum total of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Halifa then analyzed that it is clear from the evidence adduced that engaging in political propaganda by selling FOROYAA had not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the evidence he said was too light to discharge the legal burden required by the first Count.
He said the second Count deals with publishing of a newspaper between 4th and 15th of August 1994 in the city of Banjul in the interest of PDOIS, a political party. He argued that the oral evidence did not confirm that they published FOROYAA in the city of Banjul in the interest of a political party.
Count 3 he said deals with the printing of a newspaper between 4th and l5th of August 1994 in the City of Banjul in the interest of a political party. He argued again that the oral evidence did not confirm the printing of FOROYAA in Banjul between 4th and 15th July in the interest of a political party.
Count 4 he said deals with displaying a newspaper but the particulars of the offence mistakenly addressed the printing of a newspaper in Banjul between 4th and 15th August 1994 in the interest of a political party PDOIS, and argued that the oral evidence did not confirm the elements of the count.
Count 5 he said deals with the distribution of a newspaper FOROYAA in the city of Banjul between 4th and 15th August 1994 in the interest of a political party, PDOIS.He indicated that the oral evidence did not confirm that FOROYAA was distributed in the City of Banjul between 4th and 15tn August in the interest of a political party.
Count 6 deals with exposing for Sale a newspaper, FOROYAA, between 4th and 15th August in Banjul in the interest of a political party, PDOIS, but opined that the oral evidence adduced did not indicate that FOROYAA was exposed for sale in Banjul between 4th and 15th August 1994 in the interest of a political party.

Count 7 deals with possession of a newspaper between 4th and l5th August 1994 in the city of Banjul issued in the interest of a political party, PDOIS.He said the particulars of offence did not state which newspaper. Needless to say, he said, the oral evidence adduced did not confirm that they had in their possession in Banjul between 4th and l5th August a newspaper issued in the interest of a political party.
Hence by the end of the case of the Prosecution, he argued, it was clear that it had failed to prove the elements of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt as far as oral evidence is concerned.
As far as documentary evidence is concerned, he said among other things that the Prosecution sought to provide evidence from the affidavit signed to register FOROYAA as well as the inscriptions found in FOROYAA issues that is organ of PDOIS, to try to establish that FOROYAA is ordered under Decree No.4 to cease. He opined that the Prosecution seemed to have presumed that once it is established that FOROYAA is an organ of PDOIS, its case succeeds. The evidence of P.W. 2, Momodou Alieu Ceesay, did not help the Prosecution much, he opined. What it in fact did was to establish that a newspaper is a newspaper and that there is no differentiation of newspapers into political and nonpolitical newspapers. He told the court that, it is also abundantly clear from the oral and documentary evidence provided by the Prosecution that it had not proved beyond any reasonable doubt that FOROYAA was being produced as an instrument of political propaganda in the interest of a political party. On the contrary he said, ASP Bah, P.W.6, could not even acknowledge that what he read in Exhibit H was political propaganda in the interest of a political party. Furthermore, P.W.2, Momodou Alieu Ceesay, he said, even confirmed that the last issue he claimed to have received as Registrar dealt with matters of national interest. In fact, he said, the Prosecution had so much failed in discharging its evidential and legal burden that they could have submitted a no case to answer under section 16b of the Criminal Procedure Code.
He however said they are not interested in being acquitted and discharged on the basis of technicality only to be picked up at a later date for distributing FOROYAA. He asserted that if the matter was to be decided, let it be decided in the interest of substantive justice; that they aspire that their acquitta1 be based on the strength of their arguments rather than on the basis of the weaknesses of the evidence of the Prosecution.
He told the Court that, their evidence as first and second accused have sought to prove that political propaganda is an anathema to the political personality of PDOIS.
He said since PDOIS has been made a subject in the trial, they extracted the following from the PDOIS Manifesto which is now Defence Exhibit A, quoted below.
“You are a human being without a master, own your mind! Listen to all parties. Weigh their arguments. Discuss with them or ask them to debate issues to seek clarification. Then select those who are likely to safeguard the interest of the people and the Nation. This is what, election demands.”
Exhibit B, he said which was submitted was published in the heat of the 1992 elections to guide voters and read:
“1. Knowledge is light; ignorance is darkness.
2. A fool cannot choose good leaders.
3. The ignorant lives in perpetual misery.
4. To sell your card is to sell the future of your child.
5. Your vote is your voice.
6. Let no party own you. You are not a slave.
7. Compare the words and deeds of candidates and select the best.
“8. Democracy requires mature people.
9. Representatives should be servants not lords.
10. Be alert.”
Defence Exhibit B and C he said deals with Correspondence with the African Commission on a case submitted against the former government on Corrupt Registration of Voters; that Defence Exhibit C1, C2 and C3 deal with correspondence with the former Government on the plight of the terribly neglected cleansing service workers.
T he object of tendering such evidence he said, was meant to show that PDOIS had gone beyond the level of mere political propaganda; that they have been conscious of their role as defenders of public interest regardless of whether they made political gains or not.
Halifa said they have also tendered Defence Exhibits Dl, D2 and D3 which deal with issues surrounding the pronouncement by Jawara that he would not stand for re-election, just before the l992 General Elections; that D2 contains report on a joint Press Conference by GPP and PDP, as well as topics like Culture in Transition-covering the story entitled “I CANNOT UNDERSTAND MY CHILDREN,” “Marriage and Family life” covering the topic “MARRIAGE VS. JOB.” “The Views of Women” covering a story entitled “BETRAYAL FOLLOWED BY UNDERSTANDING.” This he said are meant to show the wide coverage FOROYAA was making.
Defence Exhibit E deals with a book entitled the “THE STATE OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIES”, Defence Exhibit F entitled “LES SENEGAL ET SES VOISINS”, was tendered to show how a contribution jointly written by the First accused and a colleague, Ebrima Sall, found its way into a book which contains contributions from intellectuals in the Sub region. This is meant to show that FOROYAA is a Newspaper of international standing which is being utilized to produce intellectual raw material for researchers. All this he said is meant to show that FOROYAA is being produced in the public interest.
Suffice it to say he said, that immediately after the coup FOROYAA did publish an account on the coup which is as accurate as that given by any newspaper and further more, it went further to publish a letter giving advice to the ruling council on how to fulfill their mandate. This he said is contained in Defence Exhibit F2; that it called on the Council not to overthrow all the democratic concessions that were won by political parties and the press through strenuous struggle and called on the Council to seek public declaration of its commitment to preserve political parties, the press and all human right organizations; establish a timetable for free and fair elections and open up the media for debates on all issues of fundamental importance; engage in consultation with all sectors of society and establish a code of conduct so that the lives and properties of the people could be protected and treat detainees as they would have wanted to be treated if they were detainees.
He said Defence Exhibit F3 sought to advise the Council which had suspended the Constitution to know that arbitrary rule, creates stagnation, indecisiveness, inconsistency and unpredictability in governing a country and advised them to revisit the 1970 Constitution and change what may enable them to run the country during this transitional phase while conserving those provisions, especially the fundamental rights and freedoms provisions, which serve the public interest.
He also cited Defence Exhibit F4 which contained reports on a Press Conference by Lt. Jammeh, report on the Communiqué they dispatched to him regarding the Economy. He said it was designed to help the AFPRC government to understand basic economic issues such as the nature of government finances, the role of the treasury, the Central Bank, the state of the external reserves of the country, revenue collection and that Defence Exhibit F5 deals with a letter to the Council on how to treat detainees. Hence he asserts, that FOROYAA had been a source of information for the Gambian people in particular and other people at large. This is why he said, even the President’s Office during the time of President Jawara, the National Army, Embassies as manifests in Defence Exhibit H1 were subscribers to FOROYAA. They therefore submit that it is unreasonable and unjustifiable to consider FOROYAA as an instrument of political propaganda in the interest of a political party.

See next edition as we continue to follow the address of the accused persons and that of the prosecution.