Saul and other subscribers,

I had thought that you will simply acknowledge my short comment and I would
have had no option but to proceed with Part 2. However, I am compelled to
turn the cards and put you under scrutiny as a result of  your following
response:

+ACI-The onus for that falls on you though. I'm just a little worried about
getting inundated with totally irrelevant facts. The issues that myself and
Hamjatta asked are pretty clear. So really, you don't need to give us a
day-by-day political diary of the Gambia to answer these issues. That you
had nothing to do with planning/executing the coup is a given. But in your
last piece, you went to great lengths trying to prove what has never been in
dispute anyway. They  say +ACI-old habits die hard,+ACI- but if you can resist the
temptation of engaging in overkill, and just get to the meat, I'd appreciate
it. Not to get technical, but there is a concept in Accounting called
+ACI-Representational Faithfulness.+ACI- It means basically that the information
provided should have a relationship with what triggered it's generation in
the first place. Therefore, the more Representationally Faithful your
response is, the better off we'll all be. Besides, voluminous articles often
cost you your audience.  I'll personally read anything you write -however
long. But if you want to get to many out there, you may want to be cognizant
of this fact. This is just a thought.+ACI-

Who are you speaking for Saul? All the readers? Are you practising what you
are preaching? I thought that you say that every person should speak for
himself or herself. Are you now the autocratic judge who should determine
what is relevant and what is not?  You mean you are yet to acknowledge  the
narrowness of your comprehension of things and your limited power of
differentiation of what is relevant fact and what is trivial?

Let us go back to your initial reaction.

It should be  self evident to any honest reader that what I am simply doing
is to recall facts in a chronological order. To Saul, however, history is
not an evolutionary process that takes place within specific times and
circumstances. He does not seem to realise that events are interconnected+ADs-
that we cannot describe the nature of the forest by concentrating on the
individual tree. He does not seem to understand that it is my duty to
requisition the facts in a chronological order and leave the reader with no
loophole.

Disturbed by the widening vista of overwhelming facts, Saul is not even
allowing his thoughts to go through an incubation process before they are
hatched. It is clear that his fairness cannot go beyond the limits imposed
by his prejudices. This is why he made comments like this: +ACI-Yaya planned his
coup w/o Halifa Sallah+ADs- he had his own designs on how to trick the various
political players to get a measure of acceptance or at least a breathing
space. He declared all types of decrees to achieve that goal. No one had to
tell him that. So, there's no news here+ACE- My contention has to do with the
time when Yaya began to feel comfortable enough in State House, and started
generating the +ACI-I've no intention of leaving any time soon vibes.+ACI- +ACI-

Now Saul is saying that it is common knowledge that the members of the AFPRC
were responsible for manipulating their way to consolidate their rule, but
he expressed a contrary position in his charge sheet by stating that: +ACI-It is
very disturbing b/c here is a very highly intelligent person (referring to
Halifa Sallah), preying on a group of people, who at best are only of
average intelligence.  Considering that no one in the defunct AFPRC had the
education, intelligence, or foresight to be running anything, the Council
members were taking their cues from resident intellectuals like Halifa.
Their strategy was basically putting out daily +ACI-feelers+ACI- trying to gauge the
direction of public sentiment through the public's reaction to stories in
the media.+ACI-

Compare his present statement and his original allegation. Do you now
understand why I accuse Saul of either being guilty of crass stupidity or
clumsy trickery? Has he not shown that he has a double edged tongue? Saying
one thing before and another thing later.  Shouldn't one be suspicious of
his call for an amputation of the analysis?

Do you see how he is trying to evade unpleasant facts, which refute his
barren allegations, by dismissing them as irrelevant? Suffice it to say,
Saul has exposed that he has a very simplistic way of looking at things that
hampers him from deriving essence from sturdy reality. Let us take this
quotation as an example:

+ACI-But looking at the period you've focused on so far, you seem to be
suggesting that the PPP leaders (who I've never been able to stand -quite
frankly,) should have put up a fight -even if by publicly defying Yaya.....
But +ACI-standing for the constitution+ACI- empty-handed against people with
absolute power is not only quixotic, it's absolutely lunacy+ACE- Dead people
don't make very good Cheer Leaders Mr Sallah+ACEAIg-

Where have I made any comment that these people should have done this or
that? What I explained is how a historical tragedy was transformed into a
historical comedy. I simply stated the fact which is not in dispute.  It is
left to the readers to pass their judgment. I can make my judgment of their
actions and others can make their own. Saul, however, reads into situation
what is a figment of his own imagination and attributes to others very
absurd notions that are a by-product of his own mental failings.

However, Saul's capacity to overlook the significant and wallow in the
trivial attained collossal proportion when he became both defence counsel
and judge of the behaviour of the PPP cabinet ministers. Take the following
comments he made: +ACI-I can't speak for any of these people......+ACI-  +ACI-I am not a
fan of any of these men...+ACI- +ACI-I do not like many of those men, but I do not
blame them for behaving the way they did in those trying times either....+ACI-

Is this no all empty quackery? Who ask Saul to defend or speak for anyone?

As soon as he absolved these men he is not supposed to speak for, Saul
turned around to become prosecutor and judge by asserting that: +ACI-However,
you're yet to deal with your own about-face regarding the coup: first you
called it unconstitutional and published articles challenging it's legality,
but later you acquiesced to the new chiefs by declaring that the coup's
legality/illegality doesn't matter b/c the PPP was gone for good. But the
fact that you stopped publishing your newspaper at all in '94 signifies your
tacit submission to the realities of the day. Clearly you would have
endangered your life by defying the APRC govt at the time if you were to
publish. So, you obeyed the order for you to desist from publishing, (just
like the other politicians obeyed the order to desist from politicking.)+ACI-

Interesting, isn't it?

Saul, you are beginning to sound very funny and your credibility is
beginning to be at stake. First and foremost, one can see that Saul is
taking truth to be independent of time and had quickly made a mental leap
from the period where everything is now evident to raise doubts about a
period which I am yet to deal with. I hope you will allow to make my defence
of what happened with FOROYAA before you pass your judgment since you claim
that you don't have all the evidence. Or do you?

Secondly, even if we were to accept Saul's allegations, he would still be
refuting his charge. Saul started by accusing me of being a manipulator with
superior intelligence who continued to mastermind the AFPRC's consolidation
of power only to argue now that in fact we were very helpless political
figures who could not even publish a newspaper and had to change the name
because of the might of the AFPRC. So what Saul is  now saying is that I was
not the master manipulator after all, but a victim under the jack boot of
the men in arms.

What then is Saul really out to prove? That I was a manipulator or that I
condescended to the AFPRC? As one can see, his power of differentiation of
the charge has been blunted by the overwhelming facts that he wants to sweep
under the carpet. This is not all. He proceeded to clumsily look for ways
and means of giving excuses for the PPP leadership and try to attribute to
me what I have not said and then argue vehemently to show the irrationality
of what is a by-product of his own erratic mind.

Saul proceeded to display collossal childlishness when he raised the
following contentions:

+ACI-Regarding Jawara, Bakary Darbo and Saihou Sabally, I'm not a fan of any of
these men, but my understanding from Jawara's interview is that he was led
to believe that getting on the US naval vessel was a tactical retreat.
Something of a strategy planning session. He has since indicated that things
would have been different if he knew the Americans weren't going to help
either directly, or by asking Abdu Joof. I can't speak for any of these
people, but that's what I've gathered from Jawara's numerous interviews on
the subject. Maybe some one out there can take up the challenge. But, in
fairness to Jawara, he did not just abandon the country like you seem to be
suggesting. Bakary Darbo deluded himself into thinking that he could talk
the Jammeh camp into handing back power. We all know how that went.+ACI-

It is amazing that a person who claims to has contempt and disdain for
ineptitude would have such simplistic notions. Is it not clear that Saul is
an expert in overlooking the significant and dwelling on the trivial?

What is governance all about? Is it not about institutions, and the
viability or unviability of those institutions? If Saul was interested in
good governance and the efficient management of a state, what questions
would he have posed if somebody told him that a head of state made a
decision on the basis of the advice of a foreign government to leave a
country and fail to return when his expectations were not met? What should
happen in a state which is not personified? Would one not expect a cabinet
which is prepared both for normal times and emergency? Wouldn't one expect
the institutions set up to handle emergencies to start working as soon as an
emergency situation comes into being? If what Saul is saying is what
actually happened, and it is not safe to take Saul's word as accurate since
he said he cannot speak for them, one would wonder what type of government
was in The Gambia in 1994. One would also wonder how Saul, who holds
ineptitude in government with such contempt or disdain, would transform
himself into an apologist.

I hope Saul will bear in mind that everything he is writing is history
which we intend to publish for the Gambian readers at home. It is therefore
best for him to allow his thoughts to incubate before allowing them to
hatch.

Let me proceed with Part 2.


Halifa Sallah.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------