[ad_1]
The very recent UN Human Rights Committee's injunction against Senegal urging it to reconsider CREI's decision or even to re-try Karim Wade, decided just on the eve of the closure of signature collection operations. and the opening of applications, revived, unfortunately more than ever, the debate on the possibility of a return without fear of Karim Wade in Senegal but also and especially that of the possibility of its participation in the deadlines of February 2019.
Having exhausted all its rights of appeal at the national level and invoking, as among other means, the impartiality of CREI, its illegal creation, its irregular composition, the lack of remedies against its decisions, Karim and his lawyers decided to bring their fight at the level of the United Nations to be "relieved" of its conviction to repay 138 billion to the State of Senegal and to be accepted as a candidate in the presidential elections of 2019.
Senegal having signed the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations of 16 December 1966 on 6 July 1976 and having ratified it on 13 February 1978, how could it be imagined that this same Senegal, just after having been admitted to the Council of United Nations Human Rights, tries to evade the recommendations of this Committee?
Fictitious opportunity
I admire the subtlety of the approach of Karim Wade and his lawyers but, to look at it very closely, it seems that we have just witnessed, through this decision, an orchered charade against the State of Senegal. by, or a Committee that seems to totally ignore the laws and procedural rules used in Senegal, or by crooked lawyers (of the State and Karim) who played the card of connivance to put the country in a situation of political and economic uncertainty on the eve of elections already deemed high risk.
The UN Committee mainly based its decision on the arbitrary detention of Karim, the creation of a special court for the Karim case, the declaration of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Cassation and especially on "the absence appeal against the decisions of CREI.
All these arguments, raised by Karim's lawyers, were accepted by the Committee, which then concluded that the State of Senegal "sentenced and recommended" to "let Karim go".
The burning question is how did Mr Wade's lawyers have the audacity to raise these pleas before the United Nations Committee knowing that they have lawyers in front of them? defense capable of calling into question and destroying, with supporting evidence, these allegations fomented from scratch?
Be that as it may, only a plot orchestrated between at least two of these three parties and the other one playing blindly could explain the making of such a crucial decision by such a high instance in such special circumstances in the march of such a young democracy and such a fragile economy?
For us to realize, we will have to go back by recalling the procedure followed at the national level, by comparing it with the means raised before the UN body without forgetting to recall that throughout the world and particularly in the Western countries like the France and the United States, quite a few jurisdictions decide without the possibility of appealing the decisions they make.
CREI and its decisions
Against all expectations, Karim Wade's lawyers have dared to argue before the UN Committee that CREI is in fact an exceptional jurisdiction specially created in 2012 to try the enfant terrible of Dakar. So, how to understand that the lawyers of the State of Senegal, very aware of the date and the circumstances of the creation of the jurisdiction in question, did not stand up to speak to clarify things and put the light on the date and circumstances of the creation of the said court? Is it not the law of July 10, 1981 initiated, voted and promulgated under Abdou Diouf who created the Court of Repression Against Illicit Enrichment?
Most "what 'vilgus'"Senegalese would not have left such an excellent opportunity without destroying the applicants' thesis before a UN Committee that has finished spreading to the world the evidence of its ignorance of what is really happening on the side of the AKA world" third world " .
Let's say that on the basis of Article 3 of Law 81-53 referring to Article 163 bis of the Penal Code and defining what it is that illicit enrichment, CREI, in its decision of March 23, 2018 , sentenced Mr Karim Wade to six years in prison and 138 billion of our poor Cfa francs to deposit at the public treasury because precisely Mr Karim, former member of the government of Senegal, "found it impossible to justify the property he has and the lifestyle he has led and continues to lead given his known sources of income "of the country's authorities.
It is therefore a jurisdiction over thirty-seven years old that has condemned Karim Wade and not a baby court as the United Nations usually creates to judge "criminals" of the Third World.
Appeals against decisions of CREI
Mr. Wade's lawyers have also set in motion the lack of recourse against the decisions of the CREI while those of the State are rests voiceless and have absolutely nothing said on the subject! And how? Is it not under the regime of Abdoulaye Wade that the organic law 2008-35 of August 8th, 2008 was voted and, which Curiously, says in its article 2 that: "All the decisions rendered at last by all the Senegalese courts may appeal to the Supreme Court ". Unless CREI is a foreign jurisdiction sitting in the country of the Terangahis decisions can then be appealed to our Supreme Court. Or?
The time is then to ask if this law has been tested to seize our supreme judges against the decisions of the CREI?
And yet jurisprudence there has been
In the Mamadou Pouye case, the Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal of CREI's decision refusing him bail. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 4 September 2014, on the basis of Article 2 of Law 2008-35, declared its appeal admissible and ruled on the merits.
In truth, it is not only that Karim had a remedy before the Supreme Court, it is that he used it himself. Indeed, Mr Karim Wade and his "lawyers" have indeed been declared admissible from their appeal in cassation against the decision of CREI before the Supreme Court of Senegal. The arguments of Karim's defense to break the verdict of March 23, 2018, based on "the impartiality of CREI, its irregular composition, the privilege of jurisdiction" were judged unfounded. And our dear Supreme Court, in its decision of August 20, 2018 dismissed then Karim Wade in the background confirming the decision of the CREI Abdou Diouf.
And the UN Committee still believes that Karim Wade has been deprived of legal remedies then !!! Where were the lawyers of the State of Senegal, those who even put their dress to "represent" without the P our poor state Senegal?
We demand answers that must lead to investigations because the real decision of the Supreme Court has not been presented to the Committee to show the bad faith of Karim Wade's lawyers.
.
Inadmissibility or confirmation?
Karim Wade's lawyers played on another card to confuse the UN Committee. The Committee had to understand that the Supreme Court declared itself incompetent to rule on the appeal against the CREI decision. In fact, there were actually two decisions of the Supreme Court: one of August 20, 2018 declaring admissibility appeal against the decision of the CREI but dismissing the said action in substance and another August 30, 2018 declaring the Court's incompetence hence inadmissibility appeal against the order of Court class of Dakar who had even declared himself incompetent to rule on Karim's request to annul the decision of the General Directorate of Elections, which in turn had refused to admit Karim's inscription on the electoral lists on grounds that he was sentenced to a six-year prison sentence by CREI.
The action leading up to the decision of August 20 has apparently been modeled on the one that underpinned the decision of August 30 and is supposed to have been declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court.
Clearly, the UN Committee understood that only one decision was taken by the Supreme Court namely the rejection for incompetence appeal against the decision of the CREI. And there has never been such a decision. It is very apparent that there was sabotage at a very high level to try to denigrate the State of Senegal, its laws and its institutions.
All these pieces, namely the decision of the Direction of Elections, the decision of the court of Dakar, the decision of the CREI and the two decisions of the Supreme Court, should be produced before the UN Committee. To date, only the decision of the Supreme Court of 30 August 2018 appears to have been produced and was falsely presented as being directed against the decision of CREI.
In concrete terms, the UN Committee understood that the Supreme Court of Senegal has declared itself incompetent to rule on the appeal against the CREI decision. And of the fourteen million Senegalese that we are, only those who represented us on the Committee seem to associate themselves with these false allegations of Karim's lawyers.
The referral to the ECOWAS court!
Karim Wade and his gang also argued that the ECOWAS Court (which has rejected them) has lodged a claim before the UN body. This is what the law calls turpitude. The universal rule nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans was put in the drawers of the UN for Karim Wade to obtain a "condemnation" of a UN body to his favor against the State of Senegal.
The ECOWAS Court, in a case of innuendo constancy, said that it does not have jurisdiction to hear any final or ongoing judicial proceedings other than awarding damages to the plaintiff (Khalifa Sall case law). Yes, the right has been flouted in its irreducible jus and thus have been the rules of international law whose numerob objective is to maintain peace throughout the world. The Committee said everything except law and maintained everything but peace.
Other motivations of the UN Committee.
Among other rights that the Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations of December 16, 1966 wanted to guarantee, include the right to life (prohibition of death sentences), the need to be an elector and eligible, special rights for women and minorities and the right to a fair trial by providing remedies against judicial decisions depriving of rights or freedoms.
Let us first remember that the vast majority of countries that have signed this pact continue to apply the death penalty that the pact prohibits. France has reservations about the rights of minorities while the United States, which only ratified the treaty in the 92's, has expressed reservations about almost the entire pact and especially about the death penalty and the death penalty. minority rights. The countries of Islamic law have almost all declined the article on the prohibition of the death penalty.
In the particular case of Senegal, the committee mainly relied on the lack of means of appeal against the decisions of CREI and the right to elect and be elected to base its decision. However, in view of what has really happened in this Committee, it is necessary to recognize that of two things one:
– or the Committee accepts that it has taken a decision without having the necessary elements of motivation and must then conclude or rejection of Karim's application if it turns out that his lawyers have presented false documents tending to induce them in error, or to resume the procedure before them and allow the State of Senegal to be validly represented.
– Senegal seizes a higher instance for connivance between his lawyers, those of Karim Wade and the Human Rights Committee for taking a decision without any legal basis demonstrating on the part of Senegalese extreme disloyalty to the country and its institutions deserving of high treason.
It is up to the Human Rights Committee to question whether its UN peers made a mistake on Senegal for having admitted it to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The world knows this is not the case. Senegal certainly has a lot of progress to make in terms of human rights but I have no doubt that we can give lessons to a lot of countries in this area. The time has come for the United Nations to review its branches, such as the Human Rights Committee, and to ensure that countries such as Senegal, which have not made any reservations on the 1966 pact, are treated with respect.
Cheikhou AT Talla
Business Lawyer
APR Coordinator
Cincinnati USA.
Source link
