By Landing Ceesay
The Director of Public Prosecution, AM Yusuf, has alleged that Paulo Djabi, Nadine Pereira, Mamadu Neto Djabi, and Secuna Jabi are members of a transborder “drug cartel network” operating in the Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau.
On behalf of the state, Counsel Yusuf informed the court that a motion had been filed on October 13, 2023, seeking to stay the execution of the Magistrates’ Court’s order granting bail to Paulo Djabi and others.
Counsel Yusuf stated that the motion is supported by a 19-paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Momodou Lamin Jabbi. He further informed the court that the state is relying on all the paragraphs in the affidavit, especially paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and urged the court to grant the prayers sought.
Counsel Yusuf argued that paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit demonstrate the risk of granting the accused person’s bail under the circumstances. He asserted that the accused persons are a flight risk if granted bail.
Hon. Justice Achibonga inquired of Counsel Yusuf, “If you grant bail to the accused persons, is it automatic that they will leave the jurisdiction?”
In reply, Counsel Yusuf informed the court that the departure of the accused from the jurisdiction is not automatic, but pointed out that the accused individuals are not citizens of The Gambia.
Counsel Yusuf emphasized that serious charges are pending before the court and that the accused individuals have ties to transnational criminal activities.
He asserted that the accused individuals are allegedly part of a transborder criminal network that operates across The Gambia, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau.
“There are still investigations ongoing regarding their other activities. There are evidence of involvement of the accused persons in drug cartel networks within and outside the country. Their release will further hamper the ongoing investigation,” Counsel Yusuf told the court.
Following the Magistrates’ Court’s decision to hear and adjudicate the drug and money laundering charges against the accused individuals and to grant them bail during the case’s proceedings, the State submitted a motion.
Subsequently, the State lodged an appeal with the High Court challenging the Magistrates’ Court’s decision to handle the charges against the accused parties.
Counsel Yusuf informed the court of substantial jurisdictional concerns associated with the appeal.
“My lord, the appeal is solely based on the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court. If the court rules in our favor, the Magistrates’ Court decision would be nugatory, and the bail would be null and void,” Counsel Yusuf said.
Justice Achibonga posed the question, “What if the appellant court found that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction and yet leaves the accused persons?”
Counsel Yusuf, in response to Justice Achibonga, refrained from a direct answer. Instead, he informed the court of their preparedness to diligently pursue the prosecution of the accused individuals.
To which, Justice Achibonga expressed concern, “If you are diligent about prosecuting the accused persons, by now the records of the Magistrates’ Court should be here. It is one month now and still there is no record, and you are talking about diligent prosecution,”
Counsel Yusuf, in his reply, stated that they had made efforts to obtain the Magistrates’ Court records but were unable to secure them in time.
Subsequently, Counsel Yusuf urged the court to grant the prayers as outlined in the affidavit.
In response to the State Counsel’s submission, Counsel K. Jallow, representing Paulo Djabi, Nadine Pereira, and Mamadu Neto Djabi, urged the court to reject the argument of Counsel Yusuf.
Counsel Jallow argued that the balance of convenience does not favor the state’s application for a stay of execution. She stated that the rights of Paulo Djabi and the others had been violated by the state, and that the issue of jurisdiction does not preclude the granting of a stay.
“Keeping the accused persons in custody for a month now after fulfilling their bail conditions is not in the best interest of justice,” said Counsel K. Jallow.
Counsel Combeh Gaye, representing the accused Secuna Jabi, argued to the court that the State has a duty to present sufficient evidence to warrant the court granting their application. She argued that the State has woefully failed to do so, and that their conduct is one reason the court should refuse their application.
Gaye further argued that the State has not shown anything to indicate that the case has been diligently heard and determined.
In his ruling, the judge stated that releasing the defendants while their appeal is pending could jeopardize the ongoing police investigation. He cited the nature of the charges against them, the bail sum set by the magistrate, and the ongoing investigation as reasons for his decision.
The judge also noted the significant risk involved in granting bail, given the seriousness of the charges and the bail conditions set by the magistrate. He expressed concern that a defendant who is granted bail could abscond and easily refund the bail sum, as the bail sum is far less than the alleged amount of money laundered.
“Since the appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear the case, it would not be fair to allow the respondents to benefit from the trial court’s decision while the appeal is unresolved,” Hon. Justice Achibonga said.
Honorable Justice Achibonga disclosed that Mamadu Neto Djabi and Secuna Jabi face a solitary charge of conspiracy. He emphasized that their potential to disrupt the ongoing investigation should not be underestimated, particularly in light of the fact that Mamadu Neto Djabi is not a Gambian.
In a ruling, Honorable Justice Achibonga decreed that the directives issued by the Magistrates’ Court on September 14, 2023, and September 19, 2023, must remain on hold until the appeal is addressed.
“The state’s diligence in prosecuting the appeal has been called into question, as the records from the lower court have not been prepared or submitted. Considering the urgency of the situation and the state’s responsibility, a mere stay of execution without further conditions would not serve the best interest of justice.
“Therefore, the stay of the orders from the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, as mentioned above, will be granted but subject to specific terms. This order will remain in effect for a period of 14 days only, during which the state must ensure that the record of appeal is promptly prepared and transmitted to the court, Hon. Justice Achibongo ruled.
The judge then adjourned the case to October 31st, 2023, at 12:00 p.m.