By Lamin Cham
The Standard lead story of Friday 18th February generated animated debate with many individuals and organisations criticising the TRRC for approving the recommendation of its amnesty committee and recommending clemency for former AFPRC vice chairman Sana Sabally who admitted responsibility for the killing of about a dozen soldiers in 1994.
In justifying its approval of amnesty for Sabally, the TRRC Amnesty Committee report stated that he already served time in prison for false crimes levelled against him, gave a full disclosure during public hearings, showed remorse, initiated and participated in reconciliation with perpetrator and that “his crimes precede the Rome Statute and cannot be applied retroactively”. The report therefore recommended that the former vice head of state do community service instead.
The committee also recommended amnesty for Zakaria Darboe and Major Bubacarr Bah. Darboe was said to have shown remorse, gave a full disclosure in his application and statement and was truthful in his application. Bah was also said to have given a full disclosure and accepted responsibility, showed remorse, and participated in reconciliation activity with his victim.
The committee stated in its report that it was aware that the Attorney General’s Chambers was going to grant immunity to another confessed killer, former soldier Alagie Kanyi and therefore referred his case to the AG’s Chambers to complete the process.
Amnesty denied
According to the committee, it denied the application for amnesty for former vice president, Isatou Njie-Saidy, because “she did not give a full, truthful disclosure” to the commission, described her role as passive whereas the commission finds that during the 10th and 11th April 2000 student demonstrations, as vice president pursuant to instructions from the former president Yahya Jammeh, she instructed Baboucarr Jatta to deploy the army, did not take responsibility and is one of the people who bear the greatest responsibility in the incident.
The committee said it denied the application for amnesty for former defence minister Edward Singhatey foremost based on a technicality.
“[His] initial letter had ‘without prejudice’ and was signed by his lawyer. [He] wrote back to his lawyer requesting that ‘without prejudice’ be removed from the amnesty application. Initial letter had ‘without prejudice’ and was signed by his lawyer. [He] wrote back to his lawyer requesting that ‘without prejudice’ be removed from the Amnesty application and the client himself should endorse the letter. [His] legal representative responded, removed ‘without prejudice’ however, still signed on behalf of client. Based on the above, the committee cannot review the application as it contradicts the process of applying for amnesty.
“Notwithstanding, even if the application was signed/endorsed by the applicant himself, although he testified, the committee is of the view that he did not give a full disclosure as he was untruthful in his testimony; showed no remorse except in his human rights violations towards Sana Sabally for which he participated in reconciliation. The commission finds Edward among one of the people who bear the greatest responsibility for the human rights violations that took place during the November 11th unlawful killings and tortures; the death of Ousman ‘Koro’ Ceesay, torture of Sana Sabally, Sadibou Hydara and Baboucarr Sanyang. As such he cannot be granted Amnesty,” the report stated.
The committee also denied the application of Edward’s younger brother, Peter Singhatey for the following reasons: “[His] initial letter had ‘without prejudice’ and was signed by his lawyer. [He] wrote back to his lawyer requesting that ‘without prejudice’ be removed from the amnesty application and the client himself should endorse the letter. [His] legal representative responded, removed ‘without prejudice’ however, still signed on behalf of client. Based on the above, the committee cannot review the application as it contradicts the process of applying for amnesty.”
The report stated that Peter did not meet the conditions for amnesty as he failed to give a full disclosure as one of the conditions; testify before the commission; submit a written statement to the TRRC; and give a full disclosure of his participation in the crimes he was found to have participated in his amnesty application.
“The commission found Peter among one of the people who bear the greatest responsibility for the human rights violations that took place. As such, he cannot be considered granted amnesty,” it stated.
