(JollofNews) – Police in the Gambia have formally detained two brothers of former President Yahya Jammeh.
Jalamang Jammeh and Sainey Jammeh are being held at the police headquarters in Banjul were they are being questioned by detectives at the Major Crime Unit.
Their elder brother, Araba Jammeh, who is suffering from ill-health has been released on police bail.
Police are yet to reveal the reasons for the brothers’ detention. But family sources have told JollofNews that they are being questioned in connection with the sale of some cows belonging to the ex-president.
The sale was reportedly authorised by ex-President Jammeh.
The Jammeh brothers are employed at the various farms of their brother but have not been paid since the demise of his regime in January.
Ex-President Jammeh who is the breadwinner of the family and currently in exile in Equatorial Guinea, has reportedly asked the brothers to sell off some of his cows to settle the salary arrears of other employees working on his farms and for the upkeep of the family.
Mr Jammeh’s assets have not been frozen by the new regime of Adama Barrow, but authorities are reportedly trying to established how many properties and businesses he owns in the country.
Police spokesman Foday Conta said the brothers are being questioned with regards to certain information investigators need to know.
Unlike other developed countries, Gambian security officers can invite people for questioning at various security posts without informing them what they are being summoned for.
Also people who are being questioned can be kept in custody for hours or several days without the right to a lawyer and cannot give a no comment interview.
Human right groups have catalogued reports were suspects have revealed that they were tortured and forced into making confessions by police and other security officers.
Until the demise of the Jammeh regime in January, the Jammeh brothers were untouchable.
And while they have not been accused of any rights abuse which has characterised their brother’s 22-year rule, they were revered by people in their community.
even jammeh the beast still has his ugly head buried in the sand likewisethese brothers of his. i don’t blame them to an extent because they haven’t a clue as to what it means”assets frozen” , the sewer rat and the coward he is, still thinks he can do as he wishes even when in exile. keep bringing it on jammeh, you surely shall be tackled head on.
The siblings or relatives of Yahaya Jammeh should be left alone to live like other free citizens. Even when they break the law they should be face the due process as syipilated by the law of Gambia. There should be no unnecessary victimization. The new president should be careful not to follow the condemned pathway of the former president.
It’s a custody battle over Moo cows;
If as stated, “Jammeh’s assets” – or more accurately Jammeh’s Loot – has NOT been frozen by the Barrow Government, then the brothers are within their rights to sell the cows if they were authorised by the “rightful owner” to sell. Unless the Government freezes Jammeh’s Loot nationwide through a court order, the brothers have done nothing wrong.
When a person receives stolen property that person is as guilty as the thief who stole the property in the first place. When, if and how the facts of theft are established and seizure of stolen goods by the proper authority is made. are inconsequential. In this case the State must freeze assets as advised, but all those who conspire to dispose, enjoy, sell or otherwise benefit and shield the thief from prosecution must be charged as well. If we ask a donkey in Kanilai if Yahya Jammeh stole those cows, I think the response will be affirmative. That man is thief and all those who aide him are equally guilty.
Hon. Judge Dr Sarr:
We may all agree that Jammeh is indeed a thief – but we must follow due process and the rule of law in establishing that fact. If the Barrow Govt has NOT frozen Jammeh’s Loot through the courts during the past 5-months, and has respected “Jammeh’s property”, then Jammeh is entitled to do what he wants with “his” property.
Until Jammeh’s property is frozen by the courts, his brothers cannot be guilty of disposing of his property unless Jammeh himslef has lodged a complaint to that effect with the police.
The brothers cannot be accused of “receiving stolen goods” either – if the Govt. has decided to respect Jammeh’s “ownership” of that property and has not made any moves through the courts (in UK the police would make the move under POCA – Proceeds of Crime Act).
Thank you My Lady.
His Honour Hail Haile Halake for the Jammeh Brothers.
Dida, are we taking the position that because our Govt has not frozen Yahya’s assets or began prosecution of his theft in office he is somehow entitled to own and exercise authority over stolen item. Or are we saying he is innocent because no case has been filed yet. I believe in due process even for a criminal like Jammeh, my position in based on overwhelming information on the ground that Yahya Jammeh is a prolific dangerous armed robber. A shameless cow thief at that.
I do understand your position and share your concern.
I do understand that Dr Sarr seems to be bewildered by the mechanics of the law with regard to topical issues like the one at hand. However, I do agree with Dormu Rewwum Gambia’s perspectives on the issue.
Here, we are dealing with the mechanics of “personal property law” in practice: A pre-requisite for any charges for theft in this case is that the assets at the time had been frozen by The Gambian authorities. Short of this, however, the hitherto owner (Yahya Jammeh) has every right to dispose of the cattle the way he likes.
Provided the Jammeh brothers can produce evidence before a court of law that they have their brother’s permission to dispose of the cattle, then no court of law can convict them of stealing something that they are lawfully allowed to dispose of.
Specifically, the burden of proof that the brothers in fact lack such a permission rests with The Gambian state.
Dr Sarr: “… are we taking the position that because our Govt has not frozen Yahya’s assets or began prosecution of his theft in office he is somehow entitled to own and exercise authority over stolen item”?
The simple answer is “yes”. But the freezing order should not be difficult to obtain: Here in UK such an order would be made on a simple “balance of probabilties” – i.e. Jammeh’s officical salary totals 2 million in 22 years; he has “assets” worth 200 million … proceeds of crime suspicion proved on “a balance of probabilities” and freezing order granted.
Extract from a recent UK case ref: Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 27 (QB).
The Legal Framework – Civil Recovery Orders
14. Section 243 of POCA provides that proceedings for a recovery order may be taken by the enforcement authority in the High Court against any person whom the authority thinks holds recoverable property.
15. Recoverable property is defined by section 304(1) as property obtained through unlawful conduct.
16. Unlawful conduct is defined by section 241 as conduct which is unlawful under the criminal law of the country in which it occurs, whether this is the United Kingdom or elsewhere (provided that if the conduct occurs outside the United Kingdom it would be unlawful if it occurred in the United Kingdom). The court must decide on a balance of probabilities whether it is proved that any matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct have occurred.
I know where you guys are coming from. In this case, I have posed the questions to ” a reasonable man ” and the consensus is clear:
Donkey – Guilty
Goat – Guilty
Monkey – Guilty
Babu Soli – Not guilty with explanation .
Sure we know about transparency, due process and all that. The standard here is ‘ We the people know Yahya stole the cows’ . The cows belong to the people, I don’t need Barrow to tell me that.
God Bless The Gambia
A MODEST PLEA TO DR. SARR’S AND OTHERS WHO SEE ANYTHING “JAMMEH” AS EVIL, TO MODERATE THEIR POUND OF FLESH PHILOSOPHY.
The issue at hand had renewed my faith in Gambians and friends of the Gambians. I was going to respond to the Unlawful and Ilegal Arrest and Detention of the Jammeh brothers for “selling some of their brother’s property, specifically, a number of his cows to pay unpaid workers”. After reviewing the overwhelming postings that do not see any Legal standing in the Government’s Arrrests and Detentions of the Jammeh brothers, given that the Assessts have not been Frozen and cannot be Frozen Without Due Process, I will leave it at that. I hope that the government would rethink its Mistake and with Forthwith Restore the Jammeh brothers’ Freedom which the Government had Capriously Abridged and Violated without Cause. A Modest Plea to Minister of Justice, The Hon. Tambedu, Please, in the name of Restoring the Gambian Nation’s image as a Nation of Laws and not of Men, Release the Jammeh brothers and anyone who is Arrested and Detained without Justifiable Reason or Cause. Revenge and Punishment without Due Process and Constitutional Constraints threatens to Undo the Meager Dividend of the New Regime of Adama Barrow, Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty. One Gambia, One People, One Destiny.
Those are President Jammeh’s properties. They cannot apprehend his properties through court order because they have themselves started to tamper with them. They are interested in sharing President Jammeh’s properties to their families, girlfriends and surrogates. That’s why no court order will be initiated.
Most of his cattle at Farato have already been stolen by the Barrow government. Let them deny my exposure.
How can a thief judge a judge a “thief”?
The ‘forty’ were unscrupulous armed, Savage and bloody thieves. They were a menace to human civilisation. They all deserve the gallows. Then who says they have properties?
Ali is not perfect but humane and social. His brother died because of greed and jealousy, thus paying for both his sins and Ali’s.
We have no choice now but Ali here to stay, to be guided and warned to improve transparently.
Mr Halake is right: The piece states “for selling his cows” That being Mr Jammeh’s cows.
As long as Ex President Jammeh has given written permission for his cows to be sold by family members then they have a legitimate right;
The other question of Mr Jammeh’s assets being frozen or his properties being disposed of /or claimed by The State/ Is a matter not yet declared to the public.
I return again to knowing the terms of the agreed deal for Mr Jammeh to vacate The Statehouse and take his “liquid assets”with him. Which has been well reported online:
To be detaining and “soft” questioning these members of the Jola Tribe is a very dodgy and possibly inflammatory way to proceed for “The New Gambia”
Please tread carefully Mr Government.
Which beggars the question;
Is The Gambian Government protecting Jammeh’s assets ????
Mike Scales, your a real devils advocate, by putting the fox among the chickens, but this is good for The Gambians, it open up their minds to weigh up the pros and cons to have some hardcore debates.
The weakness of this government so far is “information”.
The honeymoon period is over, time to lead by example and keep the people informed as a step by step ride to a better place. Is Demba Jawo asleep ?
The new government should have frozen those assets on day one.
Whereby they failed to do so in 5 months, it was reasonably expected by those concerned that such moves weren’t forthcoming . Why should the Police blame the legitimate property owner for disposing same ?
EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS ARE THE FULCRUM ON WHICH SOCIETIES MITIGATE THEIR FAILURE:
This is what Fela Ransom Kuti, the famous Nigerian Musician once observed so eloquently when he said, “Driver don have accident, but Apprentice get Arrested and Punished”. The Jammeh brothers are presumed to have the permission of their brother, former President Yaya Jammeh to sell the sold cows. Under Property law, there is what is called Residuary Clause in Terms of WILLS. If former President Yaya Jammeh has a WILL and there is all reason to believe that he would, such a Clause would Immunize the Jammeh brothers and all other Gambians in similar situations from any Molestation by Law Enforcement Officials including the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Justice. On Condition that the Nation State Operates Within the Confines of Equal Protection and Due Process Under the Law. The Residuary Clause in a WIIL, “Conveys to One or More Beneficiaries, referred to as the Residuary Beneficiaries everything in a Testator’s Estates not Designated to a Specific Beneficiary…” In this scenario, there is no legal Means of Freezing former President Yaya Jammeh’s Kanilai and other Properties unless a Court of law can ascertain that the Property Owner and the Beneficiaries/Recipient Conspired to Unlawfully obtain and secure SAID Property or Properties. There has to be an Eastablishment of “Intent” especially with reference to the Beneficiaries/Recipients. These are Legalese fine points, and that is the point. Subjective Personal feelings, Prejudice, and a Dislike of an Individual or Group not withstanding, if it is Wrong, it is Not Right, if is Ilegal, it is Unlawful. It is Not about Personalities. Where there is a lack of a Real Application of Equal Protection and Due Process, Lawlessness and Instability is sure to follow and take residence within a Nation State and Society. REVENGE AND SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN A SMALL INTER RELATED NATION STATE OR SOCIETY LIKE THE GAMBIA. Gambia is More than the Sum Total of One Ethnic Group or One Region.
According to the posting , the brothers and other workers have not been paid since January, the brothers are selling the cows from instructions from the owner. There is nothing wrong with that. I think the present government should also look at means of helping them receive their salaries.
I’m in agreement with the views that the brothers have no case to answer, even if they haven’t got Jammeh’s permission, unless someone makes a complaint of theft to the Police.
The new administration should have sought an injunction from the courts to freeze Jammeh’s assets, as the first priority, upon assuming office, but they shot themselves in the foot by pledging to respect his properties as his private belongings.
Having made that pledge, I would say the state has no business in how those assets are managed, unless a citizen makes a complaint to the state, in relation to those assets.
Until the manner of acquisition and accumulation is established and found to be lawful, there should have been no pledge to respect his assets as his private properties.
I concur, Bax.
If there is a “pledge to respect his properties “, then this guarantee applies to properties legally and morally acquired. The pledge, even if given is not legally binding. There was no amnesty law passed by a lawfully constututed national assembly, hence any document signed by Barrow in this respect is a mere goodwill. Consequently any pledge given is not sacrosanct.
But I do agree that, in the absence of a property freeze on Jammeh, he or his relatives are entitled to dispose off properties, provided a legally binding power of attorney is in their possession. If not they are also breaking the law. And since there is an eminent state interest in the actions of the former tyrants, actions that require inquiry in the general public interest, any dispossession of his properties, is liable to state intervention until an instituted commission of enquiry looks into the manner those properties were acquired.
In nutshell, I want to dismiss the notion that, based on a “phantom agreement” hovering over us, Jammeh’s properties are legally protected from state’s reach.
Mr Kinteh has just made a very good point there, but I am sure readers will agree with me that those are legal technicalities that shall be settled by the parties involved and the courts in due course.
However, until then, it is reasonable to assume that such commitments are legally binding until a court of law declares otherwise. Bax’s perspective on the said pledge should therefore be seen in that light.
nemesis @ work? power, authority, life, enjoyment, suffering are all transient, so, be careful n beware, of what u do others. d Lord is watching u.
Divine/ Thanks for the information.
The issue at hand had renewed my faith in Gambians and friends of the Gambians. I was going to respond to the Unlawful and Ilegal Arrest and Detention of the Jammeh brothers for “selling some of their brother’s property, specifically, a number of his cows to pay unpaid workers”. After reviewing the overwhelming postings that do not see any Legal standing in the Government’s Arrrests and Detentions of the Jammeh brothers, given that the Assessts have not been Frozen and cannot be Frozen Without Due Process, I will leave it at that. I hope that the government would rethink its Mistake and with Forthwith Restore the Jammeh brothers’ Freedom which the Government had Capriously Abridged and Violated without Cause. A Modest Plea to Minister of Justice, The Hon. Tambedu, Please, in the name of Restoring the Gambian Nation’s image as a Nation of Laws and not of Men, Release the Jammeh brothers and anyone who is Arrested and Detained without Justifiable Reason or Cause. Revenge and Punishment without Due Process and Constitutional Constraints threatens to Undo the Meager Dividend of the New Regime of Adama Barrow, Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty. One Gambia, One People, One Destiny.
Sidi; You are absolutely correct.
There appears to be a compelling national interest to intervene in the dispossession activities of the former tyrant’s assets by his siblings, that apparently influenced the decision of the police to act by inviting the siblings of the former tyrant for questioning. We all agree that even if the govt fall to freeze his assets, the national interest has precedence over any other pledges supposedly offered to the former president. It is common knowledge that his assets and wealth accumulated over the years, far exceeds the sum total of the salary and benefits he rightly gained from his position as president. That is a fact. There were also all sorts of land grabbing in the Kombo’s and other parts of the country initiated and degreed by him. These are facts. It is also fact that it will take time for investigators to assemble together the whole inventory of his ill gotten wealth, in order to open a court case and proscecute him in a court of law.
In the meantime, he or his surrogates can use the loophole to dispose the wealth or destroy evidences. Therefore, the state, depending upon the compelling national interest, can freeze the assets or undertake measures to protect these assets from illegal dispossession by the owner or empowered person or entity until a definitive arbitration could be achieved, albeit in the shortest possible time and under the auspices of fair play and due process.
As I opined above, I would prefer the siblings were not detained and that the govt have had initiated a court injunction or parliamentary legislation freezing the assets and/or banning any dispossession of the former tyrant’s assets until an enquiry establishes the rightful ownership of these assets and wealth.
“We all agree that even if the govt fall to freeze his assets, the national interest has precedence…”
No Kinteh, we don’t agree! “Nationalist interest” is the excuse that tyrants use to lock up and even kill their opponents. Due process of law must be followed – and it is for the court to judge on a government submission of “nationalist interest” – not the government nor the police!
Note how the US courts BLOCKED Trump’s “National interest” argument when he tried to block innocent and legally entitled Muslims from entering/returning to the USA.
“National interest” is the excuse that tyrants use to kill their opponents.” Absolutely true. How soon we seem to forget how Jammeh used “National security” to justify his evil actions against the population.
Indeed, we should agree with Kinteh (Kemo) that National interest should have precedence over pledges made by government, but we should not agree that National interest should justify actions that are in variance with due process, particularly when they seem to trample upon the rights of citizens.
We should not encourage any attempts to continue with actions that don’t follow due process, because it is the “little insignificant” acts that can lead to serious problems of governance. Securing an injunction to freeze Jammeh’s assets should not be difficult, given the evidence against him, and that is the approach we must all insist on.
My dear Mr Kinteh, I am sure you will meet many an attorney who’d agree with me that your submissions above are to large degree indeed compelling, and I’m sure the persons put in charge of prosecuting the case on behalf of the Gambian authorities shall to an extent argue along those lines. However, those contentions alone do not have the requisite force to displace the general personal property law rules applicable here. Hence, one may just as well view them as a single citizen’s value judgments on the issue.
This must be so until such time as the Gambian state produces legally valid evidence that traces these cattle to proceeds of a crime.
If and I say again IF Mr Barrow gave this commitment for Mr Jammeh’s assets to be safeguarded as part of the deal to offset conflict. The only legal weakness I can see would be if Mr Barrow gave this commitment before he was inaugurated and empowered to do so as President. The further question of whether any such commitment needed the approval of Parliament surely would be offset by the need to avoid conflict and the loss of innocent lives. Either way any such situation { if it existed} has now passed into history. All things considered it would be useful for the legal owner to provide written proof that the cattle should be sold and used to pay the workers wages. A better way would have been for the owner and employer to make a cash transfer payment weekly or monthly to cover wages with any tax deducted at source whilst taking any profits from the assets and sale of produce. and paying any ancillary invoices to suppliers. The business appears to remain a “going concern”.
Dormu Rewwum & Mr. Manneh,
We may not “all agree” and I support the liberal standpoint that there must be a sharp-cut differentiation between “nationalistic interest” and a genuine compelling national interest guarded by the provisions of fundamental basic rights.
The issue at hand and question before us is whether a compelling national interest exist to prevent Jammeh’s properties being dispossessed before a commission of inquiry is instituted and accomplish its findings and a court of law arbitrate on those findings? If the answer is in the affirmative, then I see no wrong in the action of the police to invite the brothers of the former president for questioning relating to acts by them, which could contravene the states interests in RECOVERING the ill-gotten wealth and asset of the former president.
OF NOTE, the state has the reserved right to act in order to prevent, in this case, the dispossession of Jammeh’s assets and wealth while under scrutiny until a court rules otherwise (to your analog with trump’s infamous travel ban). IN FACT, in Gambia’s case the reverse can be true. Anyone can apply before the court, a writ of mandamus which would compel the Govt to act in preventing Jammeh’s assets dispossession drive or in case of inaction bring charges against Govt for failure to act.
As I already mentioned, the grey area for me is REMAINING the siblings in custody, which may infringe on their fundamental rights if this remaining persist beyond 72 hours without having them appear before a legally constituted court.
Dear Mr Kinteh, I can see the merits of your legal arguments on the “national interest” issue, and these are indeed forceful. As I have said in one of my comments so far, I am confident that prosecuting counsel for the Gambian government shall to an extent argue along those lines. It is then up to the presiding judge to rule as to whether or not these submissions/arguments should carry any weight at all in a sensitive case like this. Let us in the meantime wish them (i.e. prosecuting counsel) good luck in that endeavour on behalf of the Gambian taxpayer.
However, I still insist that prior to a court ruling on the matter, those arguments alone cannot displace the general personal law rules applicable here.
Perhaps Mr Kinteh should be reminded of the fact that observing the rule of law in a country is arguably not the most efficient or convenient way of doing things from both the state’s and the citizen’s perspectives, but at least it has so far been the best approach towards the achievement of justice in legal disputes like this in any democratic state in the world.
Note, I have throughout left the politics of this case out of my comments since there certainly are many others who know more about that than me.
Brotherly advise Kinteh: you are free to take a lawyer of your choice but beware! No refund of your fees even if you lose the case. So listen to Luntango and Bax! They are Socialists and won’t charge you.
I take the brotherly advice in good faith and desist from further arguments on this particular piece but reserve my right to gladly engage my “learned brothers” in subsequent discussion forums.
You are welcome brother Kemo, and you can rest assured that I do enjoy the debate, and appreciate the sharp intellect participants have displayed in the course of our debates.
The debate has also strengthened my conviction that The Gambia’s educational system, despite all the odds over the years, has slowly but surely been churning out pretty well-read and bright youngsters with sharp, enquiring and critical intellects over the years. These are inter alias the qualities we need more of in future in order to move our beloved country forward in a democratic fashion. In other words, enlightenment, enlightenment, enlightenment….