[allAfrica.com] `Freezing Assets Shouldn't Necessarily Lead to Confiscation' Baba Jobe Challenges UN Lawyer Fatty Set to Build Up Case Against World Body The Independent (Banjul) NEWS September 24, 2004 Posted to the web September 24, 2004 By Sana Camara Banjul Baba Jobe is challenging the United Nations Security Council to provide incontrovertible evidence sufficiently establishing him as a war criminal at the centre of an alleged arms and diamond trafficking racket, which funded the war effort in Sierra Leone. An exclusive interview with The Independent Tuesday provided Lawyer Mai Fatty an opportunity to put across the wishes of his client to launch sorties at the United Nations for acting against him (Jobe) when evidence suggesting his guilt over arms trafficking and diamond smuggling "are still far from being found". Using instructional notes from his client, Lawyer Fatty described UN action against Baba Jobe as a damp squib, which has so far scandalously pretended that his client was beyond doubt guilty for crimes he was alleged to have committed. He said with all the vast resources of international intelligence at their disposal the UN was still unable to gather conclusive evidence establishing in crystal-clear terms (convincing the whole world) that his client should be prosecuted over his alleged role in the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia. He said despite the introduction of punitive measures against Mr. Jobe, the lack of convincing proofs to sufficiently incriminate him reinforces why his client should still be treated as a mere suspect who may or may not be guilty of the crimes he is alleged to have committed under international law. Fatty argued that his client is not a citizen of any of the countries that were at war, neither did he manufacture weapons, or own weapons-transporting carriers. He said the United Nations were far from establishing, the direct involvement of his client in either of the wars and it was necessary for the Gambian public to appreciate that although Mr. Jobe is designated by the Security Council under a travel ban list which in effect prevented him from traveling to territories with UN membership so as to thoroughly investigate him, they have taken measures against him that already unfairly hold him guilty. About a list of frozen assets purportedly belonging to his client, Lawyer Fatty said although the UN Security Council under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1521 and Resolution 1532 obliged the Gambia Government to co-operate with, the action should be confined to Baba Jobe's properties and not others in his trust or belonging to members of his family. He said it was wrong for the UN resolutions to sanction such actions that culminated in the eviction of members of his client's family from their property. Lawyer Fatty described this as a "mis-execution of the resolution and over- abusing it in very injurious ways for other members of the Jobe family ". He said there exists exception in the government executing the resolution order, which under international law should prevent them from making a wholesale freezing, wrongfully depriving him and his family. He argued that Resolution 1532 provides for exception to those assets that are determined to be necessary for basic survival, including payments of food stuff, mortgages, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurances premiums, children's school fees and utility charges among others. He said this also includes assets or economic resources that are determined to be under judicial administration. He also said it was important to understand that the resolution doesn't necessarily imply that Baba Jobe's family should be stripped or deprived as suggested by paragraph 4 of Resolution 1521. Lawyer Fatty said although he cannot judge whether the Gambian authorities were happy with executing the freezing order against Jobe, he said he could not fail to realise the near-relish with which the order was carried out by members of the government. Baba Jobe's counsel believes it was necessary for the authorities to closely scrutinise the tone of the resolution's language and emphasised that executing an order to freeze assets does not translates to seizing and evicting. "In the legal profession when you freeze assets, it comes under a certain judicial determination - a temporary order. If however, you go to the extreme by putting a whole family on the streets it means a different kettle of fish altogether. I think the resolution did not contemplate that, because it makes expressed exclusion of basic expenses that are necessary for survival and maintenance of a family including, family feeds, medical bills, taxes and other basic necessities. I believe by implication, it would instruct for putting the family on the streets" he argued. Mai Fatty, who is the lawyer with specific instructions to represent Mr. Jobe in this matter, said, "there are several ways to go after assets in order not to be over-reached in the event that you succeed in making claims. Freezing my client's assets is just that type of order, like any order that empowers the court to go after assets of litigants anywhere they may be found in the world. It simply means that if there exists any substantial evidence upon which (my client) can be indicted then the assets under his ownership have to used for the benefit of the government and people of Liberia or Sierra Leone. The order in essence is only extending protection over my client's assets until they are to determine his involvement in (alleged) arms trafficking. If they are unable to substantiate their allegations, then the assets remain my client's. If it is to confiscate, that is absolute; but instead, my client has been temporarily deprived pending the outcome of the investigations" he outlined. Lawyer Fatty said he wouldn't underestimate the capability of the Security Council Expert Committee on Liberia to acquire material evidence against his client, "but it is wrong so far to pretend that Mr. Jobe is guilty of arms-trafficking if there is no sufficient, tangible and concrete evidence to indict him as a war criminal. They are yet to do that, and I doubt if they ever will". Asked about his views over reports that Baba Jobe's frozen assets are being used by state security agents, Lawyer Fatty said it was unlawful for anybody, even the state, to use those assets in question. "The state is only the custodian of the order and so if frozen assets like vehicles are still running in the streets, then the government is in itself in serious breach of the resolution" he posited.   =============================================================================   Copyright © 2004 The Independent. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). =============================================================================