By Solo,

The Giboro/Jidda land crisis which has been going on since the first republic should be food for thought for the government of the day. The two sister villages have been disputing over a stretch of land since 1992 each claiming ownership of the land. The two villages have done everything to settle the problem amicably through administrative channels but to no avail.

When the coup came, the two villagers especially the small village of Jidda has done so much to settle the problem through administrative means but because of bureaucratic red tape they could not make headway. They had gone from one chief to another and one commissioner to another who would promise them of talks that would solve the problem but this has never been done. They have even written letters to chairman of the AFPRC to have government intervention to solve their problems.

It is also an open secret that the ruling party always uses disputes like this between local people to serve their political purpose and this is why local disputes hardly reach the courts because of the empty promises made by the authorities to those in dispute.

This reporter visited the two villages a month ago and felt the tension brewing over the crisis. So it is not a surprise that 86 men are being arrested on the 31st of January 2010 and detained at several police stations like Yundum.

Now the 86 villagers are arraigned in court before Magistrate Emmanuel A. Ahmadi of the Brikama magistrate Court. Accused persons all pleaded not guilty to all the four counts proffered against them.

Count 1 states that the accused persons conspire to commit felony contrary to section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It further states that on the 31st day of January 2010 between the two villages in Western Region, Modou Jatta and 86 others conspired to commit felony and refused to follow divisional orders.

Count 2 states that on the same day (31 January) between the two villages Modou Jatta and 86 others disobey a lawful order by the governor and other authorities by unlawfully gathering at a restricted place between Giboro and Jidda thereby commit an offence.

On Count 3 it is stated that on the same day between the two villages Modou Jatta and others were armed with machetes, threatening to assault, injure or kill thereby commit an offence.
 
Count 4 states that on the same day between the two villages Modou Jatta and 31 others were found in possession of charms and jujus for the purpose of protecting or preventing themselves of any harm against them by their opponents.

Interestingly enough, when count 4 was read by the clerk, the magistrate as well as the defence counsels opined that count 4 is baseless.
ASP Samateh, representing the Inspector General of Police (IGP), however maintains that Count 4 is valid and should not be amended but the magistrate insisted and told the prosecution to amend the count which he promised to look into at the next court sitting.

The Police prosecutor applied for an adjournment to call for witnesses and the two defence counsels did not object to the application. The defence counsels applied for bail on behalf of their clients and Magistrate Ahmadi, accordingly granted them bail. The bail sum of D300, 000 with one Gambian surety who must deposit his/her national identity card was the bail condition of the magistrate.

He further ruled that all the accused persons are restricted not to go to the said land in dispute between the two villages and that anyone found breaching this order will be arrested and taken to remand again. 
The case was adjourned to 16 February 2010 for hearing.

The premises of the court were surrounded by Police Intervention Unit (PIU) personnel who are armed with riot gears. Many said if the authorities were serious in solving local disputes without trying to gain political capital out of them, such problems would never come to courts. The victims said going to courts is very expensive for them considering the distance between Giboro Kuta and Brikama and the time consumed during the time. The worse thing is that the case before the court will not address the crisis between the two sister villages since the case is a criminal one which has nothing to do with who actually owns the said disputed piece of land in question.