Musa, LJD was not been dishonest. He has given a very honest professional
opinion and it is correct. There are lawyers in the Gambia who agrees with
him. That I can confirm.
Personally, I have no interest in Hamat's candidature and that's why i
hesitated to contribute on this thread but let me tell you one thing;
although independent candidates can contest elections, they cannot be
sponsored by organisations/associations other than a registered political
party by reasons of the Section 60 provision of the constitution. Hamat's
independent candidature is adopted and back by an association of political
parties called the united front as himself declared to the IEC chairman and
commissioners.That is what is against the spirit of the constitution. The
fact that the law doesn't apply in this case doesn't make LJD wrong or
dishonest. To prove that, you have to file a test case in court.
Hamat is a bona fide Gambian with rights to stand for the presidency and
clearly, that is not where LJD's interest lies.You guys need to sort
yourselves out and save us from your bigotry. LJD is an outstanding
scholar with impeccable integrity.
Ok, now that Hamat and all others are duly nominated, lets all support our
preferred candidates and leave the rest to the Gambian electorates.
Thanks
Daffeh
On 10 November 2011 19:16, Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It is sad that LJD has become a political hag, and is willing to explore
> legal justification to buttress his political leaning. LJD was someone that
> STGDP contacted to get his legal advice as far as exploring the possibility
> of an independent candidacy as a compromise for a united front, and his
> honest and objective legal advice was very important and relevant to some
> of the things we were looking at. The latest move from LJD launching an
> appeal to the IEC to prevent the running of the united front has really
> changed my view of him, and his dishonesty is as clear as day. It is very
> apparent that we have a lot of Justice Gomez among us, and it is just a
> question of whether they have the opportunity to use legal maneuvering to
> justify the wrongs******
>
> Musa Jeng
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Pasamba Jow" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *[log in to unmask]
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:23:37 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
> the presidency as an independent candidate
>
> L.J.Dardoe, please refer to section 49 of the 1997 Gambian constitution.
> Thanks
>
> "Challenge to 49.
> *Any registered political party which has participated in the*
> *election of a President Presidential election or an independent
> candidate who has *
> *participated in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to *
> *determine the validity of the election of a President by filling a *
> *petition within ten days of the declaration of the result of the *
> *election."*
>
> "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of
> justice." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:49:03 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency
> as an independent candidate
> To: [log in to unmask]
> CC: [log in to unmask]
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *London*
> * *
> *The United Kingdom*
> * *
> * *
> *09 November 2011*
> * *
> *The Chairman*
> *Independent Electoral Commission*
> *Election House*
> *PO Box 793*
> *Banjul*
> *The Gambia*
> * *
> * *
> *Dear Sir*
> * *
> * *
> *Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency as an
> independent candidate
>
> *
> * *
> *“No association, other than a political party registered under or
> pursuant to an *
> * Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
> elections”*
>
> *s. 60(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia***
>
> With less than a day from candidate nomination for the 24 November
> presidential contest, there are strong indications the so-called “united
> front” of NRP, PDOIS, and GPDP will attempt to field Hamat N K Bah,
> erstwhile leader of the NRP, as presidential candidate outside any specific
> party colours. As the body entrusted with the legal responsibility for
> managing the public election process in The Gambia, the Independent
> Electoral Commission (IEC) must remain alive to its obligation in ensuring
> requisite fidelity to the letter of the law.
> Ala section 49 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the
> Constitution), *“Any registered political party which has participated in
> the Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated
> in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the
> validity of the election of a President by filing a petition within ten
> days of the declaration of the result of an election”.*
> Although I am yet to come across anyone placing express reliance on
> section 49 of the Constitution for the proposition that an independent
> candidate is legally able to contest the presidency, there are those, like
> *Foroyaa’s* publisher, who take the view that section 104 of the Election
> Act supports a non-party sponsored candidate for presidential elections.
> Unquestionably, this perspective is erroneous in so far as it placed
> exclusive reliance on the Election Act, a 2001 legislation backdated to a
> January 1996 commencement date. This particular Act started life as (Decree
> No. 78 of 1996, amended by Decree No.91 of 1996, Decree No. 93 of 1996, and
> Act No. 7 of 2001). As inferior legislation, it has no capacity to
> control an express constitutional provision like section 60(1) of the
> Constitution.
> Pertinently, section 104 (1) states that “The conduct of elections to an
> elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall be
> based on party politics” In so far as this particular section conforms to
> the Constitutional edict on the point of party-sponsored candidates as the
> cornerstone of our public election system, there is no question about its
> validity. However, section 104 (2), in contravention of a specific
> Constitution stipulation on public elections, states that “*Notwithstanding
> subsection (1), a person who is qualified to be registered as a voter under
> the Constitution and this Act may contest as an independent candidate in
> any election*”. This utterly pretentious posture of section 104 (2) of
> the Election Act collides with an explicit Constitutional provision on
> public elections, and must be regarded as of no consequence whatsoever, and
> therefore void under the supremacy clause of the Constitution
> Although section 49 implies a candidate may contest the presidency as an
> independent, it is an extremely weak provision when juxtaposed against the
> express statement of section 60(1) which categorically states that *“No
> association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to
> an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
> elections”**. *Under *Interpretation* at section 230 of the Constitution,
> *“public elections”* is defined as *“*the election for a President,
> National Assembly and a local government authority*”. *
> It is noteworthy that section 60(1) was an amendment inserted in 2001, and
> must therefore be seen as intended to be a definitive declaration of who
> can sponsor a presidential candidate in public elections. The statement
> that only a registered political party can sponsor “candidates for public
> elections” is too categoric a pronouncement to admit of any uncertainty.
> To avoid invalidation, inferior statutory law on public elections, in this
> case the presidency, must comply with the Constitutional edict on who can
> contest presidential elections, or be voided to the extent of any
> inconsistency. In the accepted doctrinal words of Federalist No. 78, “*a**constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
> fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as
> well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
> body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the
> two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course,
> to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred
> to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their
> agents*”.
>
> Should legal and political doctrine not be good enough for the IEC *
> vis-à-vis* an independent candidate contesting a presidential election, I
> revert to the supreme authority of our Constitution. At section 4, and with
> absolute clarity, the Constitution states that it is “*the supreme law of
> The Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of
> this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void*”. Clearly,
> section 104 (2) of the Election Act is wholly void and of no consequence in
> so far as it frontally collides with the express declaration of section
> 60(1) of the Constitution on who can sponsor a candidate in presidential
> elections. It is imperative that the IEC perform its mandated duty and bar
> Hamat N K Bah from contesting on 24 November as an independent.
> Notwithstanding section 49 of the Constitution, supported as it ostensibly
> is by sections 104 (2) of the Election Act, *Cap 1:01, Volume I, Laws of
> The Gambia 2009,* there is no question regarding the purpose of section
> 60(1), a 2001 amendment to the text of our supreme law. Undoubtedly,
> section 60(1) explicitly bans an independent presidential candidate, and
> inferior law in the Election Act cannot control a Constitutional provision
> on the same point. In so far as legal supremacy goes, inferior
> legislation, including electoral laws in the Election Act, and, or, IEC
> rules, at variance with the express mandate of the Constitution, are
> invalid to the extent of any inconsistency.
> Accepting that independent candidates contested and won in public
> elections, this is nevertheless not an argument that passes Constitutional
> scrutiny. The fact that law failed to be enforced by competent authority
> does not mean a particular conduct is legally permissible. Although I am
> personally inclined against the illiberal tendency of 60(1), the fact
> remains it is a *bona fide* constituent element of the supreme law of the
> land, and must be enforced.
> Hamat N K Bah must not be permitted to contest the November presidential
> elections as an independent candidate. To avoid unlawful conduct, the IEC
> must reject his nomination in line with the clear mandate of section 60(1)
> of the Constitution.
>
> Lamin J Darbo
>
> Cc:
> *Daily News Gambia*
> *Freedom Newspaper*
> *Gainako Newspaper Online*
> *Gambia Echo*
> *Gambia L*
> *Gambia Post*
> *Hello Gambia*
> *Jollof News*
> *Maafanta.com*
> *Senegambia Newspaper*
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
