Ebrima Dibba, the Deputy National Organizing Secretary of the United Democratic Party (UDP), has been directed by the court to open his defence in an ongoing sedition trial. Mr. Dibba faces allegations of making seditious remarks against the President of The Gambia. His attempt to secure a dismissal of the charges has been rejected.
Mr. Dibba is charged with Seditious Intent under Section 51(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, a charge to which he has pleaded not guilty. In a bid to avoid presenting his defence, he filed a “no case to answer” submission, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against him. However, Magistrate Muhammed Krubally ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to require Mr. Dibba to respond.
In his ruling, Magistrate Krubally emphasized the necessity of allowing the accused to offer an explanation or present his defence when allegations are supported by oral and documentary evidence.
“I emphatically preface that it is the accused Mr. Ebrima Dibba himself who is in the best position and perhaps with witnesses, if any, to give explanations in his defence by telling the court that what had been alleged against him by the prosecution is a lie, unfounded and untrue,” Magistrate Krubally said.
Magistrate Krubally stated that he dismissed the application for a “no case submission” because the prosecution had presented three witnesses. All three testified openly in court, underwent cross-examination, and provided both oral and documentary evidence, which was subsequently admitted by the court. Given this, he emphasized that he could not accept the application in this instance.
“Accordingly, I hereby rule in favour of the prosecution in that the said prosecution has led a prima facie case that warrants the accused herein to enter his defence,” he said.
The first prosecution witness was a police officer from the Information Technology office of the Gambia Police Force, while the second witness was an investigating officer. The third witness was a court transcriber.
The Magistrate noted that all three witnesses supported the prosecution’s case against Ebrima Dibba.
“PW1 reflected on record that he was sent a WhatsApp audio of the accused on his mobile phone, which he downloaded on his computer and then transferred to a USB Drive and thereafter prepared a certificate of computer-generated statement. Let me remark that the mobile phone of PW1, the USB Drive and the certificate of computer-generated statement involved in this case have all been tendered and, by virtue of their relevance to this case, were admitted in evidence and accordingly marked as exhibits. As for PW2, he was the investigating police officer who investigated the case against the Accused. As for PW3, she, according to the record, listened to the audio of the Accused, transcribed it in the English language and signed the said transcription.” He stated.
The prosecution presented three witnesses in support of its case against the Accused Person. Following the testimony of the third witness, PW3, the prosecution informed the court that it had concluded its case and would not be presenting any further witnesses.
Senior Counsel Bory S. Touray, representing the Accused, informed the court of his intention to make a “no case submission” against the charges brought against his client. The court granted the request, citing the practice in this jurisdiction and the Accused’s right to a fair hearing as required by law.
On Wednesday, 11 September 2024, Counsel Touray proceeded with his argument, submitting that there was no case to answer. He further noted that there was no fiat from the Attorney General in this case. Instead, the authority to prosecute had been granted by the Solicitor General and Legal Secretary. The prosecution countered, arguing that the Solicitor General is part of the Attorney General’s Chambers. The court ultimately overruled Counsel Touray’s objection.
“I am indeed with the conviction and sensitivity that since he did not raise a preliminary objection against the incompetence of the fiat but adopted the same up to this stage cannot be allowed to do so because he has already adopted the procedure and cannot be allowed to refile from the same,” the Magistrate said.
Lawyer Touray has announced his intention to appeal the ruling to the High Court. He requested a copy of the judgment and added that he would formally approach the court to seek a stay of the case pending the appeal’s resolution. Additionally, he applied for an adjournment of the proceedings.
As a result, the case has been postponed to Monday, 3 February 2025, at 2:15 PM, when the defense will begin presenting its case.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.