The plaintiffs expect Judge Mamadou Yakham Keïta to deliver to them as soon as possible the act of judgment rendered last Thursday, so that they can appeal. It is, in their mind, to correct the errors of the judgment in the first instance.
The prosecution and the civil parties have started a new battle, this time with judge Mamadou Yakham Keïta. It is a question of obtaining from this magistrate, the judgment document as soon as possible in the verdict rendered in the defamation lawsuit brought against Sonko by Minister Mame Mbaye Niang.
Mame Mbaye Niang and the public prosecutor had announced, as soon as the judge’s decision was made public, their decision to appeal. The Minister of Tourism, who wanted 29 billion CFA francs in damages, considered the 200 million francs allocated to him by the judge derisory.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office, for its part, did not appreciate that the two-year sentence it was aiming for against the defendant was reduced to a 2-month suspended sentence. The chronicle of Madiambal Diagne, on page 3, looks back on certain events of the judgment which took place on Thursday March 30. The most certain thing to date is the unease that the verdict of Judge Mamadou Yakham Keïta has installed within the judiciary. It has been heard that the fact is that it is President Moustapha Fall who insisted with Judge Keïta, that he ensures that the judgment document is available to the parties as of today, Monday, so that they can appeal. It seems that the judgment of Solomon by magistrate Yakham Keïta did not make many happy, especially on the side of the plaintiffs. These recriminations, which are not yet formulated in a loud and intelligible voice, nevertheless create a certain tension in the Temple of Themis, because even the president of the jurisdiction, Moustapha Fall, is doubted.
His peers wonder why, once notified of the withdrawal of Judge Pape Mohamed Diop, Moustapha Fall did not step in to preside over the session, as is usually the case in similar controversial cases. It is said that Mamadou Yakham Keïta sought to sit in for Judge Fall to obtain the presidency of this hearing in place of his colleague, claiming that he wanted to « preserve the honor and credibility of the judiciary » undermined by Ousmane Sonko and his lawyers. Those who expected a severe sentence against the accused remained unsatisfied, and asked themselves questions.
Among the most recurrent, there is the need that Judge Keïta felt to deliver his verdict on the spot, without even pretending to consult his assessors. A jurist consulted by Le Quotidien indicated that “in all law schools, when there are controversial issues, in which several lawyers are opposed, it is not advisable to judge on the bench. It is recommended that judgment be reserved. Judgment on the bench can only be understood when there is reason to rule on provisional release; and this is done in order not to delay the release of a defendant any longer than necessary”. So why did you want to treat this defamation case as a case of flagrante delicto? Ask those who contest the verdict of Magistrate Yakham Keïta.
By Mohamed GUEYE / mgueye@lequotidien.sn
- Translation by Ndey T. SOSSEH
