The criminal appeal case filed on behalf of Femi Peters, the erstwhile campaign manager of the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) before Justice Emmanuel Amadi of the High Court in Banjul is now set for judgement on the 5th of August 2010.

The presiding judge adjourned the case to August 5, 2010, following the adoption of briefs of both parties at the court yesterday, 28th of July 2010.Femi Peters was convicted on a two-count charge of possession and control of loudspeaker contrary to section 5(5) (a) and 6(a) of the Public Order (amendment) Act 2009.

The appellant was sentenced accordingly to a fine of D10, 000 and one year imprisonment on both counts by the Kanifing Magistrate Court before Kayode H Olajubutu. The prosecution called four witnesses to prove its case, but the appellant rested his case on the prosecutions. After his conviction and sentence by the Kanifing Magistrate Court, the appellant through his counsel filed an appeal on the 12th of April 2010 with 15 grounds of appeal.

The appellant further sought leave of the High Court to file additional three grounds of appeal. The state raised a preliminary objection and urged the court to strike out the grounds of appeal in contravention with section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The state contended that grounds 1,2, and 3 border on a ruling on a no case submission, noting that by virtue of section 274 of the CPC Cap 10 Vol III, Laws of The Gambia, every appeal shall be entered within 30 days of the date of the order or sentence appealed against.

The state advanced that the ruling on the no case submission was delivered on the 19th of February 2010 while the notice of appeal was filed on the 12th of April 2010, thereby urging the court to strike out grounds 1, 2 and 3, as they have been filed out of time. The state contended that the appellant had the ample opportunity to appeal against the said ruling but had failed to do so, and that the appellant cannot now smuggle the said grounds into the existing notice of appeal like an after-thought.

The state disclosed that the words of the statute in section 274 CPC are imperative and do not leave room for discretion unless an extension of time was sought for by the appellant and was granted by the said High Court.The state further disclosed that engaging in argument for or against a ruling on a no case submission amounts to inviting the court to engage in an academic exercise, noting that the trial has since progressed and was concluded on its merits.

The state further contended that grounds 9,10 and 11 of the appellant’s appeal which border on the ruling delivered on 23rd of November 2009 cannot stand for having been filed out of time.On whether the trial magistrate was right in convicting the appellant having regard to the totality of the evidence, the state also contended that by a careful analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that that there has been proof beyond reasonable doubt of the offences charged.

The state disclosed that the appellant was charged with two-count offences of control of procession contrary to section 5 (5) (a) of the Public Order Act Cap 22, Volume III, Laws of The Gambia and control of loudspeaker contrary to section 6 (a) of the Public Order Act Cap 22. The state noted that the particulars of count one are that the appellant after failing to obtain permit from the inspector general of police, proceeded to hold a political rally at Serekunda Central; whilst the particulars of count two are that the appellant used loudspeaker to be heard in a public place without a written consent of the inspector general of police.

The state contended that PW1 testified that on the 24th of October 2009 between 5:00 and 6:00pm, he found the United Democratic Party holding a rally at Ebony Junction at Serekunda Central. He said the accused (Femi Peters) was present at the rally but referred him to Ousainou Darboe, leader of the party for the issues of permit.The state submitted that at the rally ground the party was using loudspeaker with drumming and dancing and PW1, together with one Commissioner Jawo met the appellant seated and asked him about the permit but he responded that he would show the permit after the rally and not before the rally.

As PW1 enquired, he discovered that the appellant did apply for a permit but he was not given.PW1 in his testimony told the court that as at the time he was still giving evidence in court, he had still not been shown any permit.The state pointed out that the evidence of PW1 was still not discredited during cross-examination.

It also revealed that PW3 testified that after the rally the accused, Femi Peters and his party by a procession escorted the vehicle heading to Serekunda Mosque. They were using a public address system during the rally. After the rally, the witness said he was not shown any permit promised by the accused and his investigation was confirmed by the commissioner of police that they were never given any permit and that he approached the accused because he knew him as the campaign manager of the UDP.

The state advanced that upon cross examination, PW3 testified that when he went to the venue he found the appellant standing inside the pavilion talking to some people. The state contended that PW4 testified that he is responsible for all incoming and outgoing correspondence at the police headquarters.He recalled that on the 12th of October 2009 when the appellant brought an application for permit for the use of public address system, he received the application and forwarded it to the inspector general of police for further directives. On the 13th of October 2009, he received a directive from the IGP stating "Not approved". The said application was identified by the witness and admitted without objection as lower court exhibit A.

The state submitted that PW4 further testified that on the 23rd October 2009 the appellant came to his office to follow up his application and he informed the appellant verbally that his application was not approved and the appellant said:"Ok I know what I will do".The state advanced that the prosecution evidence is overwhelming and remains uncontroversial, that the appellant even though applied for a permit did not receive an approval, but went ahead to ignore the directive of the IGP by organising and carrying out a political rally.The state submitted that the prosecution proved both counts against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and urged the High Court not to disturb the findings and conviction of the trial court.

The appellant argued that the sentence meted is excessive, and as a family man he ought not to have been given the maximum sentence, but the state contended that the punishment was not excessive, noting that the trial magistrate exercised its discretion. The state further advanced that the High Court in delivering its judgement whilst exercising its discretion, should give due regard to the facts that gave rise to the case on appeal, the status of the appellant and the high expectation of the members of the society from elder statesman, the need for the punishment to serve as deterrent to others and not lend a hand to impunity are very relevant.

The state finally urged the High Court presided over by Justice Emmanuel Amadi to dismiss the entire appeal for lack of merit and uphold the findings and decision of the Kanifing Magistrates Court.Meanwhile, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe was given until Friday to file a reply on the point of law to the state brief and the case was adjourned to the 5th of August 2010 for judgement.