The Ministry of Justice notes the concerns expressed in somequarters regarding the removal of Mr Alhaji Kurang as Secretary to the Janneh Commission. The Ministry had reviewed the petition filed by Mr Kurang, and wishes to make the following clarifications for the general public.
Mr Kurang has not been victimized. His actions fell well below the standard expected of a person entrusted with such important responsibilities. He was relieved in order to ensure the integrity of the Commission and for the continuation of its smooth operation.
The Janneh Commission operates like a civil court in many respects. Similarly to a civil court, the role of the Commissioners is similar to that of the judge; the role of Counsel Amie is similar to that of counsel for the plaintiff; former President Jammeh and his close associates are thepresumed defendants; and the role of the Secretary is similar to that of the Registrar of the court. As in a court of law, each of these positions carries certain responsibilities which are clearly delineated.
The Commissioners, in their role as judge so to speak, are exclusively responsible for making orders suo moto or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendants or witnesses or any other interested parties to the proceedings. The Commissionershave the final say as far as the proceedings before the Commission are concerned.
Counsel Amie is not a Commissioner and does not make any orders. The Attorney General hired her services to represent the interests of the State and she carries out work that should have been carried out by staff of the Ministry of Justice. She works for the State and her role is to assist the Commission establish the facts.
The Secretary Mr Kurang is responsible for the administrative aspects of the Commission’s work such as recording the proceedings, keeping documents, summoning witnesses etc, and acts under the direction of the Commissioners. He is basically the executioner. As Secretary, performing the role of Registrar, his position is one of neutrality between the parties to proceedings before the Commission.
The Allegations
Essentially, Mr Kurang makes three major allegations against Counsel Amie: (1) that Counsel Amie engaged in wasteful spending of Government resources on foreign trips and Commission activities; (2) that Counsel Amie is conflicted given her past association with some of the organizations that are the subject of the Commission’s enquiry; and (3) that she colluded with her brother Secretary General Habib Drammeh to frustrate and stop the sale of tractors by the Commission. We will address these issues in turn.
On the issue of expenditure and foreign travel, all foreign trips are for the purpose of international investigation and are approved by the Ministry of Justice and not Counsel Amie. The composition of the investigation team of police officers is decided upon by the Ministry. Such travel includes investigators and counsel and are strictly for investigative purposes which remain privileged and confidential until further notice.
The second point to note is that Mr Kurang, as Secretary to the Commission (similar to the position of Registrar of the court), has no legal standing to raise issues of potential conflicts of interest between the parties. It is for the parties to the proceedings before the Commission or witnesses or other interested parties to raise such matters for the consideration of the Commissioners. In fact, there was an earlier attempt to do so by one of the witnesses who appeared before the Commission. By so doing, Mr Kurang had descended into the arena and acted beyond the confines of his administrative responsibilities as Secretary.
Notwithstanding, the Ministry went ahead to determine the veracity of his allegations and concluded that they are unsubstantiated for the reasons given below.
This Inquiry is for the benefit of Government institutions. Such institutions are not under investigation. It is the dealings of former President Jammeh with these institutions that is under investigation.
Counsel Amie’s past engagement with some of the organizations appearing before the Commission was disclosed and known to the Ministry at the time of her appointment and has always been a matter of public record. At the time of her appointment, the Ministry enquired and was assured that Counsel Amie has never worked for or been engaged in any manner with former President Jammeh or taken instruction or been in any way involved in any transaction either directly or indirectly between former President Jammeh and the said institutions. This, and her knowledge of Government institutions, among others were precisely the reason she was chosen for such an important assignment.
The issue of conflict of interest does not arise by virtue of such engagement alone. Among other things, it must be demonstrated that Counsel Amie derived personal benefit from her position as Counsel to the Commission vis-a-vis her past engagement with the said organizations or that she was instructed by a potential adverse party in connection to a matter currently under investigation. This is not the case and Mr Kurang failed to demonstrate this in his complaint. A mere allegation on the basis of perception is insufficient to warrant further consideration.
There is in fact one instance where the issue of potential conflict of interest arose and the Ministry had instructed another Counsel to take over that matter before the Commission. Counsel Amie had been so informed, infact she is the one who drew theattention of the Attorney General to the potential conflict and sought directions from him. Both Counsel Amie and the Attorney General agreed that out of an abundance of caution another counsel should handle that matter.
The Ministry had already engaged Counsel Musa Batchilly to consider taking over this matter and he has agreed in principle subject to terms. This shows that both Counsel Amie and the Attorney General are mindful of their professional obligations in this regard. Issues of conflict of interest and bias are ethical matters of extreme concern and the general public may be assured that every case file is reviewed in this connection.
Regarding the allegation that Counsel Amie colluded with her brother Secretary General Habib Drammeh to frustrate and stop the sale of tractors by the Commission, this also merits nofurther consideration. It is not all allegations that warrant formal investigations. There has to be a minimum evidentiary threshold to warrant such action. Let us look at the facts in respect of this allegation:
The said tractor sale was announced in local media by theCommission without notice to the Ministry or the Government (which demonstrates the level of independence the Commissioners operate with). This public announcement of tractor sale came to the attention of the Government and the matter was raised in Cabinet.
Cabinet then decided that a request should be made to the Commissioners for the suspension of the sale of the tractors as the Government is considering giving the tractors out to farming communities across the country in view of the imminent rainy season. This Cabinet decision was conveyed to the Commissioners from the Office of the President through the office of Secretary General Habib Drammeh who happens to be a brother to Counsel Amie. In so far as the Ministry is concerned, this is the only basis upon which MrKurang alleges collusion between Counsel Amie and the Secretary General Habib Drammeh. In the Ministry’s view, this alone is insufficient to warrant further action.
Furthermore, it is important to underscore that Counsel Amie has no authority to order or suspend any sale. This is the exclusive preserve of the Commissioners. Even when Counsel Amie makes a request to the Commissioners, the ultimate decision lies with the Commissioners to grant or not grant her request. Therefore, the allegation that Counsel Amie colluded with her brother the Secretary General to frustrate and stop the sale of the tractors lacks merit.
Moreover, there is inherent inconsistency in Mr Kurang’s allegations in this regard. On one hand, Mr Kurang alleges that both Counsel Amie and her son, the Mayor of KMC, Mr TalibBensouda, had enquired about the sale of the tractors and expressed interest in purchasing same. On the other hand, MrKurang alleges that Counsel Amie frustrated the sale of the tractors in order to stop the sale. The Ministry finds these allegations largely inconsistent and contradictory.
It must also be noted that Mr Kurang works under the direction and supervision of the Commissioners. If he had any concerns about any of the issues before the Commission including any perceived interference in his work by Counsel Amie, the proper thing for him to do was to bring his concerns to the attention of the Commissioners for their reaction. He did not do so. Instead, he only copied the Commissioners in his correspondence to Counsel Amie. That was improper.
Therefore, as the entity that hired Counsel Amie for this work, the Ministry finds nothing in Mr Kurang’s allegations that merit further consideration or action such as initiating a formalinvestigation. In our view, the allegations by Mr Kurang against Counsel Amie do not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold to warrant a formal investigation. There is no prima facie case so to speak.
Finally, having made these unsubstantiated allegations against Counsel Amie, it will be unreasonable to expect the Commission to function smoothly thereafter. Mr Kurang’s actions have clearly engendered mistrust and a lack of confidence by his conduct. In consultation with the Commissioners, it was agreed to relieve him of his responsibilities as Secretary and His Excellency, the President, acted accordingly.
The Commissioners and Counsel Amie have exhibited a high degree of competence, professionalism and integrity throughout the operation of the Commission. We remain satisfied in the manner in which they have conducted their work with diligence, adherence to due process and fairness. Their work speaks for itself.
Ba Tambadou was obviously absent when they gave the lecture on CONFLICT.
Perhaps, there are internal discord within the commission that is not in public domain. Based on the legal definition of conflict of interest, Mr Kurang second allegation does have some merit.
This is why:
1. Yahya Jammeh was a client of Amie Bensouda.
2. Amie Bensouda represented Yahya Jammeh on at least one real estate transaction that is being investigated by the commission.
3. One of the witnesses raised the issue/objection with the commission that Bensouda was conflicted and was overruled by the commission.
4. The AG never said that Bensouda is NOT conflicted, he simply said it is not Mr Kurang’s business. The AG is wrong. All Gambians are interested party/”Plaintiff” here. Jammeh is defendant. Kurang does have a vested interest as we all do.
It is now clear as per #2 allegation that the AG made a grave error in judgment, that will no doubt call to question the findings and recommendations of this commission. Someone needs to advice this administration that significant LEGAL dangers lies ahead.
Now that you have read what the Minister of Justice has to say, what do you think about what other writers have said about the matter? One cannot just jump to an issue and start demanding things without actually knowing what the facts really are. Anyone can make an accusation, but whether those accusations are substantiated or not is another matter. Mere suspicion of unethical conduct alone will not do. Gambia right now is a place where accusations whether real or imagined are being throw all over place. There is a price to pay for unfounded accusations in both the court of public opinion and the court of law. In the court of public opinion, when a person makes unsubstantiated accusation and they are later found to be untrue, that person becomes untrustworthy in the eyes of many. And in a court of law, that person may be sued for defamation a civil court or be prosecuted in a criminal court when libel is criminalized. In the court of public opinion Counsel Amie is already found wanting in ethical standards and of course people are entitled to their own opinions. However, when such an accusation is looked at through the rules governing a court of law, that is another matter altogether. There is an ethical issue that involved the AG in another matter but I won’t get into that to distract from this matter. This is a well written article by the Ministry of Justice. And yes, some will still raise questions on what the Ministry says in this article and they certainly have a right to do. However, raising questions alone does not matter things so. Hard facts are required that can be connected to other things said or done. It still amazes me how people can talk about things that they literally have no clue about. Any when a person points this out, that person becomes a target. We need to be fair and honest to each other. Have a blessed day everyone!
Don’t “disappear” so fast!!! What do you think of Mr Kurang’s sacking: justified or not?
Bax, under the facts, absolutely justified. Remember, he was a government employee, went beyond certain parameters, which the Ministry talked about, even though you and I do not know what those boundaries are, and used government stationary for unofficial use, which in itself may have been improper and, and accused another on what he perceived to be unethical conduct. Imagine if we begin accusing each other of perceived unethical conduct without evidence to prove those accusations. That would set a very bad precedent. Did Mr. Kurang spoke to any of his seniors in the chain of command before going public? That we do not know. He wrote a letter and sent it, that is all I know so far. Did Mr. Kurang brought to the attention of his seniors his concerns and nothing was done, and then he decided to go public? He has not said so. May be he did and if he did, he is yet to say so.
Here is one very important thing to know, as a government employee, one’s free speech right may be limited in certain situations. Not long ago your very in-law asked whether the PIU guys who have been arrested on the Faraba incident could be made to testify to what happened. Well, I ignored the question because he was yet to pay me for all the “sound” Lol! legal advice I have been given him. Lol! The arrested PIU guys can be interviewed by the commission of inquiry and asked certain questions and they must answer those questions as government employees. However, they cannot be made to answer questions that will implicate them in a court of law. In other words, they cannot be compelled to answer questions that may implicate them and if they refused to answer those questions, their refusal to answer cannot be brought up in court because if that is allowed to happen, then that would defeat the constitutional guarantee that a person may not be made to testify against self. As a private citizen, you can refuse to answer those questions which the PIU guys cannot refuse to answer because you are not a government employee. The PIU guys can be asked about their employment, training, who was their commanding officer and what were the rules of engagement and the like, but if asked who opened fire and why, each one of them can refuse to answer. If given immunity, then that is another matter altogether. And then they have to answer because there is no fear to self implicate oneself. The same would go for you as a private citizen if given immunity. The PIU guys can volunteer to answer and if they do, then that can be used against them. They just cannot be compelled to answer because then it would not be voluntary.
It may seem like my previous posting above is not in line with what my sister, Dr. Sarr wrote above. We are talking about two different issues. If you look are her number 2 and what she said about it, you will notice that, that is not a part of the three allegations brought up by Mr. Kurang. The Ministry’s article and rightly so is limited to the three accusations brought up by Mr. Kurang and I limited myself as well to what the Ministry said about those three accusations. My dear sister’s argument went beyond those three accusations. What she wrote may well be true in the future but as of right now, we are only concern with the three accusations brought up by Mr. Kurang. The Ministry is very careful to limit its argument on those three accusations. What I am about to say now is only my opinion. Having read some of the Attorney General’s writings in the last year and half, I do not believe he wrote the Ministry’s answer to Mr. Kurang’s accusations. That’s my opinion. You can take it for what it is worth. Have a happy weekend everyone!
Thanks for the response. For me, two things settle the matter:
1. Mr Kurang’s decision to write a petition against a member of the commission (counsel) without first discussing his concerns with commissioners, who seem to be the bosses here, especially the Chairman;
2. Mr Kurang’s allegations against counsel Bensouda on a matter about which he doesn’t seem to have ALL the relevant information.
The fact that the suspension of the sale of the tractor(s) was ordered by Cabinet, as opposed to what he alleged, clearly shows that he wasn’t fully informed about the matter.
I concur with you, therefore, that his removal was justified.
We cannot go around throwing accusations and allegations, in the name of democracy and accountability.
Yep Bax ! Now take a look at Mr. Madi Jobarteh’s piece on this matter and the commentary that followed it! I hope Mr. Jobarteh did not attend law school because if he did, he needs to hire a lawyer and sue that institution to get his tuition back. He is wrong so often on legal matters it is troubling. He missed the mark on this topic just like he missed the mark on his argument with Mr. Lamin J. Darboe, I do not expect him to respond to Mr. Lamin J. Darboe’s last piece and neither should anyone. Another thing that blows me away is that you have people who belong to one camp or another. Mr. Madi Jobarteh’s camp, Mr. Lamin J Darboe’s, Mr. Njundu Drammeh’s camp and the like. What is going on here. Where is Gambia’s camp? The only camp that is suppose to matter. Of course people are free to support whoever they want, but at least be clear on what that person is actually talking about. We should not be seduced my words but by facts, correct thinking and overall the truth wherever it is found. Bandwagoning is a sorry affair and parroting what others say is a sorrier affair!
Why can`t we (Gambians) come together as one and work for the positive economic development of our dear country. Do we need different “camps” as you highlighted in your statement, bombarding us with different thoughts and each trying to shown the other…I know better than you do! Indeed a “sorry affair”…
SAMBA says,
“I hope Mr. Jobarteh did not attend law school because if he did, he needs to hire a lawyer and sue that institution to get his tuition back. He is wrong so often on legal matters it is troubling. He missed the mark on this topic just like he missed the mark on his argument with Mr. Lamin J. Darboe, I do not expect him to respond to Mr. Lamin J. Darboe’s last piece and neither should anyone. Another thing that blows me away is that you have people who belong to one camp or another. Mr. Madi Jobarteh’s camp, Mr. Lamin J Darboe’s, Mr. Njundu Drammeh’s camp and the like. What is going on here. Where is Gambia’s camp? The only camp that is suppose to matter. Of course people are free to support whoever they want, but at least be clear on what that person is actually talking about. We should not be seduced my words but by facts, correct thinking and overall the truth wherever it is found. Bandwagoning is a sorry affair and parroting what others say is a sorrier affair”!
• Samba, to the best of my recollection, the subject of camps had never been an issue on this thread until you started an attempt to put that label on people with dissenting views.
• I do recall that you’d offered much earlier on this medium that everyone on this thread, with the exception of Dr Sarr, doesn’t make much sense in their commentary. You appeared oblivious to the fact that we are but commentators that are neither legal scholars nor powers that be in The Gambia. However, we do hold that inalienable right to express our thoughts and opinions on Gambian matters. Be they scholarly or not and I’d add that my pal Afang Lamin Kunjuru Darbo is still entitled his opinion.
• You did see the need at the outset to embark on the unsolicited kow towing of Dr Sarr for reasons best known to yourself.
• You have attempted to pick fights with Dida, Mwalimu and my humble self with commentary and innuendo that doesn’t befit a scholar.
• I don’t know Madi, Njundu and Lamin J Darboe, Bax, Kemo and Mwalimu from Adam but have keenly followed their writing over the years. They make a whole lot of sense to me. Even the #1 Yaya Jammeh promoter, Babu Soli, makes sense to me. Particularly from a Gambian perspective.
• You will note that Dr Sarr is very independent in thought and spirit and wouldn’t shy away from calling a spade what it is. That’s the mindset to promote and uphold on this medium.
• Hold on to your thoughts and beliefs Samba but for goodness sake, you must strive to uphold a level of decorum that befits an aspiring legal scholar.
Again I wish to reiterate that I have no intention of getting into a sparring match with you going forward but by the same token would remind you that we aren’t going anywhere soon as the hay still remains uncut in The Gambia.
Let me finally add that I am as thick skinned as a Nile crocodile so certain servings don’t phaze me at all.
PS, Samba, feel free to play the role of college professor here as you’ve got all the leeway that you’d want.
Whoever said you or anyone else are not entitled to your opinions? When you post what you write, you open yourself to being questioned. To question your opinions has nothing to do with whether you are entitled to your opinion or not. I do disagree with Dr. Sarr and when I do, she does know where I stand. I respect her because she speaks her mind. I respect her because I saw how she has been ganged up here because she has an independent mind and is a woman. I put Mr. Halake in the same position when I saw how he too has been attacked not because of his position but because he is from a different country. Sometimes, Bax and I take different positions on issues as well but you see, Bax actually thinks and uses words that readers can understand.
Andy, you do not know anything about me, yet, a few days ago you used the same professor BS on me. And you got into graduating from Saints, religious tolerance, and having been a professor. I do not care about all of that. I care about what you take the time to post on this forum. I have been asked about my educational background and I have refused to answer. Do you know why? Because it does not matter. Whatever I write should be judged on its merits and not who I am. I want the highly educated person and the person who has never set foot in classroom be able to hear what I say and judge it on its merits divorced from the person who said it. The only Being beyond questioning is God. To think critically and analyze things and asked pointed questions when required has absolutely nothing to do with being a professor. No person has a monopoly on thinking correctly. Part of the reason(s) why Gambia cannot move ahead as it is supposed to have been is because of laziness to think. How can a person agree with what someone else said when you do not know the facts of what happened? How do you feel after you claimed to agree with what someone else said and later you found out that, in fact, that person you claimed to agree with did not have the facts on his side? Of course, you can agree with whoever you want, but at least asked, why do I agree with what that person said. On what did that person based what he said? These are legitimate questions to ask knowing that man is a diddler! One thing you needed to do after you read what the Ministry of Justice said about the Mr. Kurang matter was to go back and compare it to what Mr. Jobarteh wrote about the same matter. If you did, and I hope you did, what did you came away with? You claimed to have a thick skin but you do not.Easily irritated, too mighty to be questioned? I will keep needling so long as I hope it can lead you and others to be skeptical and therefore question things. And, of course, write clearly, so that readers can understand what you write.
Long on ideas short on details! The fact of the matter is that Kurang is sworn to do his job whilst Amie Bensouda never took the oath of office as counsel for the Commission. So Kurang must have been mindful of the oath he took when exposing the dirty linens of the lead counsel of the commission in public. I am sure the commission members knew about all the fraudulent allegations and abuse of office levied against Mts. Bensouda and Mr Kurang is aware of the special relationship between the chairman of the commission and Amie Bensouda . They are all birds of the same feathers. Gambians should be encouraged to expose corruption in any form or shade. Kurang should not have been fired without conducting a thorough investigation into his allegations.
Keluntang, you said:
“Long on ideas and short of details.” Ok, let’s see!
(1) You said, ” The “fact of the matter” is that Kurang is sworn to do his job whilst Amie Bensouda never took the oath of office as counsel for the Commission.” Where is your proof for this statement?
(2) You said, “So Kurang must have been mindful of the oath he took when exposing the dirty linens of the lead counsel of the commission in public.” What exactly do you mean here? Looks like you are short on detail. “Kurang must have been.” How did you know that”?
(3) You said, “I am sure the commission members knew about all the fraudulent allegations and abuse of office levied against Mts. Bensouda and Mr Kurang is aware of the special relationship between the chairman of the commission and Amie Bensouda.” You are sure Lol! Short on details again. You know something that the rest of us do not know. Please tell us why “you are sure.” If you are sure, you must have facts. Where are your facts, which makes you sure?
(4) You said, “They are all birds of the same feathers. That’s some very wild allegations. Please do not tarnish another’s reputation without facts to back up your allegations. Where are the facts to back up your allegations? Short on details again!
(5) You said, “Gambians should be encouraged to expose corruption in any form or shade.” No one denies that, however, mere allegations will not do without facts. And finally,
(6) You said, “Kurang should not have been fired without conducting a thorough investigation into his allegations.” One cannot start an investigation based on what one thinks is unethical conduct without some evidence like, something written, voice recording, personal knowledge, like Mr. Kurang heard Mrs. Bensouda or someone close to her talking about those thing she is accused of. You know, something more than just what Mr. Kurang said. Do you know what Mrs. Bensouda and members of the commission are risking if they are in fact engaged in unethical conduct like corruption? I do not know you, but you won’t like it to be accused of unethical conduct without evidence to back it up. If that would be unfair to you, why should it not be unfair to Mrs. Bensouda and the other members of the commission? Mr. Kurang does not have any evidence to back up his allegations so far. If he comes up with something and you know about, please fill us in. There is not to say in the future, Mrs. Bensouda or any member of the commission may not be found wanting on ethical conduct and when that time comes and there is evidence then an investigation can be initiated. So far, there is none, contrary to your wild allegations. You know, sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of the other to see how it would be like if the things said about the other are said of you. I believe you are not being fair at all. Of course, you can correct me by bringing facts. We are waiting! I conclude that base on the above, you are short on details!
Dr Sarr
your reasoning points are sound and principled. Undoubtedly, there would be a risk of conflict of interest if the counsel represented her former client on the same subject matter.In my view, the counsel should not have taken the Government’s instructions in these circumstances if she knew that her professional conduct is likely to be called into question because of her past dealings.Indeed, there is also ongoing duty of confidentiality between the former client and the counsel, which is is likely to at risk of breach if the subject matter in question becomes a subject of the Commission’s proceedings. In most jurisdictions particularly in UK, the Bar Standard Board laid down very strict rules on the way and the manner legal professionals conduct themselves so as to maintain the confidence the public places in the profession, which is fundamental to the administration of justice. I am not sure if the Gambia Bar Association has taken a position on this matter, but it would be of a great public interest for it to be seen as acting. Partial administration of justice cannot deliver justice,by this I mean if the impartiality of those involved in the administration of justice is being called in question then it becomes futile for that tribunal to continue its proceedings, unless if someone act unbiased to inject some integrity into the system in order to retain public confidence.We must act now
I concur with Madi Jorbarteh, Mr Kurang could be a potentially material witness for any culprit ready to challenge some of the rulings of the commission . The objectivity of the lead counsel at the commission has been seriously compromised. Mrs Bensouda should recluse herself from the work of the commission to bring back credibility in the work of the commission. She was the legal representative of SSHFC at the time when some of the illicit transactions were taking place. She’s been tainted and cannot exonerate herself from blame. I still find the allegations made against her to hold water.
Ok. You are entitled to hold that position. Don’t you think if Mr. Kurang have any evidence to back up his accusations he shouldn’t have made it known by now. You know, at least, to keep his good name intact. Yet, since he has been fired, he has not come forward with anything so far. What do you think about that? Since you have read both Mr. Madi Jobarteh’s piece and the Ministry of Justice’s piece on the same matter. What do you think? If you do not agree with the Ministry of Justice’s position, why? You seem to agree with Mr. Jobarteh and not the Ministry of Justice even though the Ministry is privy to facts that Mr. Jobarteh is not privy to. Very interesting indeed. You know more about the matter by reading what the Ministry said about it than what you read Mr. Jobarteh said about it. If I were you, I will follow the facts no matter who said it. I believe the current administration is heading in the wrong direction. However, that does not mean I cannot be fair to be them when the facts say so. I want Gambia to succeed no matter who is at the head or who said what or did what.
Mrs. Bensouda does not have to recuse herself without clear conflict of interest. I suggest you find out what conflict of interest means and when there is really a conflict of interest how can be cured. Not every conflict of interest requires the person in a possible conflict to recuse him or herself. One mistake some of you guys are making is that, because Mrs. Bensouda is accused of corruption and conflict interest, you guys want her to prove she has not done anything wrong. That is not how things work. You who accuses her are the ones who are to prove that your accusations are correct. If you are taken to court whether in a civil suit or criminal charge, in either case, the person who takes you to court has the burden to prove whatever you are accused of having done. This burden does not shift. The onus is on you to prove your accusation and not on her. Imagine if someone takes you court and said you, Keluntang, stole from me, now prove that you did not stole from me. The dictator, Jammeh, used to do that and Gambians and foreigners were unlawfully imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.
Keluntang
I agreed with you entirely, she should recuse herself or she should be fired for the sake of transparency and the pursuit of justice. She is tainted and the job of getting to the truth and nothing but the truth should fall on the shoulders of those who are not conflicted in any way or form. I think its premature for anyone to think that Mr. Kurang’s silence is as a result of lack of evidence to back up his accusations. Mrs Bensouda was the legal representative of some of our institutions mired in unimaginable corruption or corruptible practices, so to get to the truth about what prevailed in those institutions should be someone else’s to find out.
They say, “the devil is in the details.” We don’t need to look too far to know that it’s not the business of the lead counsel to prepare and coordinate the sale of Jammeh’s frozen assets. That’s part of the administrative function of the commission secretary. Also, we can check the phone records of the telecoms companies to ascertain the veracity of Kurang’s claim that she was regularly on the phone with the former finance minister on the sale of the assets. If we do that we will see the devil.
Why don’t you have Mr. Kurang do as you are suggesting. What are you waiting for? You are bend on having Mrs. Bensouda prosecuted even when there is no evidence as of right now to do so. I keep asking you for facts and you keep giving me theories. You accused me earlier on being short on details and I think you have manifested that you are the one short on details. You can have any theory you want in your head because it is your head. The question is, do your theories reflect the facts as we know them today? It seems like anytime you write about this matter, you will come up with what about this, what about that! Fact! Facts! Facts! Keluntang! Facts!
Are you here shooting the messenger because you don’t like messenger???
Are you here shooting the messenger because you don’t like message???
Are you here shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message???
I do not have a dog in the fight.
Bax, Solomon, Mwalimu and Keluntang help me out here.
Wasn’t the same Surahata Janneh’s character brought into question when Gambian businessman Basiru Jawara brought a lawsuit claiming one Million Dalasis against him for possible breach of contract.
The suit may have been filed in the late nineties stating amongst other things that the funds held in trust may not have been properly applied in the sale of a Hagan Street, Banjul property. One Mr Jaabi may also named a party in the same suit.
More questions on the integrity of commission members??
Hello Andy,
I personally have unconsciously refrained from commenting on the Kutang vs Bensouda saga. Now that you’ve brought it to my consciousness, I realize there are more questions raised by the firing of Kurang by the minister than I will ever be able to get answers to. So I let it pass.
_______________________
I don’t know the pass dealings of Surahata so am in a position to judge whether that alleged transaction has tainted his credibility.
What am however willing to say, is that firing Kurang without first THOROUGHLY verifying his claims and allegations is setting a bad precedence in in building a new culture of institutional democracy.
I admire Kurang for his courage to speak against what he deems to be unethical practices in the Janneh commission. He has paid a price for that but ultimately, I hope he can be at peace with conscience.
Tambedou’s statement, in my mind, does not sufficiently clear all the lingering mistrusts that hang over the integrity of Bensouda.
An independent verification body will be apt to get to the button of a not so “free from doubt” modus operandi.
Andy, I don’t know much about that particular incident, though it stirs something at the back of my head. I cannot say for certain, if Mr Surahata’s integrity has been tainted by that incident or not.
As for Mr Kurang’s sacking, it is my view, based purely on the information before us, that it was right and justified. I think his position was no longer tenable, given that:
1. He failed to raise his concerns with commissioners before writing a petition about a commission member;
2. He has made (at least) one allegation about interference in the sale of tractors which seems to be unfounded. The order to suspend the sale of the tractor(s), according to the Justice Minister, came from cabinet, through SG Mr Drammeh, which may have misled Mr Kurang into his allegations (due to SG and Counsel Drammeh’s family ties).
Investigations are important to establish FACTS, but if they are not to be a waste of time and resources, and be carried out for their own sake, they MUST be ordered on the basis of the emergence of information that was not known to the appointing authority at the time of the appointment of an official (counsel Bensouda in this case) or during the execution of his/her duties. That is not the case here, as far as I can tell from the Minister’s response.
On the contrary, the appointing authority has stated that it/they was/were aware of all the supposed conflicts of interest raised by Mr Kurang, before Counsel Bensouda was appointed. There is no ground to order an investigation, based on this information.
I will therefore hold onto my position (that Mr Kurang’s sacking was right and justified) until information surfaces that contradicts the Minister’s position.
They are all birds of the same feathers. Period!
A foreign chairman with exquisite credentials would have lend credence to the work of the commission.
Andy,
I do not know the past dealings of the name you mentioned in your brief so I cannot on comment on those dealings . The fundamental issue here, is that, legal professionals must uphold high standards of profession conduct particularly in the conduct of legal proceedings. Those standards include their ability to act independently with integrity and honesty. This is absolutely necessary to ensure that the court/tribunal can rely on the information provided them in the proper administration justice. Frankly,a tribunal which is not guided by independent advocates is likely to become an instrument of those who want to deliver selective justice for the advancement of their own interests. A court/tribunal can only be seen as impartial arbiter, if those serving it are impartial and Independent. I believe that the regulator of legal practice in the Gambia must take steps to ensure that legal professionals are accountable for their conduct. Indeed ,whatever allegations are made must be supported by credible evidence for anyone to come to an objective conclusion, but a hint of conflict of interest on the part a legal representative seems a reasonable ground for the professional to return his client’s instruction.
Solomon, you deserve a respond because most of what you say is right on the money. This is the only part I do not follow on your posting, so you can elaborate on it if you can. “… but a hint of conflict of interest on the part a legal representative seems a reasonable ground for the professional to return his client’s instruction.” I mean more facts are needed to flesh out what you are trying to say.
To those arguing on the opposite side: Careful reading is a great thing. Unfortunately most of the commentary is based on lack of careful reading. I can’t make people do what they do not want to do. As the old saying goes, “you can the horse to the river but you cannot forced it to drink.” I will refresh memories and I hope something becomes clear this time around. The Ministry’s article tackles ONLY THE THREE ACCUSATIONS BROUGHT UP BY MR. KULANG. IT WENT NO FURTHER THAN THAT. SO WHAT I SAID ON THE MATTER AND WHAT ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE AN AGENDA SHOULD ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE THREE ACCUSATIONS AND WHICH THE MINISTRY ADDRESSED. Not yelling, just highlighting this crucial point. Most of the commentaries on this matter are raising issues not raised by Mr. Kulang. MR KULANG’S ACCUSATIONS ARE LIMITED TO WHAT HE PERCEIVED TO BE UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY MRS. BENSOUDA AND THAT IS WHAT THE MINISTRY ADDRESSED. In the Ministry’s article, before it started the discussion on the three accusations brought up by Mr. Kulang, it put a subheading and if I am not mistaken, that subheading reads “THE ALLEGATIONS.” That is an indication that the writer of that article was about to begin discussing the specific allegations and that is what followed. Normally when lawyers write briefs, there are subheadings to alert and direct the reader to what is about to be discussed and to focus the attention on what the subheading reads. There are lots on technical legal writing things in that article but we need not get into them.
To bring past dealings of Mrs. Bensouda or any member of the Commission on this matter is missing the issue by a long shot. If IN THE FUTURE, Mrs Bensouda or any member of the Commission’s past dealing raises conflict issues then those past dealings can be looked at. Majority of what I wrote is focused on this simple point. And, just because a lawyer represented you as a former client and now that lawyer is doing some other work that may be at conflict with the former representation DOES NOT IN ITSELF RAISE CONFLICT ISSUES. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BEYOND MERE CONJECTURE THAT RAISES A CONFLICT ISSUE. AND WHEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE IS RAISED, THERE ARE CERTAIN STEPS THAT ARE TAKEN TO DETERMINED IF THE CONFLICTED LAWYER NEEDS TO RECUSE HIM OR HERSEL ALTOGETHER OR RECUSE HIM OR HERSELF FROM JUST THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BUT IS OK TO CARRY ON WITH THE REST OF THE PROCEEDING. I suggest to those who are arguing on the other side to consult with a lawyer friend and see what they come up with. Or better, borrow or buy a book that covers “Rules of Professional Conduct” for lawyers and see what you come up with. An advice to anyone who will heed it, please do not talk about things that you are not clear about and do not have enough facts to back up your position. It can be embarrassing. Have a blessed day everyone!
One can afford to observer that Amie Bensouda reclined to a defensive mood among other things said; instead of addressing to relevant points raised, by citing the Commission’s using & deriving the use of her “private office staff & equipments” at pittance, for example; which indicates conflict of interest; from Amie’s utterance reactions (from horse’s mouth), if any yet, can lead to anyone into expecting special treatments(favours)…?
The government didn’t help either, by their reaction; instead of the necessary required addressing; for fear of the lost of the (cheap) ransom using (utilisation) of said “staff & equipment”…?
The public are watching; with the indelible records drying as being written; & capable of reinstitution of such commissions in future too…
God bless Gambia….
Samba,
the facts known to me so far are; series of serious allegations have been made against the lead counsel of the commission which seems suggests a potential risk of conflict of interest. If the counsel had represented a former client on the same subject matters that are now subject of the Commision proceedings in which the counsel is now representing someone else. It is rightly so for the public to question the fairness of such proceedings. More so as i stated before, the confidentiality obligation upon counsel is ongoing obligation which must be persevered. Unless the counsel had obtained the consent of the former client to make facts known that are protected by legal privilege, she would breach such duty if she inadvertently reveal those facts . Indeed, i concur, a mere conjecture may not give rise to conflict of interest but in these circumstances it can hardly be argued that there is no risk of conflict of interest. Thats explains why i stated that where there is a hint of conflict of interest the counsel may return her client’s instructions just to keep the confidence the public places in the legal profession. Legal practitioners must always act independently with honest and integrity to preserve the integrity of the whole justice system. While it clear that the allegations have not been substantiated yet, my concern here is for the professionals to steps that are necessary to protect the integrity of the profession.
Help me out Solomon, pls: are you saying that Counsel Bensouda should step down or be removed?
Solomon, may be you know the answers to the questions i am about to raise or may be not. Who governs lawyers’ conduct? And how does one initiates a complaint against a lawyer? Any person, including lawyers, who have credible evidence may file a complaint with the bar or with the Chief Justice. As far i know, lawyers govern themselves. I do not mean individually, so let me make that clear. You said the “facts” known to you then you said “series of serious allegations have been made against the lead counsel …”Allegations are not facts. If i alleged that you did something wrong, that does not mean my allegation is a fact. At least i need to bring something on the table that would corroborate my allegation to require further inquiry. So far, those things have not be been presented. They made be in the near future and if they do and warrant an investigation then by all mean let there be an investigation. You also talk about “the confidentiality obligation” and yes, when a lawyer represents a person, there exists confidentiality between the lawyer and the client. I have not heard or read anywhere that Mrs. Bensouda has breached that confidentiality. If you have please let us know. To your knowledge, has Mrs. Bensouda “inadvertently reveal those fact”as you put it? A hint of conflict does not make it so. You are absolutely right that legal practitioners must always act … with honest[y] and integrity to preserve the integrity of the whole justice system. I think you will also agree that Mrs. Bensouda and the other lawyers in the Commission are well aware of that standard. If you are a lawyer or know someone who is a lawyer, you know that there is nothing more important to a lawyer’s career than his or her reputation. Once lost, it is near impossible to recover. Even if Mrs. Bensouda is a reckless person, i do not believe the other lawyers would turned a deaf year knowing that they too would put their integrity into question. If you are lawyer, and you are concerned about Mrs. Bensouda’s position and you have facts, you know what to do. But if you do not have facts and you went ahead and file a complaint, you risk having your reputation tarnished. You raised some issues that i have already answered above in my last posting. I mean the issue of former client and how things like that can be dealt with. Please refer to what i said above.
Bax,
the decision to resign is a matter for the counsel. In my view, the government or the counsel must take steps that will command public confidence in the proceedings of the commission which is being undermined by the allegations.
Mrs Bensouda can be fired by the AG if somethings were to show up that would put the integrity on the Commission into question regardless of whether she wants to stay on the job or not. Of course, she can also resign for personal reasons and the like.
Seems like your answer preceded my question. Well, since nothing has showed up yet, shall we agree that there is no issue with the integrity of the commission and thus, no need for sackings or resignations?
What step(s) would be appropriate to achieve that objective, in your view? Isn’t the timely, fitting and detailed response of the Justice Minister enough for that purpose? I just want to know your view on the position of Counsel Bensouda, given that you acknowledged that the allegations are UNSTANTIATED.
Bax and Samba, while I respect your position on this matter, I respectfully disagree with you on the point that the explanations provided was adequate enough to retain public confidence in the commission’s proceedings. What is at stake here seems serious enough to warrant heads to roll. The commission was constituted orderly to make objective findings about the past dealings of of the previous government but right now in its heart they are barrage of disorderly behaviours as its employees threw punches at each other. Such occurrences are indicative of weak leadership and mistrust between belligerent groups. I am not saying for one that the allegations made against the distinguished counsel are proven or true, but they can be seen as smokescreen and they raised a question of conflict of interest, which is capable of undermining the integrity of the commission . That is a view I am entitled to hold as an objective observer. What I suggested here is for the counsel and government to take decisive actions on this matter in order to maintain public confidence in the commission’s proceedings. Let me make it clear here, while the elites of Banjul village are likely to use collegiate approach to solve problems of administration of justice, such approach is inimical to justice. Let’s stay on points here the reporting of the allegations is an indisputable known fact. I gratefully rest my case.
Solomon, thanks for your respond. First, I do not have a dog in the fight. Anyone who has been reading my postings knows that I believe this administration is heading in the wrong direction. If Mrs. Bensouda was to be fired today I will not lose sleep over it. I may have crossed path with her at the High Court in Banjul. I usually attend court proceedings when I am in The Gambia just to see how court business is conducted. I am an objective observer like you. Just because I differ with this administration on so many issues, does not mean I do not want them to succeed. If they succeed in making Gambia a truly democratic state, then Gambia succeeds. On this issue and based on what we know so far, the Ministry of Justice did the right thing. It is a great precedent have; that without facts we are not going on a witch hunt.
The bickering you are talking about may not be a sign of weakness but democracy. People can disagree and hold different views and can talk about their views freely in the open. As you know, not long ago, this was not possible. Democracy is a messy business but through its messiness we expect truth to prevail and that is why freedom of speech in guaranteed in a democracy or shall I say in true democracies.
I am not sure if you noticed, but the government has taken a decisive action by firing Mr. Kulang who did not have facts and was trying to undermine the Commission. Did I told you that I do not know any member of the Commission personally. I do not follow your Banjul reference, sorry. Just to be clear, I am not from Banjul. Based on the postings over the months and what I have gathered from them, where I am from may be closer to where Mwalimu is from than most of the other commentators here, believe it or not. Lol!
Yes, it is a fact that allegations are flying around. That is a fact. But what is not a fact so far is, are the allegations true. Now that, Mr. Solomon, is not a fact.
Bax, in my view, the Ministry of Justice has acted accordingly so far. My position and I believe yours too is not inflexible. If more facts come out and by preponderance of the evidence suggest that an investigation is warranted, I am all for it. As of right now, I have no reason to believe we are there yet. It would be naive to think members of the Commission are not aware of all the allegations swirling around them. They know they are in the spotlight. I know the answer to this but I will ask you anyway. What do you think people will say if Mrs. Bensouda decided to resign from her post?Lol! You see how conspiracy theories work. Then they will show up by the thousands and say, you see, we knew it, and we told you so, even if her resignation may not have absolutely nothing to do with the allegations. We are fast becoming the land of conspiracy theories!