Mr Nyang,

Thanks for sharing Halifa's response  to Freedom's Editorial.  We await the
second part.  I like the following statement from the Freedomnewspaper's
Editor which shows maturity and poise:

*"The said editorial was penned in good faith without malice, or ill-will.
[...]Ours was to promote a national dialogue, with the view of getting the
true story about the actual situation of NADD."*

This should be the spirit.  Keep the dialogue focused and substantive.

Best,

Mboge



On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>
> PART ONE OF HALIFA'S RESPONSE TO FREDOM'S EDITORIAL
>
> Hello Pa,
>
> Thank you for having the courage to speak your mind. At least you are
> different from people who hide behind corners to say the very things you
> have written while pretending to be reserving their opinion so as not to
> harm the interest of opposition unity. Needless to say, you also have one
> rear virtue which others need to emulate. In short, you do apologise when
> you discover that your earlier impressions are misconceived.
>
> As a public figure I am accountable to the public for all my actions in the
> public space. Even my actions in the private domain are not spared. I accept
> criticism or scrutiny in good faith.
>
> Such criticisms can only elicit one of two responses. On one hand, it would
> enable me to rectify a mistake, if one has been committed, and thus make it
> possible for me to become a better person. On the other hand my response
> could help others to acknowledge their misconceptions and thus earn me their
> greater respect and understanding.
>
> You have raised two fundamental issues of concern. You questioned the
> legality of the co-existence of NADD with other political parties like
> PDOIS, PPP and NDAM before its leader withdrew his support. Apparently you
> consider this to be unconstitutional and invited Constitutional lawyers in
> general and me in particular to clarify issues. I have paused to see whether
> any constitutional lawyer would come to your rescue but to no avail. I must
> now give a response because of the compelling circumstances engendered by
> the utter silence of your constitutional lawyers. I don’t think any of them
> consider it relevant to rise up to your challenge to clarify the obvious.
>
> Secondly, you claim that I am still parading myself as flag bearer and
> leader of NADD. You consider this to be unethical and have thus called on me
> to resign from the post.
>
> First and foremost before quoting your very words and subject them to
> analysis I would like to express my surprise that the Editor of a famous
> Online Newspaper like yours, which is considered to have agents even in the
> bedrooms of  government officials could have failed to be cognizant of  the
> simple and elementary truth that the Supreme Court of The Gambia, the
> highest court in the land, has asserted with all the legal authority at its
> command that NADD, PDOIS, PPP,NDAM,UDP and NRP are all distinct political
> entities with the Constitutional Right to exist. Only a constitutional
> Lawyer who is walking on his head will tell you anything different. The law
> recognises the legality of all these political entities.
>
> Furthermore, you are confused about the relation between NADD and the other
> political parties like PDOIS, PPP and NDAM. The answer is simple. When the
> Supreme Court decided that NADD, PDOIS, PPP, NDAM, UDP and NRP were distinct
> political parties the five political parties simply made commitments to
> support NADD under which they vowed to co-exist as equals. All of them
> agreed to participate in elections under NADD ticket. In order to ensure
> their sovereign equality in decision making in NADD each partner party
> simply deployed equal number of executive members to join NADD for the
> transition period. These members could resign and the parties could also
> withdraw their commitment to the  partnership with NADD and go on their own.
> This is what happened with the UDP and NRP before the Presidential elections
> of 2006 and NDAM after the National Assembly elections of 2007. I sincerely
> cannot understand why it is difficult for you to recognise the legality of
> the co-existence of NADD and those parties making commitment to support
> NADD. Let me give you some examples to convince you.
>
> When UDP and NRP withdrew their commitment to NADD they also formed an
> alliance where NRP simply agreed to support another party, UDP. In the same
> vein NCP has also accepted to support APRC. In the case of NADD the parties
> which gave support are equal and their members are equally entitled to seek
> candidature through consensus or a primary in its name. No party is an
> underling of the other in supporting NADD.  This is the ingenuity in
> creating NADD as an Umbrella party.
>
> It is amazing that you have nothing to say about Alliances where one Party
> becomes an underling of another but prefers to call for the de-registration
> of an alliance which guarantees the equality of all parties that are
> signatories to its memorandum of understanding. It is equally startling that
> you see a conflict of interest in the  co-existence of NADD and PDOIS, PPP
> and NDAM to the point of calling for its de-registration but do not  seem to
> see a conflict of interest in the NRP accepting to support UDP or NCP
> accepting to support APRC. Now, may I ask you where lies the conflict of
> interest between NADD and the other parties which are committed to its
> memorandum of understanding? The NADD came into being by relying on the
> convergence of principles that all parties could subscribe to without
> negating their own party principles. However, all other alliances are based
> on one party putting its own agenda and principles on ice and render support
> to the principles and policies of another without any conditionality. You
> see a conflict of interest in the NADD alliance but not in the other
> Alliances.
>
> You also called the IEC to do its homework and put an end to what you
> consider an illegal alliance. It is amazing that you did not do your home
> work to know the essence of the ruling of the Supreme Court before making
> your call. If you did your home work you would have realized that the
> present members of the IEC have no moral authority to de-register NADD
> because of their failure to continue the work of their predecessors who had
> earlier drafted rules aimed at giving more concrete expression to the
> Constitutional provision providing for mergers so that there would be no
> ambiguity or uncertainty in how to proceed to establish alliances.
>
> Pa, if you had done your homework you would have known that the issue of
> the future of NADD hinges on the rules the IEC is going to establish
> regarding mergers and coalitions. The existence of the law would have
> enabled PDOIS to determine whether it could continue to operate under NADD,
> since it has provided a victorious candidate for both  National Assembly and
> Council seats in Wuli or fully assess the full implication of its withdrawal
> from NADD. A little home work done would have enabled you to know that I had
> proposed for a convening of a meeting of the Inter-party committee just
> after the Council Elections, which marked the end of a whole electoral
> cycle, comprising Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections, to
> strategise on the demands and urgencies of the up-coming electoral cycle. A
> principal agenda among the urgencies highlighted is the need to review and
> promulgate regulations prescribing the legal personality of any merger,
> alliance or coalition. This is the demand that all progressive Gambians
> should add their voices to. Hence, no progressive Gambian would invite the
> IEC to give legitimacy to its own failure to develop the electoral laws on
> the question of alliances, in accordance with the demands of political
> parties and constituencies. In short, the objective of the IEC is to create
> the legal environment for the proper establishment of all political entities
> including mergers and alliances and their dissolution. That task has not
> been fulfilled. Laws that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society
> are those that enhance freedom of political association of all dimensions.
> It stands to reason that, where a government eradicates the 50 percent
> ceiling for electoral victory and thus create the possibility of winning an
> election without earning the consent of the absolute majority of voters,
> through the division of the opposition, it is necessary to have laws which
> provide for alliances and mergers of opposition parties to counter such
> undemocratic motives of amending constitutional provisions. It is strange
> that you are not advocating for the enactment of electoral laws providing
> for alliances, mergers and coalition but seem to inciting the IEC to
> dismantle the only alliance in the country based on agreed principles and
> acknowledgement of the sovereign equality of all parties. Allow me to take
> leave of this point by asserting without equivocation that your charge that
> NADD is a deceptive and illegal political merger is based on ignorance and
> misconceptions. It has no iota of truth and only a constitutional lawyer
> with an expertise in writing fiction will back your assertions.
>
> One puzzle that some people are still unable to unravel is why NADD still
> exists when the PDOIS political force appears to be the only active element
> in it. The reason is as plain as noon day. The memorandum of understanding
> of NADD called envisaged participation of its signatories in Presidential,
> National Assembly and Council Elections under the NADD ticket. For your
> information, after the Presidential elections the results were analysed by
> the NAAD leadership. The results revealed that the vast majority either
> abstained or voted for the opposition. It became evident to us that there
> was still chance to control the National Assembly if tactical unity was
> effected among the opposition  parties. Specifically, I was convinced that
> if we sold the tactical agenda to the people  Either  Dembo Bojang or Rambo
> could have won in Bakau, Halifa Sallah could have won in SerreKunda Central,
> Kemeseng Jammeh, in Jarra West; Lamin Waa Juwara, in Niamina Dankunku; Hamat
> Bah could have taken Saloum and  Sidia Jatta Could have won  and did infact
> win in Wuli West Constituency. In our investigation we also discovered that
> many Independent candidates could win in Jokadu, Kombo South, Niamina East,
> Foni Bintang. Could you imagine what type of National Assembly we would have
> had if you even had Dembo Bojang or Rambo, Halifa Sallah, Kemeseng Jammeh,
> Hamat Bah, Lamin Waa Juwara and Sidia Jatta in Parliament? Do you see the
> point? Are you convinced of the ineptitude of most of our critics who do not
> think holistically to evolve relevant strategies and tactics to shape the
> destiny of this country or do you want me to proceed to expose their barren
> conception?
>
> On second thought would you still maintain your earlier view that NADD
> should have died after the Presidential elections? I Certainly do not think
> so  No sincere Gambian would disagree that the tactical Alliance we
> suggested was a legitimate one. Who then should you accuse of insincerity
> and lack of principles? We agreed to have a National Assembly which would
> not be a rubber stamp. We formulated the plan to effect a tactical Alliance
> so that all opposition forces would give support to the strongest candidates
> who could take on the APRC candidates. We backed this principle by not
> putting up candidates in Jarra West and Saloum. In two constituencies where
> the UDP now has seats the MPs acknowledged the effort of NADD activists.
> This is particularly true for the UDP MP for Sami Constituency.
>
> On the other hand, NRP however, did  put up a candidate in Niamina Dankunku
> and UDP did put up a candidate in SerreKunda Central. In the same vein they
> either put up candidates against some Independent Candidates or called on
> their supporters not to give support to them. Let me highlight concrete
> examples, the people of Niamina East approached NADD to put up a Candidate.
> They later agreed that if he stood as an Independent candidate he was more
> likely to win. I personally deprived my campaign of funds and assisted
> Ebrima Marenah. He ended up with 2041 votes which was 542 votes short of
> victory. The UDP did not put up a candidate but the Chairman in his own
> village of Kudang made it no secret that they would not support his
> candidature. If there was a tactical alliance he would have won. In Jokadu,
> the elders came to seek advice on the ticket Ousman Jallow should contest
> under to avoid conflict of interest between the two alliances. I suggested
> that he should  go on an Independent Ticket and I would personally finance
> his campaign. The UDP decided to put up a candidate in Jokadu. Ousman came
> up with 2089 votes which was 630 votes short of victory. On the other hand
> the UDP candidate had 643 votes which if added to Ousman’s votes would have
> enabled him to win. If there was a tactical Alliance he would have won. In
> Foni Bintang the Independent Candidate won just as we predicted. In Kombo
> South, the Independent Candidate had 4952 votes while the UDP had 1236
> votes. If you combine the two the independent candidate would have won by 16
> votes. Who then should be blamed for Gambia ’s present predicament? Is it
> those who hatch the correct courses of actions or strategies and tactics to
> achieve them or those who follow their ambitions and honour strategies and
> tactics with utter disregard? The answer is buried in the details I have
> already presented. There is no need for any one to state the obvious.
>
> It is however clear that NADD did not continue to exist after the
> Presidential Elections because of any lack of principles. It continued to
> exist to help put in place a National Assembly which could have served as a
> formidable oversight institution to put the actions of the government in
> check. Interestingly enough, NADD ended up with one seat which has been a
> PDOIS seat since 1997. Lamin Waa Juwara decided to leave thus leaving PDOIS
> and the OJ faction of the PPP in NADD. The other factions either capitulated
> to the APRC or the UDP. The election cycle ended with the Council elections
> which witnessed the participation of 4 NADD candidates and the acquisition
> of one Council seat in Wuli Nyakoi. Hence NADD could not die a natural death
> because people from a party who were never in for alloying their political
> principles accepted to bow down to the demands for unity and having done so
> on the basis of sound principles stayed the course and are now exploring how
> to achieve the same aim NADD set out to achieve while gradually breathing
> life into their own political organisation. NADD may have been conquered but
> the strategic objectives of asserting and affirming the sovereignty of the
> people, its principles of putting an end to self perpetuating rule and its
> tactical line of bringing everyone on board to achieve the desired aims are
> still arising and developing. Every force opposed to these very agenda is
> disintegrating and dying. This is the verdict of historical science and it
> is irrevocable.
>
>  For your information, since 2008 the PDOIS membership is being consulted
> on the need to hold a congress to review the way forward including its
> future relation with NADD or its nullification. A month was finally set in
> the first quarter of 2009 but the date coincided with the witchcraft fiasco.
> It was then rescheduled for July but was again derailed by the fiasco
> surrounding the incarceration of the journalists. Consultation is currently
> taking place to schedule a new date. It is the PDOIS Congress which will
> determine PDOIS’ future relation with NADD and the status of the candidates
> it has deployed to establish NADD because of the absence of Laws stipulating
> what happens to political parties which become part of or withdraw from
> alliances. This is how matters stand on this score. Allow me to move to the
> next point.
>
> You also claim that I should resign from the post of flag bearer or leader
> of NADD. Apparently, you are victim of the same disease which afflicts many
> Gambians. They are always looking for someone to call a party leader or
> boss. The monarchical mentality does not permit many people to see
> leadership as division of labour among equals. The world of leadership they
> know is that some must be more equal than others.
>
> It is therefore important for me to point out to you that there is no
> provision for a party leader in the memorandum of understanding of NADD. It
> is clearly stated that any NADD Presidential candidate must be selected by
> consensus or a primary. There is no provision which says that: once a
> Presidential candidate always a Presidential Candidate.”  Hence your call
> for me to resign from an office which I do not hold is misplaced. Your
> allegation that it is unethical for me to hold such a post is misconceived.
> Your motive for making a false allegation and then proceed to question my
> integrity on the basis of a fiction you have invented is dubious. I must
> therefore emphasise with all the firmness I can command that you are too an
> important personality to embroil yourself in such grandiose exercise in
> futile fabrications. You therefore owe me an apology. I  want your readers
> to be clear that I am not posing as NADD’s flag bearer and Agenda 2011
> confirms that I am already proposing for a Presidential candidate to be
> selected in 2011 through a primary comprising the citizenry in general who
> have given their prior  endorsement to  the agenda or its improved version.
> I have alluded to the fact that the people may even propose candidates from
> non partisan domains. I will come to this later as I deal with the NADD
> Manifesto.I know why you have posted it.
> Pa, the other issue of concern to me is your insinuation of lack of
> sincerity and principles within the NADD leadership. You mentioned lack of
> sincerity, principles and greed as the cause of the split in NADD. Could you
> identify those you consider to be lacking in sincerity and principles in
> NADD which led to its collapse? Could you also identify for me who are
> currently the insincere leaders in NADD and explain what led you to draw
> such a conclusion? If those leaders in NADD and those who have left NADD are
> insincere, unprincipled and greedy then why are you calling on them to unite
> to remove Jammeh? What is the significance of your lesson that unity is
> strength? How could the unity of insincere, unprincipled and greedy people
> give rise to strength to liberate a country?
>
> Pa, this is now the appropriate moment for me to indict those who seek to
> indict all those who wish to write off all the executive members of NADD..
>
> Many people marvel at the fact that two parties with diametrically opposed
> objectives are the last to leave NADD but few marvel at the ingenuity which
> makes it possible to achieve the impossible. What is more intriguing is that
> the architects of the irony are calling for another marriage of convenience
> while at the same time calling for a dissolution of the earlier marriage of
> convenience. Only Shakespeare could have rivaled this tragicomical display
> of tirades and intriguing commentaries that are being made on NADD’s
> predicament.
>
> Let me begin with the intrigues. I came to Atlanta in 2003 as minority
> leader in the National Assembly to promote PDOIS. I was a critic of both the
> past and present regimes and the youths of SerreKunda Central approved my
> principled stand against the politics of patronage, pomp and greed. My
> salary went directly into an account to carry out projects in my
> Constituency. I held weekly meetings in different communities in the
> Constituency to inform them of happenings at the National Assembly. I had
> the mandate to tour the United States and build up a support base among
> Africans in the Diaspora when all parties were invited by the Gambian
> Community in the US under the auspices of AGERA in 2003.  It is after
> addressing such a gathering that the members of the opposition were invited
> by Gambian Youths for a discussion about unity.
>
> Suffice it to say, when youths first met to challenge opposition leaders to
> look into the possibility of forming an Alliance they knew very well that
> they were calling for a unity of opposites. PDOIS and PPP were at opposite
> camps. NDAM and UDP were at opposite camps.  NRP had already taken the party
> colour of the PPP after it was banned and none expected one to favour the
> coming into office of the other. This is not unique to Political parties in
> the Gambia . This is the essence of a multi party system. When we first met
> in Atlanta all parties were functioning on their own and should have been
> left to function in their natural states. Each party should have been left
> to build its own political base and form tactical alliances to contest
> elections as they deem fit. At least, this is what PDOIS stood for at the
> time. Sincerity and full adherence to original principle means that
> opposites should not be allowed to mix. By now we would have had a more
> vibrant opposition and more opposition members in the national assembly by
> forming tactical alliances of one sort or the other. You the youths in the
> Diaspora made it a principle that any body who refused to join the alliance
> of opposites should be seen to be insincere, unprincipled, greedy and
> unpatriotic. Hence you forced people to become what they were not and then
> accuse them of being insincere when they show their true colour. To be
> sincere is not about being an angel. Who is? To be sincere is to show one’s
> true colour and stand for what one believes in. Interestingly enough, after
> people have shown their true colours and are now moving back to what they
> were you are still calling on them to become  what they are not, and are
> ready to accuse them of being obstacles to unity, if they stand up for their
> principles. Some are even calling for the abandoning of the middle ground
> which embodied the NADD principles and shift further to accommodate
> individual aspirations for leadership.
>
> Who then are unprincipled and insincere, those who call for the impossible
> or those who sincerely acknowledged what is impossible but tried to create
> an Agenda which  created a middle ground for opposites to coalesce
> temporarily without negating their identities.  This is what NADD was. It
> was about respecting what we mutually endorsed and each to pursue their
> interest within the rules established and maintain the unity of opposites or
> abandon the unifying factors and thus negate the unity of opposites and go
> back to square one.
>
> To be continued
>
>
>
> ���������������������������������������������������������¤ 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]
����������������������������������������������������������