Posted by 
by Alagi Yorro Jallow
The Justice Department Authorities and law enforcement agencies are at this moment advised, as a first, proactive and preliminary step, to IMMEDIATELY expedite the pending commencement of administrative inquiry and criminal investigations that may be launched into the scandal of Mr. Melville Robertson Roberts.
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. ..” So why are the so-called social media activists adopting trial by social media, and the justice system is celebrating this? Where is the principle of presumption of innocence in the Gambia’s criminal justice system?
To get things right again in The Gambia, there has to be a bit more than the usual dose of proactive thinking. There is a reason we should retain the “presumption of innocence” clause in our constitution at all times, especially where it concerns serious crimes. Countries whose criminal justice system was not even as bad as the Gambia’s have had to adapt with new, potent weapons of administering justice. We need to adapt quickly. We know the presumption of innocence in the Gambia is a charade and provides the most straightforward loophole for social media activists to go after people on public opinion and media trial to go scot-free. It should be reversed. This whole “presumption of innocence” thing is a horrible charade!
Mr. Roberts is innocent in the eye of the law. Mr. Roberts is, in the eye of the law, presumed innocent until he is proved and found guilty. Being charged at all, however, implicates his right to a fair hearing, as many will start arguing that he should step down from office. In other words, once charged and arraigned before a judge, the likelihood is that calls will be made for him to vacate office, albeit temporarily, for integrity reasons. If, in the end, he is found not guilty, irreparable damage would have been done to his reputation and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
He has an enviable social standing in society. He is a lawyer, senior civil servant. He is presumably a husband and a father. Given the enormity of the disclosures on social media and bullying in a situation like this ( to escape public shaming, social humiliation, career ruination, and ecclesiastical ex-communication ) can be Imagined. He needs safety and security protection by institutions that exist in our society, which handle matters such as this, even as justice is awaited to be served. He needs justice like his alleged victims, who also deserve justice.
I wrote on this 2 weeks ago. THE REAL CRIME as of now is THE LYNCHING OF MELVILLE ROBERTS which the ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS seem to have bought into. Melville is indeed “INNOCENT UNTIL RPOVED GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW” – and yet after all this months of EXECUTION by SOCIAL MEDIA, he has NOT YET even arraigned in court … he has not faced a judge! Here is my piece on the case from what was published by THE STANDARD 2 weeks ago:
Sambagate Snr
6 April at 23:47 ·
IF, and it is a big IF, this is the full police report on which the Attorney General decided to charge Melville Roberts, I am baffled by the decision. I was also baffled by a facebook post by the then Interrior Minister Mai Fatty about “a female” who complained to him about being molested by Melville – and that really set the whole Social Media campaign against Melville going! What Mai did not say was that a) the ‘female’ was his wife and 2) she was a child-hood friend of Melville’s! A good lawyer, and I am sure Melville will have one, could try to get the case thrown out of court at the outset for one reason: THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MELVILLE TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. But here I would just have a very quick look at the case as published by The Standard. By the way, why are people knocking The Standard for the story – and yet the supported the MASSIVE Social Media campaign against Melville??? I think 1) The Standard publication was OK and in line with Article 10 Freedom of Expression for which the media must fight 2) “Sub-judice” rules apply to matters “before the courts” – Melville has NOT been arraigned before the court yet.
THE STATE v. MELVILLE ROBERTS
HALAKE for THE DEFENCE
The POLICE report detailed the alleged sexual encounters between Melville and at least four young women between the ages of 22 and 31, all of whom accused Roberts of rape and other sexual offences.
DEFENCE POINT 1: ALL ARE MATURE WOMEN
When the ladies lodged these complaints at the Gender and Child Protection Unit of the police, Roberts was in the United Kingdom, pursuing a Master’s degree program at Oxford University. According to the police report while Roberts was in the U.K, the police filed [at] Kanifing Magistrates’ Court 3 counts of criminal charges with a view to requesting from the UK authorities the extradition of the suspect.
DEFENCE POINT 2: WHY DID POLICE FILE POOR CHARGES JUST FOR THE SAKE OF EXTRADITION?? THERE WAS NO CASE TO ANSWER ACCORDING TO THEIR FINAL REPORT! EXTRADITION WILL NOT BE GRANTED BY A UK COURT ON SUCH POOR CHARGES.
“Victim 1”:
The police report reveals in part the following findings: “From the fact[s] of the case, it’s obvious that there was sexual intercourse between the suspect [Melville] and Victim 1 in 2017. The victim alleged that she was having romance with the suspect [Melville] and the suspect eventually instructed her to [take] off her trousers otherwise he will do it [for] himself.
DEFENSE POINT 3: “VICTIM” WENT TO MELVILLE TO “ROMANCE” HIM. ONCE THE VICTIM LEFT MELVILLE’S HOUSE AFTER A CONSENSUAL “ROMANCE” SHE DID NOT REPORT ANYTHING UNTOWARD TO THE POLICE. THE ALLEGATION’S ARE IN SUPPORT OF XXXX XXXXXX’s REVENGE/MEETOO CAMPAIGN.
She said this made her scared and she was thinking of how the suspect might have stabbed her with a knife. Therefore, she willingly removed her trousers and had sexual intercourse with the suspect. However Melville had insisted that the sexual intercourse that he had with her was consensual and he had even given her cash and driven her home. He further claimed to have exchanged light-hearted messages with her after she left his residence. The evidence further revealed that the victim did not report the case at the earliest possible time which may also possibly make the evidence defective and thereby create doubt on the evidence adduced by the victim.”
DEFENSE POINT 4: RAPED AT KNIFE-POINT, AND INSTEAD OF REPORTING THE MATTER TO THE POLICE, SHE EXCHANGES LIGHT-HEARTED MESSAGES WITH HER ASSAILANT!!!
“Victim” 2
On Victim 2, the police reports revealed that she became acquainted with Melville on Facebook and was subsequently invited to his residence on 5 October 2017 where she was allegedly raped.
DEFENSE POINT 5: WHAT DOES A WOMAN GO TO A SINGLE “ROMANTIC” MAN’S HOUSE FOR, 2 HOURS AFTER MIDNIGHT? FOR SOME BENECHIN? I SUBMIT MEMBERS OF THE JURY THAT SHE WENT FOR “ROMANCE” WHICH NOT INFREQUENTLY INVOLVES SEX.
“The victim further claimed to have informed her friend [name withheld] about her ordeals.
However, her friend’s testimony was a narration of what she was told by the victim after her alleged abuse. It is consistent that the evidence of [her friend] is nothing but hearsay evidence which the investigators could not rely on to establish the guilt of the suspect.
Melville and Victim 2 continued to exchange messages throughout the 7th to the 29th of October 2017, during which they talked about the experience they had on the night of 5 October 2017,” the police reported stated.
DEFENCE POINT 6. THIS SOUNDS LIKE XXXX XXXXXX FROM THE TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN HER AND MELVILLE RELEASED EARLIER ON SOCIAL MEDIA; AND HER STORY SOUNDS LIKE REVENGE FOR NOT GETTING A “RELATIONSHIP” BEYOND SEX FROM MELVILLE”.
“Victim” 3:
With regard to Victim 3, the police report said it has been established that she was not raped by the suspect. (“She’s alleged to have been harassed by the suspect upon visiting him at his residence in Paradise Estate where the suspect [Melville] demanded for her to scratch his head which she refused and the suspect squeezed her hand, an allegation strongly dismissed by the suspect,” the reported noted.
DEFENCE POINT 7: A “VICTIM” NUMBERS GAME … THIS WOMAN IS IN NO SENSE A “VICTIM”.
“Victim 4”:
“As for the 4th victim, she alleged that she was abused by the suspect in his house when he attempted to rape her. However, the suspect had claimed that the victim is a secret girlfriend who he had sexual intercourse with on several occasions.
DEFENCE POINT 8: “ABUSED” MEANS WHAT? “ATTEMPTED RAPE” IS NO RAPE. WHAT IS MORE, IF SHE IS MELVILLE’S SECRET LOVER, ALL THAT MELVILLE HAD DONE WAS GET FRISKY WHEN SHE TURNED UP!)
DEFENSE CLOSING REMARKS TO THE JURY:
“Members of the jury,
We are not here to judge Melville Roberts moral character. Clearly in Saudi Arabia he would have had his head cut off with a sword for even admitting to consensual sexual intercourse with someone who is not his wife. But we are in The Gambia, a Commonwealth country with Common Law principles of justice and due process. Melville has in this case subjected to “Trial by Facebook” by one of the so-called “victims”. He has in that respect been denied due process and condemned, losing his job in the process. That I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury is more than enough punishment for Melville’s MORAL failure.
But this is not a moral trial. It is not Arthur Miller’s witch trials in the Crucible of 1700s New England. This is Gambia in 2020 where conviction must be based on evidence that proves Melville “Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
The case presented to you is purely based on “she said/he said” evidence. The Defense has, in points 1-7 above, shown the “she said” part of the evidence for what it is worth … which is nothing. But even if we were to give these “victims” the benefit of the doubt, the evidence we have can only establish guilt on “a balance of probabilities” – without ANY independent evidence. Criminal guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt – not on a balance of probabilities
There is no evidence on which to convict Melville Roberts and it is your duty to find him NOT GUILTY.
Dida Jallow-Halake.