Let us clear the falsehood

Dear Editor,
1. The Police did not intervene because they intended to protect or enforce Pura endorsed Data fees. That wasn’t why they were there.
2. The Police did not intervene because they sought to protect the commercial interests of GSM companies against the consumer population. That wasn’t why they were there.
3. The Police did not intervene because they simply desire to oppress and deny citizens exercise of basic rights.
4. The Police did not intervene to placate NPP as is being bandied around. That’s cheap political slander.
The above are calculated disinformation intentionally spread by those who seek to arouse public contempt and hatred against established authority.
Consider the following:
1. The protest site is the home of Pura but that same building is also the home of a commercial Bank and other private offices. Protesters have no right under law to potentially block access to the building, or subject its occupants and users to fear, including the potential to adversely impact any type of harm or restraint to users of the buildings such as access to ATM machines. No one will use those ATM machines under such pernicious circumstances.
2. The protest venue is next to a foreign diplomatic mission which must be protected under international law. Should the protest lead to a breach of the peace (which is a possibility in every protest situation), the matter may become even more complicated, with unintended consequences.
3. The key legal principle is that your right to protest cannot override others’ fundamental rights to access public facilities or private businesses. This isn’t about suppressing dissent, but about maintaining the basic functioning of society while protecting constitutional rights.
4. Based on established legal principles, police would generally be justified in dispersing protesters or making arrests when they block access to public facilities or private businesses or where the potential for these are very likely, as was the case.
5. The constitutional right to peaceful protest doesn’t include the right to prevent others from accessing buildings, conducting business, or using public facilities. Where the potential for these are likely, the Police has the right to intervene. Courts have consistently upheld this distinction between protected speech and obstructive conduct.
6. Police action would be legally justified, but should ideally follow these principles:
– Warnings first: Give protesters opportunity to move to non-obstructive areas.
– Minimal force: Use only the force necessary to restore access.
7. This reflects a reasonable balance between competing rights – protesters’ right to free expression versus others’ rights to access public services, conduct business, and use public spaces. The obstruction itself, not the protest message, becomes the legal issue.
8. Protest site is in the hearts of a business district and directly along one of the most important, strategic and busiest high-ways in the country – Pipeline Road. The potential for major disruptions of all kind was likely, enabling the Police the right to intervene to protect businesses, high-way users and private citizens.
9. Well-trained police departments often try to facilitate protest while maintaining access – perhaps by designating specific areas for demonstration that don’t block entrances, or working with organizers to find alternative arrangements. This was what organizers should have negotiated in other not to overreach as they did.
10. I take note of the legitimate issues raised by E.F Small Center and other important voices on the matter. Yet, in a democracy, it is always desirable for civil society to first exhaust dialogue mechanisms, including resort to legal redress. This enhances a culture of legal consciousness while nurturing durable trust between law enforcement and civil society within a spirit of partnership for law and order and the enforcement of fundamental rights. I do not perceive it should be a discordant phenomenon at all times that set to put both sides at hostility, serving no proper purpose. The function of the Police is to serve and to protect, not to oppress, while the protesters have the right to free assembly and speech within the law. The lesson that either you obey the law or be consumed by the law, should remain the cardinal principle of law enforcement.
11. It is useful for us the citizens to appreciate that the State is us, and we are the State. Also the Government is us, and we are the Government. Peace is in everyone’s supreme interest. Law and Order is for us all and we should always strive to render public officials and institutions subject to the law, but in a manner consistent with the law and not otherwise. May Peace prevail in The Gambia
Mai Ahmad Fatty
Kuto