Confused committee or lawyers together?

The very recent injunction of the UN Human Rights Committee against Senegal urging it to reconsider the decision of CREI or even to try again Karim Wade, decided only on the eve of the closing of the operations of collection of signatures. and the opening of candidacies, has unfortunately revived more than ever the debate about the possibility of a fearless return of Karim Wade in Senegal, but also and especially the possibility of his participation in the deadlines of February 2019.

Having exhausted all of his rights of appeal at the national level and invoking, among other means, the impartiality of CREI, its illegal creation, its irregular composition, lack of resources against its decisions, Karim and his lawyers decided to bring their struggle to the level of the United Nations to be "relieved" of his conviction to pay 138 billion to the State of Senegal and be accepted as a candidate in the 2019 presidential elections.

Senegal signed the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 on 6 July 1976 and ratified it on 13 February 1978, as one might imagine that Senegal, been admitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council, try to escape the recommendations of this Committee?

Fictional Opportunity

I admire the subtlety of Karim Wade's approach and his lawyers, but to examine it closely, it seems that we have just witnessed a farce against the State of Senegal. by a committee that seems to totally ignore the laws and procedural rules used in Senegal, or by corrupt lawyers (state and Karim) who threw the letter of agreement to put the country in a situation of political and economic uncertainty on the eve of elections already considered high risk.

The UN Committee mainly based its decision on the arbitrary detention of Karim, setting up a special court for the Karim case, the declaration of incompetence of the Court of Cassation and especially on "the absence appeal against decisions of the CREI.

All these arguments, raised by Karim's lawyers, were accepted by the Committee, which concluded that the State of Senegal "condemned and recommended" "let Karim go."

The burning question is how did Wade's lawyers have the audacity to invoke these arguments before the United Nations Committee, knowing that they have lawyers in front of them? defense capable of calling into question and destroying, with evidence of support, these claims fomented from scratch?

Be that as it may, only an orchestrated plot between at least two of these three parts and the other playing blindly could explain the making of such a crucial decision by such a high example in such special circumstances in the march. of such a young democracy and such a fragile economy?

For us to realize this, we will have to go back by reminding the procedure followed at the national level, comparing it with the means raised before the UN, not forgetting to remember that, throughout the world and particularly in Western countries, such as France and the United States, some jurisdictions decide without the possibility of appealing the decisions they make.

CREI and its decisions

Against all expectations, Karim Wade's lawyers dared to argue before the UN Committee that CREI is indeed an exceptional jurisdiction created especially in 2012 to try the enfant terrible of Dakar. So how do you understand that Senegal's lawyers, who are well aware of the date and circumstances of the establishment of the jurisdiction in question, have not stood up to speak to clarify matters and shed light on the date and circumstances of the establishment of the said court ? Is not the law of July 10, 1981 begun, voted and promulgated under Abdou Diouf, who created the Court of Repression against Illicit Enrichment?

The most "what & # 39; vilgus & # 39;"The Senegalese would not have left a great opportunity without destroying the candidates' thesis before a UN committee that has just spread to the world the evidence of their ignorance of what is really happening alongside the AKA's" third world ".

Let us say that, based on article 3 of Law 81-53 on article 163 bis of the Criminal Code and defining what this illicit enrichment is, CREI, in its decision of March 23, 2018, sentenced Karim Wade to six years' imprisonment and 138 billion of our poor CFA francs to be deposited in the Public Treasury because precisely Mr. Karim, a former member of the Senegalese government, "found it impossible to justify ownership." he has and the lifestyle he led and continues to lead, given his well-known sources of income "from the country's authorities.

It is, therefore, a jurisdiction over thirty-seven years old that condemned Karim Wade and not a baby court, as the United Nations generally creates to judge Third World "criminals."

Resources against CREI decisions

Wade's lawyers have also set in motion the lack of recourse against CREI's decisions, while those in the state are voiceless and say absolutely nothing about it! It is like? It is not under the regime of Abdoulaye Wade that Organic Law 2008-35 of 8 August 2008 was voted and which, curiously enough, says in its article 2 that: "All decisions taken by all Senegalese courts can appeal to the Supreme Court ". Unless CREI is a foreign jurisdiction located in the country of the Terangayour decisions can then be appealed to our Supreme Court. Or?

The time is then to ask if this law has been tested to judge our supreme judges against the decisions of the CREI?

And there has also been jurisprudence

In the case of Mamadou Pouye, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal for annulment of CREI's decision denying bail. The Supreme Court, in its ruling of September 4, 2014, based on Article 2 of Law 2008-35, declared its appeal admissible and ruled on the merits.

In fact, it is not only that Karim had a remedy before the Supreme Court, he used it himself. Indeed, Mr. Karim Wade and his "lawyers" were indeed declared admissible in their appeal in cassation against CREI's decision before the Supreme Court of Senegal.. Karim's defense arguments to break the verdict of March 23, 2018, based on "CREI's impartiality, its irregular composition, the privilege of jurisdiction" were judged without fundament. And our dear Supreme Court, in its decision of August 20, 2018 fired then Karim Wade in the background confirming the CREI decision Abdou Diouf.

And the UN Committee still believes that Karim Wade was deprived of legal remedies then !!! Where were the Senegalese state lawyers, those who even dressed their clothes to "represent" without the P our poor state of Senegal?

We demand answers that should lead to investigations, because the actual decision of the Supreme Court was not 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 to be incompetent to try the appeal against CREI's decision. In fact, there were two decisions of the Supreme Court: one of the August 20, 2018 declaring admissibility against the decision of the Believed but discarding said action in substance and another August 30, 2018 declaring the Court to be incompetent, inadmissibility against the order of court Dakar class who had even declared himself incompetent to dismiss Karim's request to nullify the decision of the General Directorate of Elections, which in turn had refused to admit Karim's entry on the electoral rolls that he was sentenced to a six-year sentence of imprisonment by CREI.

The lawsuit leading to the August 20 ruling was apparently modeled on what upheld the August 30 ruling 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 by incompetence appeal against the decision of the CREI. And there has never been such a decision. It is very evident that there has been sabotage at a very high level to try to denigrate the State of Senegal, its laws and its institutions.

All of these pieces, namely the decision of the Election Directorate, the decision of the Dakar court, the decision of the CREI and the two decisions of the Supreme Court, must be produced before the UN Committee. To date, only the Supreme Court ruling of August 30, 2018 appears to have been filed and has been falsely presented as being directed against CREI's decision.

In concrete terms, the UN Committee found that the Supreme Court of Senegal had declared itself to be unfit to rule on the appeal against the CREI decision. And of the fourteen million Senegalese we are, only those who represented us on the Committee seem to associate themselves with these false allegations of Karim's lawyers.

Referral to ECOWAS court!

Karim Wade and his gang also argued that the ECOWAS Court (which rejected them) filed a complaint with the UN body. This is what the law calls turbulence. The universal rule nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans was placed in the drawer of the UN for Karim Wade to obtain a "condemnation" of a UN body in his favor against the State of Senegal.

The ECOWAS Court, in a case of consistency, said that have no jurisdiction to hear any final or ongoing judicial proceedings in addition to granting compensation to the author (Khalifa Sall case law). Yes, the right has been ridiculed in its irreducible character and therefore have been the rules of international law, whose numerob goal is to maintain peace throughout the world. The Committee said everything except the law, and kept everything but peace.

Other motivations of the UN Committee.

Among other rights that the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 wanted to guarantee include the right to life (prohibition of death sentences), the need to be a voter and eligible, special rights for women and minorities and the right to a fair trial by offering appeals against judicial decisions that deprive of rights or freedoms.

Let us first of all recall that the great majority of the countries which have signed this pact continue to apply the death penalty which the pact prohibits. France has reservations about the rights of minorities, while the United States, which only ratified the treaty in the nineties, expressed reservations about almost the entire pact and especially on the death penalty and the death penalty. rights of minorities. The Islamic law countries almost all rejected the article on the ban on the death penalty.

In the particular case of Senegal, the committee was mainly concerned with the lack of means of appeal against decisions of CREI and with the right to elect and be elected to support its decision. However, in view of what actually happened in this Committee, it is necessary to recognize that of two things one:

– either the Committee accepts that it has taken a decision without having the necessary elements of motivation and must then either conclude or reject Karim's request if his lawyers submit false documents tending to mislead them or to resume proceedings before them and allow that the State of Senegal be validly represented.

– Senegal takes advantage of a greater instance of collusion between its lawyers, Karim Wade's and the Human Rights Committee to make a decision without any legal basis showing on the part of Senegalese extreme disloyalty to Senegal. country and its institutions that deserve high treason.

It is up to the Human Rights Committee to question whether its UN peers have made a mistake in Senegal for having admitted it to the UN Human Rights Council. The world knows that this is not the case. Senegal certainly has a lot of progress in terms of human rights, but I have no doubt that we can give lessons to many countries in this area. The time has come for the United Nations to review its affiliates, such as the Human Rights Committee, and to ensure that countries like Senegal, which have made no reservations to the 1966 pact, are treated with respect.

Cheikhou AT Size

Business Lawyer

APR Coordinator

Cincinnati USA.