By Sanna Camara
The complete impunity with which Gambian state security services have committed numerous serious human rights violations against the people of Gambia over many years reflects fundamental disregard for citizens’ most basic human rights, a rights report has said.
An independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all, in its 89-page report released on Thursday indicted the Gambia government over various and diverse cases of human rights violations, abuses and non-conformity to national and international standards.
“The Gambian government has an obligation under international law to protect its people from abuses by its security forces and others. This includes conducting prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all credible allegations of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture and other abuses,” the Human Rights Watch Report said.
No investigations into abuses
It further recommends that all those found to have violated the law, regardless of position or rank, “should be prosecuted as appropriate before a competent and independent court that meets international fair trial standards.”
Human Rights Watch said it found that, despite widespread allegations of serious abuses committed by the state security forces, “very few investigations have been conducted, and to the knowledge of Human Rights Watch…”
“No members of the NIA, NDEA, police or paramilitary groups are known to have been convicted or otherwise held to account for torture, killings or other serious violations,” the found out.
The Report quoted the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions as saying that there’s legal gap governing the conduct of the NIA and, equally, sanctioning their abuses.
“And the public perception that the institution operates behind a veil of impunity and that, ultimately, it has the power to exercise unrestrained control over the lives of Gambian citizens, makes the lodging of complaints of misconduct by its agents all the more implausible.”
For example, in 2011 and 2012, four NIA officers – Lamin Darboe, Ebrima Drammeh, Edrisa Jobe and Omar Jammeh – were prosecuted on charges of conspiring to cause injury and unlawfully wounding two people in their custody in May 2009.
“They allegedly beat the men with fists, electric cables and metal bars. All four were acquitted on November 14, 2012,” the Report noted.
Institutional oversight
One lawyer also told Human Rights Watch they knew of “just a handful” of cases brought against NIA officials for torture: “There is infighting within NIA factions or the police, and so they implicate each other in cases. It is more like a witch hunt, except for political reasons, than an attempt to pursue justice.”
The Gambia is yet to set up a human rights commission –an institution that could help to facilitate state investigations into rights violations and protect citizens’ rights.
The Human Rights Unit within the Gambian Police Force, tasked with investigating alleged human rights abuses by the police, routinely fails to fulfill its mandate. The unit does not have jurisdiction over the NIA, NDEA or the military.
The UN Special Rapporteur on torture reported that, “Only one case has been reported to the Human Rights Unit, and it concluded that the injuries suffered by the complainant were caused by the fact that he resisted arrest.”
Impunity, impunity, impunity
On April 10 and 11, 2000, police fired live rounds into groups of students protesting the alleged torture and killing of fellow student Ebrima Barry by members of the Brikama Fire Department, and the alleged rape of a 13-year-old schoolgirl by a police officer.
“Over two days in Greater Banjul, security forces killed 14 people, including 6 children,: the report stated.
A national commission of inquiry set up to investigate their deaths concluded that state security were responsible for the deaths, the Report stated, adding: “But no one was ever brought to account for these killings.”
Victims of human rights abuses rarely seek redress in the courts because of the widespread fear of retaliation by the security forces, and to a lesser extent, because of the perceived lack of independence of the judiciary, The Report maintained.
Citizens’ seeking redress
“The UN Special Rapporteur on executions found that “citizens are reluctant to denounce abuses, engage legal services or seek redress, even for the most serious violations, including disappearances, torture or probable executions,” It indicated.
One lawyer told Human Rights Watch that lawyers in the country steer clear of any cases that could be considered controversial:
“A lot of lawyers refuse cases because of fear; some of them shy away from criminal law altogether. I am worried because of the atmosphere of fear that surrounds the whole country, especially when working in the human rights field. I don’t feel that safe, but I’ve had no direct threats or harassments,” it stated.
Several courageous lawyers have nonetheless strived to represent victims of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance.
In several cases, their efforts have led to acquittals and the habeas corpus petitions they have filed have led to the release of detainees.
Operating outside the law
“A further problem in ensuring redress stems from the fact that elements within the NIA, the presidential guard, the Jungulers and other paramilitary groups operate almost completely outside of the law,” it stated.
A former criminal court judge, lawyers, former intelligence officials, and victims themselves told Human Rights Watch that men from these units behave as if they are above the law.
A former senior magistrate told Human Rights Watch that members of these groups regularly disobey court orders to allow acquitted defendants to go free and to free detainees who have been held beyond the 72-hour detention limit:
“The NIA has powers to do whatever they want. These are intimidation tactics, they do not care. They are outside of the court’s jurisdiction. They can arrest judges if they want. They do not obey court orders. The orders are just formalities, you know they are not going to obey it but you do it anyway, for the record.”
The Indemnity (Amendment) Act, introduced in 2001, allows the president to grant amnesty to any person, including members of the security forces, accused of misconduct during unauthorized gatherings or other emergency situation.
“This also discourages people from reporting abuses committed by security forces and seeking redress for crimes committed during the country’s 1994-1996 military rule,” the report added.