Human beings in general don’t like anything that puts them in an unfavorable light. And generally, when faced with anything we deem a threat to our reputation or freedom, we often revert to our instinct of survival first.
If the threat is an accusation against us, our survival instinct is to deny the accusation with our version of events. Accused of torturing a fellow Gambian citizen, GPF chose to release a statement on the allegations and goes on a denial marathon short on specifics and raising doubts in me.
The GPF first tells us about the concern they have about a story “circulating on social media.” Then the very next sentence goes on the defensive and they claim the “story is …. calculated to mislead the public.” You know, as if there’s some dark force out there that somehow learned about Ebrima Sanneh’s ordeal and decided to manufacture a story and “mislead the public.” They never hesitated to arrest Madi who didn’t accuse them of anything and simply called for accountability.
In this instance, GPF is accused of brutalizing a Gambian citizen! That accusation is far more serious. Somehow, instead of going after the “dark force” that manufactured this story and “calculated” it to “mislead the public”, they simply reacted with a press release! Was what Madi said more dangerous, or is it because it was Madi?
I don’t want to get into an academic exercise of dissecting the press release but in my mind, when I see words like “certain individuals” were fighting and “certain individuals” were arrested (no concrete numbers), it points my mind to a lack of self-reference and raises questions for me.
Often, when one wants to deceive, they take themselves out of the equation. It becomes “this happened” as opposed to saying “I did this”.
Importantly, in any scenario, there’s always a before, during and after. Some call this the prologue, event and aftermath. So when we look at the GPF statement, two sentences were dedicated to the prologue. Call was received, officers dispatched and arrests made! Significant gaps are within the statement and leaves one wondering what happened when and where.
The event is that “the parents of the arrested persons were called and it was during this time that Ebrima Sanneh complained of abdominal pain.”
What relevance does the “parents of the arrested persons” being called have to do Ebrima’s abdominal pain? Could it be something else more relevant and significant to the abdominal pain happened that is not mentioned? And because the abdominal pain has to be linked to something, the call to the parents just became a filler? The call to the parents is almost an equivocation but I’m not sure it’s even good enough to be labeled thusly.
They also said “… He was given police escort together with his family members…” This is what I meant earlier by the lack of self-reference! Who authorized “Police escort”?
It is also very typical for anyone accused of anything to never place themselves at the same location with the accuser! They try to stay as far away as possible from the scene. Did the GPF have reason not to place the Commissioner around the accuser?
This statement though is the one that I’m the most baffled by: Medical examination was conducted on him and he was said to be “WITHOUT ANY COMPLICATIONS AS INDICATED IN AN ULTRASOUND SCAN REPORT.” So Ebrima’s parents were called, he complained of abdominal pain and was taken to the hospital with police escort and family members and somehow there was a magical ultrasound scan that was able to determine there wasn’t “any complications” at all!
Incredible ultrasound machine that must be and I wonder which doctor conducted the medical examination to conclusively determine that Ebrima is “without any complications.”
Then the cherry on top is “for verification purposes, his (Ebrima Sanneh’s) family can be contacted.” This is what is called an oath. It’s like the one that swears to god or reminds you of who they are and their honor. GPF cannot say they “swear to God” and but in order to convince us of their position, they ask us to contact the family! Really???
Since they say we should verify facts on security matters before publication, I take this opportunity to ask them if this press release is really an accurate depiction of events as they happened? Or are they peeing on us and telling us it’s raining?
