Lamin Manneh,
I am sure that you have already received a costing on the postage of the
pamphlets. I will point out some of the differences by Saturday. We will
have to type the sections from both the draft and the present constitutions
so that you can see some of the differences.
Some may claim that the differences are not substantial, but to us we saw it
as an erosion of the principles which should govern a republican
constitution rather than an advancement.
You will also read from our pamphlets that we were very critical of some of
the provisions of the constitution. What some people are still finding
difficult to grasp is that our support of the constitution was a contextual
matter. You were here. As an election officer, I am sure, you were aware
that the Provisional Independent Electoral Commission announced in May 1996
that the date fixed for the referendum on the draft constitution was 7
August 1996. Presidential election was fixed for 11 September 1996 and
National assembly for 11 December 1996. I am sure you can confirm that the
elections were supposed to take place under Decree 78.
Lamin, since the 1970 constitution was suspended, what would have happened
if we rejected the draft constitution in August 1996? This is the key
question that all Gambians should reflect on. Unless this point is clear,
one would not be able to address the 'yes' or 'no' question regarding the
draft constitution.
A review of the political situation at the time would reveal that July was
the end of the two year transition. In his July 22, 1996 address, Jammeh had
made it categorically clear that ban on political parties would not be
lifted until after the referendum. He had also stated in no uncertain terms
that elections would go ahead as planned. This is even reported in the July
24 1996 edition of the Daily Observer.
In our view, if elections took place without a constitution, the country
would have continued to be governed by decrees. The Gambian people,
therefore, had to make a choice based on what those who held power provided.
We either had to reject the constitution and had elections without a
constitution to indicate how the country was to be governed after the
elections or accept the draft constitution with its flaws.
The principle we applied to determine whether the constitution was to be
accepted or rejected was as follows:
In our view, if the provisions of the draft constitution were inferior to
that of the 1970 constitution, or that the flaws were substantially
different from the 1970 constitution, then the draft constitution should be
rejected.
On the other hand, if the provisions were superior to that of the 1970
constitution and the flaws substantially the same, then it should be
accepted as a step forward in the constitutional evolution of the country.
The conclusion we reached is that the draft constitution had more provisions
which safeguarded the interest of the people than the 1970 constitution and
contained essentially the same flaws. This is the contextual framework which
led us to support a 'yes' instead of a 'no' vote. Hence, when you read the
booklets we produced, you should not be surprised to see that we were
critical of some of the provisions of the draft constitution.
I hope you understand that we were just responding to a reality imposed on
the Gambian people and were not part of those who imposed that reality. This
is the point. I will make things clear in my response to Matarr Sarjaw, Saul
and Jassey-Conteh.
Greetings.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
