The ongoing inquest into the death of Omar Badjie who died following an alleged encounter with police on 26 September, continued on today with the second witness testimony heard behind closed doors.
Magistrate Anna O. Mendy decided to hold the proceedings in Chambers (privately), restricting access to journalists and the general public, allowing only the witness, the family’s legal representative, and two family members to attend. No explanation was given to journalists for the decision.
The inquest, which is a fact-finding inquiry to determine the cause and circumstances of Badjie’s death, was initially open to the public for the testimony of the first witness, Chief Superintendent Lamin Cham and adjourned for today at 11:00 am.
However, the inquest which was set to continue today, October 13th, at 11:00 am, for the hearing of the second witness. Before proceedings commenced, Counsel A.J. Njie, representing the family informed family members and the press that the Magistrate had decided to move the hearing from the open courtroom to her chambers.
Counsel Njie informed the family that he will object to the decision but at 12:00 pm when the case was called up, only the police officers, two family members, and the family’s counsel were invited into the chambers of Magistrate Mendy. Journalists and other interested parties were left waiting in the empty courtroom with no court staff present.
When journalist Nicholas Manneh questioned about the sudden change, a court staff confirmed the restriction, stating that the matter “should be held in chambers, not in the open courtroom (public).”
Counsel A.J. Njie later confirmed that the hearing is proceeding in the Magistrate’s private chambers. He confirmed that his objections to the inquest being heard in-camera were overruled by Magistrate Mendy in the chambers.
Counsel Njie stated that he submitted to the court that there was a public interest for the matter to be heard in open court. He argued there is a presumption that all hearings should be public, a right that can only be displaced by statute—such as in trials involving children or where national security is at stake.
He relied on the persuasive authority of Macpherson v Macpherson in his submission. Furthermore, he asserted the press had a right to disseminate information to the public regarding the inquest.
“The case is proceeding in the chamber,” Njie confirmed, adding that he had objected, but his objection “was overruled.” When asked about an appeal, Njie indicated that considering the anguish of the deceased person’s family, such a recourse would not be sought at this time.
The inquest will now continue behind closed doors, leaving the journalists and public reliant on statements from the few invited parties for any details on the unfolding testimony.
Under the constitution the use of an “in camera” session usually requires compelling legal grounds, such as protecting vulnerable witnesses or national security, with the court having to demonstrate that the restriction is necessary and proportionate to ensure the proper administration of justice.
By Kexx Sanneh.
