*sigh* methinks the many calls for the opposition to put aside their
differences and come together are falling on deaf ears.  How sad, and
that's an understatement to say the least.  I'm just not holding out
much hope that the opposition leaders can ever unite, they've had
about 4 years to do it, and have not done it yet, so what's going to
happen in the few short months to the next election to change things?

If anything it seems the two sides are becoming more and more
entrenched in their own positions, and they and their supporters are
making further statements that are making the goal of a united
opposition more and more of a far-fetched dream instead of a reality.

And it's not these leaders who are going to suffer for this once
Jammeh secures yet another term in office.  It'll be the average
Gambian, who unfortunately it seems, these leaders care little for, or
at least, they care more about their own egoes and their own agendas
and positions than they do for the people they're claiming to speak
for and represent.  Because it's getting to the point that the
opposition is going to have to make a choice, either come together and
at least have a chance at unseating Jammeh, or stay separate and spend
the next 5 years at minimum, continuing to throw mud at each other,
etc.  And that's if Jammeh doesn't decide to arrest or imprison them
or something like that.

I hate to seem like a pecimist here but unless some kinda miracle
happens, we're not going to see a united opposition.  Not when parties
are publishing their own agendas, and other parties are publishing
their counter responses, etc., and moving forward as if there's not
even a peep or a hint of or any calls for any kind of opposition
unity.

Ginny



On 8/4/10, bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hey Ron,
>
> Please leave Kaolack out of your raw jibes; It is a greater place than your
> home village of Yirroh Koto. And don't you know that my serign hails from
> the great town of Kaolack. How dare you?!
>
> And lastly and the most important! PDOIS and UDP should now call it quits on
> their seemingly endless analysis and bickering about the NADD fall-out.
> Spilt milk is only of use to the ants. Moreover, all the leadersip of NADD
> were jointly and severally to be blamed for the collapse of NADD, of course
> some more than others.
>
> We ought to all learn from the past to build a greater future for our
> nation.
>
> Bailo
>
> --- On Wed, 4/8/10, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, 4 August, 2010, 18:35
>
>
> Daffeh, I urge you not to take this idiot seriously. His incongruous and
> disjointed phrases do not deserve a response from you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Badou from Kaolack, I know you're trying to find good reasons to vote APRC
> to make use of the voter card Yahya issued you, but take your used cars
> somewhere's else. Not here. We don't wanna hear your big mouth.
>
>
>
>
>
> Haruna. Have you filed your stories about home yet?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Wed, Aug 4, 2010 2:25 am
>
> Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #yiv597201591 #yiv597201591AOLMsgPart_1_8c1c16cf-3c33-4bb3-9838-336684c2bd4f
> td{color:black;}#yiv597201591
> #yiv597201591AOLMsgPart_1_8c1c16cf-3c33-4bb3-9838-336684c2bd4f DIV
> {margin:0px;}
>
>
>
>
>  UDP/UK Members,
>
> It is rather paradoxical  and whimsical to state that  "largeregistration of
> NADD as a political party was a disaster". Mr. Daffeh , you tend to refute
> Halifa's statement that "the registration was a constitutional requirement".
>
>
>
>  In a hindsight, I hold UDP entirely responsible for the disaster you are
> claiming here, why?  When the MOU was written and tabled out where were you,
> Daffeh and all the intellectuals of  UDP?  The UDP I used to know, equipped
> and surrounded with well educated and informed people , where are  Borro
> susso's? Where you blindfolded into signing the MOU without foreseeing these
> issues ? Why didn't you point out , raised those concerns and blatantly
> refuse the formation of NADD, hence you know the unconstitutionality of it ?
> But you accepted everything in it and even Darboe went to the court to
> deffend NADD's constitutional requirement.Why would Darboe waste his time
> ,resources and energy , knowing fully well that the verdict of the court
> will not be on their sides (NADD)?
>
>
>
> There is nothing more than intellectual suicide by an intellect who appends
> his signature to a document and he or she takes a U-turn and said it was a
> mistake (disaster). I totally find your press release disturbing and
> misleading because at this hour who will believe you and Darboe in your
> attempt to convince the Gambians? Just apologize to Gambians because you
> have betray them, period rather apportioning the blame on each other. I
> think UPD/UK would have engaged the Diasporas; and Gambian opposition at
> home with the topic reconciliation  and unity rather than precipitating the
> flames of  disunity. This is absolutely going to be dejected result of
> 2006. Where no one gains except fortifying  Jammeh's grip on power.
> Analyzing and blaming each other millions times as Joe Stated  will not help
> or bring changes for 2011.
>
>
>
>
>
> HISTORY HAS WARNED US IN 2006 AND STILL WARNING US FOR THE LAST TIME ,
> 2011.
>
> BADOU.
>
> "Abaraka allah ma sundomo yelehla"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 12:33:59 PM
>
> Subject: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
>
>
>
> 31st July 2010
>
>
>
> Press Release: - UDP/UK’s Response to Halifa Sallah’s Press Statements
>
>
>
> On the 26th June 2010, the spokesperson of PDOIS and former flag bearer of
> the National Alliance for Democracy and Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa
> Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently
> concluded Jarra Soma Congress, that the  and utterly laregistration of NADD
> as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating that the
> registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60 of the
> Constitution to back his claim. The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
> dismisses this statement as irresponsible, deceitfulcking basis. This is a
> statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to distort facts
> and hoodwink the Gambian public on the subject of what actually led to the
> collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned into a complete
> farce. Here are the facts;
>
>
>
> In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established
> NADD, the signatory parties including PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed
> will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as
> follows;
>
>
>
> ‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who
> seek to establish an alliance.......’’
>
>
>
> The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article 1
> of the same MOU, the establishment of an alliance called NADD. This is what
> Article 1 states;
>
>
>
> ‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National
> Alliance for Democracy and Development with the acronym [NADD].’’
>
>
>
> All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe
> or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an alliance. There is no single
> reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even
> by the provisions which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In
> fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD as an
> alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;
>
>
>
> ‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’
>
>
>
> Those of Article 16 are as follows;
>
>
>
> ‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’
>
>
>
> It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as an
> alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an incontrovertible fact.
>
>
>
> Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then
>
>
>
> Two conflicting statement have been advanced by Halifa as to the true status
> of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12 of his
> press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but went on to
> claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger. These are
> contradictory and irreconcilable positions, and it clearly shows that Halifa
> was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to what was
> actually envisaged by the MOU that established NADD.
>
>
>
> The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’
> hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase all together. We have
> therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of
> what was envisaged in NADD’s MOU vis-a- vis the relevant constitutional
> provisions.
>
>
>
> Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a
> requirement that NADD put up candidates in its own right and under its own
> banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit
> postulation of this under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with
> selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks about
> symbols. This is what Article 8 states;
>
>
>
> ‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential,
> National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus; provided
> that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary
> election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of
> delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each
> party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’
>
>
>
> Article 16 states the following;
>
>
>
> ‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be
> determined within one month of the coming into force of the agreement with
> the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’
>
>
>
> It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form
> part of a broad instrument, the context of which has been well defined by
> the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or
> can be deduced from the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be
> deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the MOU obsolete or
> having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and
> perverse but also inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the
> expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble and Article 1
> which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.
>
>
>
> Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor
> candidates in its own right and under its own name in any given election.
> Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by
> Halifa, it would still be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up
> candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section 60
> states;
>
>
>
> ‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant
> of an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public
> elections.’’
>
>
>
> Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of
> Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa has been making into or
> purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been
> enforceable without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words
> and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were promulgated in the context
> of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while
> still maintaining the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a
> constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent
> Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD]
> could not put up candidates in its own right and under its own name while
> still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If
> Halifa had not arrogantly rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an
> independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional
> matters, he would
>  have been better advised on this point.
>
>
>
> Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It
> presented them with two options; they could either re-negotiate the terms of
> the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should
> they desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can
> leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent parties as a vanguard
> under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential
> election. Under Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous
> agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two options to be
> adopted. This is what Article 10 states;
>
>
>
> ‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall be
> based on the principle of unanimity provided that matters of procedure shall
> be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present and
> voting. In the event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may agree
> unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’
>
>
>
> As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek a
> unanimous agreement as to which path to take. However, since PDOIS has it as
> an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle to
> the UDP and its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly
> circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to wittingly register
> NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory
> parties, and despite strong opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was
> turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the
> beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader
> described it as a ‘disaster’.
>
>
>
> It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might
> not have been a significant factor in its disintegration since there was a
> time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP
> from the organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that
> NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its
> executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the
> organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw
> required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and
> issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be
> made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision,
> and indeed they have done that and at the right time.
>
>
>
> The Supreme Court Judgement
>
>
>
> It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a
> result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which
> the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party.
> Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the
> Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the
> National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign
> political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and
> NADD the other. This is now case settled law. However, if Halifa has issues
> with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme
> Court, not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the
> Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear such matters. This
> is what Section 127 states;
>
>
>
> ‘‘The Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for the
> interpretation or enforcement of this constitution other than any provision
> of sections 18-33 or Section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and
> freedoms.’’
>
>
>
> Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no
> need to show sufficient interest- for ‘anybody who alleges that an Act of
> the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or
> omission of any person or authority is inconsistent with or is in
> contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a
> court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’
> Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the position of the
> law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either
> file an appeal at the Supreme Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh
> application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing
> him arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done
> sooner rather than later.
>
>
>
> Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral
> Commission had conceived it as such is utterly frivolous and unintelligent.
> The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are
> certainly not the custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just
> like anybody else.
>
>
>
> Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are
> able to sponsor candidates in a public election. Hence, the IEC could not
> have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and
> sponsoring candidates in public elections. It follows therefore that the
> only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the
> purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be
> registered as a political party and be deemed as such by law. As a matter of
> a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the
> establishment of an alliance, not a political party.
>
>
>
> The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful
> of certain opposition elements who are hell bent on stoking controversy and
> division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s
> politics. As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to
> be united and rally behind the main opposition United Democratic Party under
> the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011
> presidential election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of
> duty to our beloved country, the Gambia.
>
>
>
> THE END.
>
>
>
> Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
>
> Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General
>
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To
> unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
> interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the
> List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To
> unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
> interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the
> List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤