3 Years Jotna chairman, others remanded at Mile 2

1,395

By OUSMAN A. MARONG

Magistrate P. Sarr of the Kanifing Magistrate’s Court has on Wednesday remanded Abdou Njie chairman and other members of 3 Years Jotna to Mile 2 prison after passionate argument between the prosecuting officer and the defence lawyer.

The trial magistrate made the ruling for the remanding of the members of the movement pending their arraignment before the high court.

In an application for the matter to be transferred to the high court Superintendent M.D Mballow said counts 1 and 2 attract imprisonment of 1 and 5 years respectively while count 3 attracts life imprisonment.

He said: “Our laws do not confer this court with the power to try offences that attract a life imprisonment.”

Mballow said Legal Notice number 3 of 2009 takes away the jurisdiction of this honourable court to try count 3 (rioters demolishing structures).

Lawyer Lamin S. Camara, the lead defence counsel said in the synopsis of submission: “I like the argument of my learned friend. Yes, the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case. So why do you bring us here? I applaud the argument of my learned friend, but I bet to disagree with him.”

He further argued that this court has the jurisdiction to try this case. This court has all the powers under section 5 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) (powers of the subordinate courts).”

He cited section 5 (2) of the CPC that provides that the court can sentence any offence authorised by law.

According to Camara, the legal notice does not oust the court’s jurisdiction to try the offences. The intent of the practice directive (Legal Notice) is contained in section 1. It provides ‘in the interest of effective case management and expeditious disposition of cases relating to capital offences.

He said the legal notice does not create a court instead it created a Special Division of a court, therefore, it cannot take away jurisdiction.

Lawyer Camara argued that the legal notice provided for capital offences.
“Capital offences attract death and not life imprisonment,” Camara said, adding that “death, death and not life imprisonment.”

He said the court has the jurisdiction to grant the accused person bail on all the 3 counts even though 3rd count attracts life imprisonment relying on section 29 of the Criminal Code. He said the discretion of the court to hand down judgment prescribed by law is not fettered.

“Sentence to life imprisonment is not mandatory under our laws, unlike treason which attracts death. The court can reduce sentences including life imprisonment sentences,” Lawyer Camara said.

Mballow in his reply on points of law said section 5 of the CPC provides that the court shall not derogate from the law that confers jurisdiction to another court.

In her ruling the trial magistrate Sarr said she lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore transferred it to the high court relying on section 61 of the Criminal Code.

In remanding the accused persons she also relied on section 208A to remand the accused persons to Mile 2.