I hereby appeal to PDOIS sympathizers on the List (Camara, Alpha Robinson,
Malick Kah, Momodou Olly-Mboge, Pa Samba Jow etc.) to try and rescue their
party from the grip of the people that are currently leading the party. This
is a sincere appeal and I respectfully urge you to take this matter up
privately with your representatives. In my opinion, they are doing a major
disservice to the country and their supporters. No right thinking Gambian
will want to take away from PDOIS the great things they did for the country.
But frankly I must say that PDOIS is trying real hard to dismantle its good
deeds once and for all.

Even though in their earlier statement PDOIS dodged the question about
whether they were invited to the Briefing or not, in this statement, they
admitted that Sidia Jatta was invited to represent PDOIS. I hope to hear
from MRDG(UK) that Jatta at least had the courtesy to reply to the Honorable
MP in Britain and state his reasons for not making it to the Briefing.

PDOIS has now added a new reason for their reluctance to go to Britain: they
were afraid Joseph Joof might try them for treason? As I opined yesterday,
this is the most ridiculous and dumbest statement I have ever heard coming
from a lawyer of Joof's caliber. For PDOIS to now attempt to give that
nonsensical statement some credence, is very disappointing to me. PDOIS
cannot be serious. Do they seriously think that one commits treason when one
parades Yaya's despicable human rights record? Does PDOIS seriously think
that it is treasonable for one to ask the British to assist us to wipe out
the tyranny in our country? Does PDOIS think that it is a crime to attract
the imposition of military sanctions on The Gambia? Does PDOIS think that it
is unlawful to point to clearly draconian and unconstitutional laws and call
for their repeal?

If what the participants at the Briefing did, was treasonable, then Yaya and
his entire government ought to be tried for treason. Everyday, these bandits
do things that attract sanctions on The Gambia. At the press conference
PDOIS is talking about, Joseph Joof announced some proposed constitutional
amendments aimed at wiping out the little semblance of democracy we had in
the country. Among other things, power to select chiefs is going to be
centralized in Yaya. Joof also wants to increase Yaya's term as president
from five years to seven years. Joof also broke the promise his government
gave to our donors about the impending repeal of Decree 89. All these
actions (not mere words) attract the imposition of sanctions from civilized
countries. And the sanctions these undemocratic policies attract, are more
devastating than the military sanctions the participants at the Briefing
were asking for. Remember that 90% of our poverty alleviation program is
financed by handouts from rich countries. So before Joof engages in this
nonsense about threatening people with treason trials and before PDOIS
engages in its dubious rationalization of a blatant snafu, PDOIS ought to be
encouraging Joof and his cohorts to stop doing things that will continue to
make the Americans impose sanctions on us. If Joof really wants to test his
ridiculous theory about what entails treason, he does not have to look far.
He can just turn around and try Pap Cheyassin Secka for proposing the
constitutional amendments in the first place. Those proposed amendments will
turn out to be more devastating than anything Hamat Bah or OJ might have
said at the Briefing. Alternatively, Joof can try Famara Jatta for treason
for lying to the donors about decentralizing local government. That lie is
going to attract sanctions if the constitutional amendments go through the
rubber-stamp parliament we have back home.

One might expect someone with the mental history Joseph Joof has, to utter
such ridiculous garbage about treason. What I do NOT expect, is for a smart
party like PDOIS to buy into the nonsense.

I again appeal to PDOIS supporters to engage their leaders before it is too
late. At this critical moment, the Opposition cannot afford such irrational
behaviors from a party that is supposed to be an integral part of the
Opposition against the tyranny in the country. If PDOIS supporters are
supportive of this decision from their leadership, let them come out and
argue their case. That way, they will assist some of us to know where
exactly they stand on this matter and numerous others that had occurred
lately. Please when you do, do not avoid the major theme of the Briefing,
which in my humble opinion was to sensitize the British about the plight of
Gambians in The Gambia (not Gambian refugees). It is surprising to me that
PDOIS seems to be totally satisfied with Britain's view about Yaya's
appalling human rights record. PDOIS need to address the irreconcilable
difference between the restoration of military aid for Gambia and Britain's
so-called ethical foreign policy. Is PDOIS satisfied about the way the
British High Commissioner in The Gambia handled that? This issue is what
Bahoum talked about first in his report about the Briefing. This is what we
should be talking about rather than touting the Briefing as merely a forum
to try and repeal Decree 89 and restore Jawara to Gambia. This is a very
dishonest characterization. And that is what PDOIS wants the Gambian public
to believe. Otherwise, why ignore the major theme of the Briefing and
instead preach about how the Opposition can fight Decree 89 in The Gambia?

I hope the PDOIS supporters that I listed above do not feel that I am
putting them on the spot and picking on their party. It is your supreme
right to support any party you want. As much as I would like you to
intervene and bring sanity in your party, I will respect your decision to
stay away from this issue. By now I am sure it is clear to you where I stand
on this issue. When you read my statements herein, I remind you that just
few days ago, both me and Hamjatta were loudly criticizing the way UDP is
handling the March by-elections and the removal of Johnson and the
appointment of Roberts at the IEC. On that issue, we were closer to PDOIS'
thinking than to UDP, and that was made clear by our postings. So people are
not trying to pick on PDOIS here.
KB



>From: Momodou Camara <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: FWD:London Meeting And The Treason Threat; Sundays News Hour Need
>             to Clarify
>Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 15:13:18 +0100
>
>The following is culled from Burning Issues (FOROYAA) Publication
>
>****************************
>
>London Meeting And The Treason Threat; Sundays News Hour Need to Clarify
>
>The Secretary of State for Justice did indicate that if it was another
>country. Those who attended the London meeting would be charged for treason
>for allegedly calling for sanctions to be imposed on the Gambia.
>
>According to the point newspaper PDOIS was praised for not attending. The
>fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State started to criticise the
>opposition in general for attending the meeting in London. It is Mr. D.A.
>Jawo who questioned whether PDOIS was there. At this point Sam Sarr
>indicated that that was not the case. The secretary of state took the
>opportunity to apologise and then proceeded to assert that PDOIS would not
>attend such a meeting.
>
>The fact of the matter however is that PDOIS did not attend because of the
>reason the Secretary of state insinuated.
>In fact the NCP also did not have a representative at the meeting. Femi
>Peters also claimed to be representing UDP and not GPP. Only Hamat Bah and
>Ex-President Jawara were present and could be referred to as either present
>or past leaders of political parties. The meeting was not designed to call
>for sanction.
>
>The participants were under the notion that the meeting could lead to the
>intervention of the British government in convincing the Gambia Government
>to allow the participation of all political parties, past and present in
>the
>electoral process. The meeting was certainly not a secret affair. The
>Gambia
>High Commissioner in Britian should have made representation and ask to
>even
>speak at the meeting in defence of his government.
>
>FOROYAA was aware that a letter was addressed to Sidia jatta by Mr. John
>McDonnal member of parliament for Hayes and Harlington inviting him to be
>PDOIS representative at the meeting . The heading of the letter reads
>"Briefing meeting to be held on Wednesday 28th February at 7:30 pm
>Committee
>Room 10 at the House of Commons.
>The purpose of the meeting was stated as follows:
>"In order to draw attention to the plight of the Gambian people I have
>convened this meeting to receive briefings from the opposition
>representatives.
>
>Hence it is clear that an MP who was concerned with the plight of Gambian
>refugees in his constituency felt the need to receive briefing on the
>situation in the Gambia so as to know what to say in Parliament.
>PDOIS is aware that the British High Commissioner is the envoy of the
>British government in the Gambia. Such envoys are fully aware of the
>situation in the Gambia and had made their position known in the Gambian
>press. Every issue of FOROYAA is read by the International Secretary of the
>Labour Party.
>
>Needless to say, the British government is a part of the commonwealth. A
>ministerial delegation from the commonwealth came on a fact finding tour.
>PDOIS representatives and those of other parties had met the delegations
>from UN and commonwealth. All the issues that were discussed at the London
>meeting with an MP were discussed with such influential delegations. In
>fact
>the commonwealth secretary general had met the government representatives
>of
>the opposition parties. He had made pronouncements on the issue that
>concern
>past and present political groupings.
>
>PDOIS did not see any rationale in a member of the national Assembly of the
>Gambia who can denounce the government in the strongest terms in the
>National Assembly for any issue to go all the way to Britain just to give a
>briefing to a British MP who will only do in parliament what the PDOIS
>representative does in the national Assembly.
>
>The banned political parties do not need a British MP to fight for them.
>PDOIS has said that they need to start the battle at home. PDOIS suggested
>Dibba to pick up nomination papers for the Central Baddibou seat; that if
>he
>is denied nomination papers he could then go to the supreme court for a
>declaration as to whether Decree 89 does not violate the right to stand for
>election as guaranteed by section 26 of the constitution. Such struggles
>are
>more honourable than to appear to be crying babies abroad. PDOIS considers
>Decree 89 to be a dragonian provision. We  would not hesitate to attend any
>meeting to denounce all malpractices. PDOIS makes statements or takes
>position irrespective of praise or adverse comments. this would earn it.
>PDOIS however prefers reactions to its statements or position to be
>objective.
>Instead we would respect the APRC to change its ways and leave the Gambian
>people to decide to make their representation.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------