In the Case of Mr. Femi Peters of UDP Vs The State

Prosecution Witness Say Rally Permit Denial Was Never Handed To The UDP!!!!

Witness Cornered By Lawyer Darboe

 Today, November 17th 2009, the state continued its case against Femi Peters and the United Democratic Party (UDP) regarding the political rally held several weeks ago.  This case follows the granting of a defense motion challenging among other things the initial attempt by the state to try the case in Banjul. The case was heard in Kanifing by magistrate IKpala after the first magistrate assigned the case rescued himself.

The proceedings started with a prosecution witness who testified that upon learning about the UDP meeting, he went to the venue and spoke to one Kebba Fatty and demanded to see the police permit authorizing the party to hold the rally including the use of a public address system.  He said Mr. Fatty referred him to Femi Peters who was at that time at in the middle of the rally.  He said he then proceeded to ask Femi but was effectively shouted down by rally attendees who were infuriated by his apparent attempt to disrupt their program. 

When he finally got to talk to Femi and asked him if there was a permit for the gathering,  he was told to either go ask the IGP or wait for the party leader to arrive.  The prosecution witness said the crowd was screaming that they were insisting on their right to assemble with or without a police permit. 

Under cross examination, the officer was asked if  he had in his possession a letter denying the UDP request for a permit and he responded that a denial was scribbled on the application that UDP submitted.  He was then asked if that purported denial was communicated to the UDP at anytime prior to today and he said no,  but quickly added that it was a denial nonetheless.  The defense counsel, Mr. Ousainu Darboe, asked if it wasn't contemptuous of the IGP to decide to not bother conveying an official response to an official request.  He was asked if he knew the UDP leader and he said he did and identified him as the defense counsel himself.  He was then asked if Femi Peters was the UDP leader and he said no but quickly added that leaders of political parties can sometimes change and hence his assumption at the time that Femi was not the UDP leader can be construed as reasonable.  The defense then made several submissions to the magistrate asking it to refer to the Supreme Court their claim that the Public Order Act itself violated the constitution even before ruling on whether the person of Femi Peters should be the one to be charged under the said act.  The Magistrate then adjourned till Monday, November 23rd, 2009, at which time he will decide if he would grant the defense motion and refer that portion of the trial to the Supreme Court or deny it and elect to proceed with the case without addressing the constitutionality of the Act itself.

Judicial sources have indicated that since the Supreme Court is currently in session if the magistrate refers the case as requested by the defense, the Court is likely going to make a swift ruling effectively making the question settled law one way or the other.  The defense strategy is believed to revolve around the twin approach of eviscerating the POA itself as conflicting with the constitution and very act of charging Femi who is actually not the leader of UDP.  The presiding Magistrate is a relative newcomer and it is believed that this is the first political case he has handled and this is also the first time lawyer Ousainu Darboe has appeared before him.