Come on Chris, give yourself a bit of respect before you loose mine.

Regards
Daffeh

On 6 April 2011 12:58, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>   Why did you not participate in the recent interview on Freedom where the
> statement you wrote below was discussed?
>
> You did not answer my question as simple as it is. One honest answer will
> do.
>
> Chris..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Wed, April 6, 2011 6:29:43 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A
> SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>
> Chris, do I have to give an  interview to Freedom? When did that become my
> obligation? What makes you think I was approached for an interview and I
> declined the offer? Even if I have been approached, have I not got the right
> to decline? Could it not be the case that I was not readily available? How
> about a possible lack of interest or perhaps a total contempt for the
> freedom radio talk show? The point is; the judgement and decision is mine,
> not yours.
>
> In any case, I think you are bit late on this topic as the curtain has
> already been drawn on it.
>
> Cheers
> Daffeh
> On 6 April 2011 11:41, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Daffeh,
>>
>> Simple Q for you? Why did you not participate in the recent interview on
>> Freedom where the statement you wrote below was discussed? If you found the
>> time to read Musa Jeng's piece and you made time to listen to two different
>> interviews that Banka Manneh participated in and furthermore you certainly
>> squeezed in the time to write your piece, then why is it that you could not
>> find an hour and a half to participate in an interview where the content of
>> your writings was discussed? I was disappointed that it was not you as the
>> second panelist.
>>
>> Bravo to Mr. Mass who had agreed to come to the interview and discuss an
>> opinion that he did not write. I think he handled the interview extremely
>> well.
>>
>> Also- UDP website. I see alot of recent updates out there. I had checked
>> it several weeks back and it was full of older material. Glad to see the
>> progress.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Tue, April 5, 2011 4:52:24 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A
>> SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>>
>> Yes I am fine, Haruna. There is no point responding to this duo. One is a
>> walter mitty, the other a disingenuous hysteric.
>>
>> Thanks for checking on me.
>>
>> Daffeh
>>
>> On 5 April 2011 06:27, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Daffeh, I hope you're alright!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Haruna. Cousin Fakoo Fakoo is closet UDP.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:26 am
>>> Subject: Re: STGDP=?windows-1252?Q?=92s_?=Call for a Return to NADD is
>>> Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION...
>>>
>>>  Fankung, almost all coalitions are premised on the recognition that no
>>> one party can do it alone. However, that has never precluded the legitimacy
>>> of the majority party to lead. That is why the Conservative Party of David
>>> Cameroon is leading a coalition government here in the U.K despite the fact
>>> that they could not have formed a government on their own without having to
>>> coalesce with another party, the Liberal Democrats. In a democracy,
>>> legitimacy is always derived from the majority, not the minority or your
>>> silly notion of equality.
>>>
>>> My rejoinder is only meant to clarify issues. I have no interest
>>> whatsoever, in fostering a ping pong game with people like you on this
>>> coalition issue.
>>>
>>> My advice to you is to consider inculcating some element of sincerity in
>>> yourself when debating national issues.
>>>
>>> Have a good day.
>>>
>>> Daffeh
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2011 13:28, Fankung Fankung Jammeh <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is another evidence that the Gambian opposition is full of power
>>>> hungry leaders. It is clearly written in WALLS that NO OPPOSITION PARTY can
>>>> defeat Jammeh on its own, or even make a dent in hi support. I know for sure
>>>> that this SS Daffeh fellow knows that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER when we hear UDP
>>>> defeats Jammeh on its own. And yet, all he sees is Darbo. If Darbo is not
>>>> the leader no coalition. Oh well, get preapared for your 9% come
>>>> November....  GOD BLESS APRC AND PROFESSOR JAMMEH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gambia: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>>>> STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous
>>>> By SS Daffeh, Secretary-General UDP UK
>>>>  BANJUL, THE GAMBIA—Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of
>>>> the U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the
>>>> media a proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an
>>>> agreement could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the
>>>> coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party
>>>> [UDP] and a purported representative of PDOIS , with the former joining
>>>> NADD, a political entity he described as belonging to all opposition
>>>> parties, and assume leadership of it.
>>>> He posited this as the only realistic option to break the stalemate and
>>>> went on to justify his call on the basis that due to their experience in
>>>> 2006 and the aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what
>>>> the conventional wisdom dictates and become part of a UDP led coalition. He,
>>>> however, did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held
>>>> responsible for it.
>>>> As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman,
>>>> Mr. Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be
>>>> in total convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy
>>>> Project [STGDP].
>>>> First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all
>>>> coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national
>>>> interest above all others including ideologies, personal egos and
>>>> differences. This can only be done if all stakeholders including PDOIS
>>>> accept the universally practiced conventions and standards of coalition
>>>> building to be the unfettered guiding principles of negotiations. This
>>>> requires that the biggest party be adopted as a vanguard and for all other
>>>> parties and political entities to throw their weight behind.
>>>>  In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian
>>>> electorates as independent sovereign political parties and tested their
>>>> individual electoral strengths. The UDP had almost five times more votes
>>>> than NADD and currently has more representation in parliament than any other
>>>> opposition party in The Gambia. It also has a bigger and more robust grass
>>>> root support base than any other opposition party. To put it in a nutshell;
>>>> UDP is by far the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. This is
>>>> irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do not see any wisdom
>>>> whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller party, NADD, in
>>>> the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another is the only
>>>> solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be for the
>>>> smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the biggest.
>>>> As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to
>>>> abandon their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally
>>>> behind the biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable
>>>> standards and norms of coalition building and as a matter of political
>>>> legitimacy and necessity.
>>>> Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006,
>>>> I find it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that
>>>> the resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to
>>>> inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise
>>>> solution to this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment
>>>> of the situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the
>>>> STGDP would have realised that this idea has no potential but for the
>>>> opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise
>>>> to be engendered let alone realised in that kind of environment.
>>>> By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS
>>>> party apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their
>>>> proposal, the STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of
>>>> the UDP in the same respect particularly on the question of registration
>>>> that altered NADD’s status from that of an alliance to a political party in
>>>> contravention of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that
>>>> established it [NADD] and which cost the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K
>>>> Bah, his parliamentary seat. Therefore, both the UDP and the NRP can and
>>>> quite legitimately, equally use their experience of 2006 and prior as a
>>>> justification for their withdrawal and reason for refusing to return to
>>>> NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is therefore fundamentally
>>>> flawed in its lack objectivity and appreciation of the facts on the ground.
>>>> Their claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by
>>>> facts. Although the UDP participated in the creation of NADD the alliance,
>>>> they did actually pull out from the organisation in 2006 after careful
>>>> consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has
>>>> been entirely relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out.
>>>> Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was
>>>> intended to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is
>>>> clearly stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of
>>>> Understanding [MOU] that established the alliance. However, that creation
>>>> was completely and utterly obliterated when NADD was clandestinely
>>>> registered with the Independent Electoral Commission, despite opposition
>>>> from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its nature and
>>>> status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state that NADD
>>>> as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties.
>>>> A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided
>>>> by principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished.
>>>> Otherwise it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the
>>>> universal principles and standards that underpin coalition building
>>>> everywhere in this world should be forgone in our case for national interest
>>>> is utterly simplistic at best; and disingenuous at worst.
>>>> STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it
>>>> is the UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break
>>>> this coalition stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is
>>>> ever determined to remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and
>>>> intransigence, not to mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s
>>>> overtures.
>>>> If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for
>>>> them to consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so
>>>> that it can re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a
>>>> flag bearer chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket.
>>>> This must be so as the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in
>>>> the alliance anyway.
>>>> Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties
>>>> including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political
>>>> legitimacy of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state
>>>> whatever condition[s] they would like to see attached. That way, we can move
>>>> this process one step forward; from the principal issue of formula to a more
>>>> secondary issue of conditionality and thereby making compromise more
>>>> realistic and feasible. This is how a compromise solution can be engendered.
>>>> However, PDOIS and NADD mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would
>>>> have to either indicate their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP
>>>> led alliance with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to
>>>> talk about conditionality in that respect.
>>>> In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been
>>>> rendered obsolete but also lacking taste.
>>>> *PDOIS’s Subterfuge*
>>>> The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent
>>>> where there is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous
>>>> statement ever made in this coalition debate. As far as facts are concern,
>>>> there is no second round voting system in South Africa and yet it was the
>>>> ANC that led the coalition which brought President Jacob Zuma to power;
>>>> there is no second round of voting in India and yet it was Sonia Ghandi’s
>>>> Indian National Congress that led the coalition which returned Prime
>>>> Minister Manmohan Singh to power; there is no second round voting system in
>>>> Brazil and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which
>>>> brought that country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power. -
>>>> The list can go on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to select a
>>>> leader/candidate had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s
>>>> pronouncement is therefore not only baseless but also and very clearly, a
>>>> preposterous subterfuge that they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide
>>>> their intransigence and refusal to heed to the popular call for the
>>>> opposition to forge an all inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent
>>>> APRC in the forthcoming elections.
>>>> SS Daffeh
>>>> Secretary-General
>>>> UDP UK
>>>> www.udpgambia.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *****************************************************************************
>>>> GOD BLESS THE GAMBIA.
>>>> LET US JOIN HANDS AND SUPPORT SHEIKH PROFESSOR DR. ALH YAHYA JAMMEH
>>>> (NASIRU DEEN) TO BUILD OUR COUNTRY. *
>>>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>>
>>
>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>  ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤