prepare and enter their defense on the adjourned date and the 1st Applicant responded saying: “I will say that our rights have been infringed by this court so I will not participate in a trial where our rights have not been protected. (…) I will therefore not participate in the proceedings”. Similarly, when the Applicants were asked the number of days they required to file their written address, the 1st Applicant responded thus: “I have said that I don’t wish to participate in this proceedings so I will not file any address. When I am convicted as I know I will, I will have something to say why sentence should not be passed on me”. Furthermore, all other Applicants who were unrepresented by Counsel were informed of their rights and options in entering their defenses in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Gambia. This was communicated to them in their different languages but they remained silent and offered no word or gesture. By implication, it can be inferred that the Applicants waived their right to defense and to be represented by Counsel of their choice. In HARUN GÜRBÜZ v. TURKEY (2019) (Application no.68556/10) the European Court of Human Rights in analyzing the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention which is in tandem with Article 7 of the African Charter and Article 14 of the ICCPR reiterated: “Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. That also applies to the right to legal assistance. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, such a waiver must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance. Such a waiver need not be explicit, but it must be voluntary and 29