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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤