By Fatou Sowe
The Supreme Court of The Gambia, Wednesday morning entertained arguments from lawyers from both sides in the civil suit instituted by the Gambia Press Union (GPU) against the Government of The Gambia challenging the constitutionality of the laws that criminalize defamation, publication of false news and sedition.
In advancing her submission before the court, Lawyer Hawa Sisay-Sabally for the plaintiffs stated that her clients have invoked the original jurisdiction of the court and are challenging particular sections in the Criminal Code that deals with sedition, defamation and publication of false news.
She said the plaintiffs seek for the court to strike out those provisions because they criminalize speech, do not pursue a legitimate aim and they are disproportionate. She submitted that maintaining such provisions in the laws is an attempt to confuse the journalists who wouldn’t know what words amount to sedition and such will lead to prosecutors using a subjective views of interpretation in a given circumstance.
She said they rely entirely on the brief filed by the plaintiffs. “I urge this honourable court to hold that these provisions are unconstitutional and they do not deserve a space in our statutes.” She finally urged.
For his part Lawyer Binga D for the state/respondent started by telling the court that the attorney general should have appeared today but due to tight schedule the AG could not make it to the court.
He informed the court that the AG has conceded to all the laws challenged expect that of publication of false news saying that there is a right to freedom of speech, however, he added the said right is not absolute.
He submitted that the nature of false news is such that it can threaten national security and can cause social panic in many instances as a result the law on false news is naturally made to protect national security. He added that the aim of the said law is legitimate as the effects of false news are grievous.
He said the basis of the provision on publication of false news seeks to protect the society from chaos.
At that juncture he was interrupted by the judges who asked him questions on whether publication of false news is a strict liability or not? And for him to tell the court why civil remedies are not sufficient for publication of false news? Lawyer Binga’s response in brief was that these questions can be answered based on a given circumstance.
He finally submitted that the particular section181 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code is not unconstitutional as suggested by the lawyer for the plaintiffs. The court then decided that the judgment on this matter is preserved until the next session of the court.
