Mr. Sallah,

It's good to hear from you. I'm tied up with somethings (at work) these
days, but I'll read your article in it's entirety, and I'll get to you
latest by Saturday. This is only an acknowledgement of receipt.
Good night.

Saul


>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Response to Saul Khan's  'Adjoinder to Halifa misses the point'
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:21:02 -0000
>
>Saul Saidykhan,
>
>I would begin by asserting that if human beings had the power to plug the
>sun from the sky and put it back according to their design it will be up
>and
>down by the wink of an eye. The sun, however, is there irrespective of our
>will and designs. Truth is like that sun. No one can distort it forever.
>Just as it is futile to try to cover the sun with the palm of one's hand,
>it
>is also futile to try to distort the truth.
>
>It is amazing to me that in your comment on Cherno Baba's argument that I
>had missed the point when I took up issue with Ayittey, you started by
>asserting the following: "I haven't read Mr Sallah's piece, but I'm not
>surprised by what he's said from reading yours." This is very interesting.
>Isn't it?
>
>Even though you have acknowledged that you have not read what I wrote and
>proceeded to pass judgment on the basis of hearsay evidence, you still had
>the audacity to assert that: "His views .... are subjective, patronising
>and
>utter utopian". You even added that I continue "to live in a cocoon where
>the only other  members (outside the PDOIS trio,) are a few fanatical
>followers who truly believe he is a cross between William Shakespear and
>the
>prophet Muhamed." (laugh). Is that really how you feel about me? Do you
>really know me? Have we ever had any close contact?
>
>Needless to say, how can you accuse me of being subjective when you have
>acknowledged that you have not even read what I wrote? How can anybody take
>you seriously for such sentimental display of subjectivity?
>
>You went further to argue that I have "a knack for believing the most
>ludicrous-almost  absurdly delusional ideas, you've ever heard." Are you
>not
>suffering from the same syndrome in expecting that you can convince readers
>of your allegations without offering sound proof? Who in the world can you
>convince that  the following statement is  a reflection of the facts: "Just
>before Yaya Jammeh declared his candidature for the 1996 presidential
>elections, I called up Mr Sallah to discuss an article I wanted to publish
>in his paper detailing why Yaya would not make a good president ...
>doctored
>constitution and all. Mr Sallah launched into one of his usual monologues,
>defending the then Lt. Jammeh, and a constitution that gives a select group
>of people carte blanche' to do whatever they want in the Gambia w/o ever
>facing any consequences. This, while conveniently ignoring the will of
>Gambians to have term limits among other things. I gave up after thirty
>minutes, because he wouldn't let me speak though I paid for the call."
>
>You made the ridiculous allegation that I was defending Lt. Jammeh. What
>did
>I say about him? You did not mention this in your piece. Furthermore, what
>do you think would have happened if an article was published in FOROYAA
>asking Jammeh not to stand for elections? Would that have stopped him from
>standing for elections? If you believe that this would have stopped him
>from
>standing for elections, then you must be accused to having the knack for
>believing the most ludicrous of views, to utilise your own language.
>
>You indicated that the constitution is a doctored one to suit Jammeh. If
>this is what you told me in our discussion, I believe I must have
>considered
>you to be highly misinformed and naive. In short, anybody who would believe
>that writing an article advising Jammeh not to stand for election in
>FOROYAA
>would have stopped him from doing so would be guilty of crass stupidity and
>gross naivety. Furthermore, anyone who would believe that the constitution
>was doctored to serve Jammeh would similarly deserved to be considered to
>be
>outrageously misinformed.
>
>Most likely, out of courtesy I took the time to explain to you the
>situation
>which prevailed at the time, as I used to do for many people who were
>abroad. The picture I used to give is that two forces were at work as we
>moved closer to the end of the transition period. There was the wave for no
>election and a wave for multiparty elections. The wave for no election
>began
>to gain more advocates as community leaders and other influential
>personalities were mobilised by AFPRC stalwarts and the July 22nd Movement
>to visit Jammeh and tell him not to accept an election agenda. The
>overwhelming number of Gambians, however, wanted elections and FOROYAA made
>it its point of duty to combat the no election agenda by criticising all
>those who were promoting it. We have facts to give if you demand for them
>to
>prove that we were the most vocal force for the restoration of a multiparty
>electoral system in The Gambia. We were talking when all your  heroes were
>sitting on your laurels.
>
>I could have told you that what was important was to ensure that the
>election agenda triumphed over the no election agenda, and your offer to
>write an article for Jammeh not to stand must have been seen as a very
>futile matter at the time.  This is the first point.
>
>Furthermore, I wonder why you did not send that article to the Observer,
>The
>Point, The New Citizen or another paper. Or did you?
>
>Secondly, if what you wrote about the constitution reflected views which
>you
>communicated to me, and I must admit that I cannot recall our conversation,
>I must have told you that your fears about the constitution was misplaced;
>that the constitution would have no bearing on the elections; that it would
>only come into effect after the elections; that after the elections there
>had to be a constitution in order to return to a democratic and
>constitutional order; that it was either to revoke the suspension of the
>1970 constitution after the election and rely on it to run the country or
>accept a new constitution. I may have argued that the draft constitution is
>superior in most respects to the 1970 constitution. I am 100% sure that I
>never said anything to lend support to Lt. Jammeh's presidential bid.
>
>Mr O.B. Sillah's comment that I should be asked how I see Jammeh's
>government now is pedantic and grossly misplaced. In my response to your
>remarks of 27 November 1999 I will give a fitting response to all the
>questions you raised regarding the 1997 constitution, Koro Ceesay, the
>banning of the NCP and all your insinuations which may be classified as a
>by-product of crass stupidity or very clumsy trickery. Let us hope that
>none
>is applicable to you. Let us hope that you lack the facts and are therefore
>relying on speculation to pass your crude judgments.
>
>Notwithstanding, I am sure my contention with Ayittey is clear to you and
>Cherno Baba. Ayittey and Co. promised to prove whether Nyerere was a saint
>or a knave. They never gave any evidence to substantiate one thing or the
>other. Furthermore, they concluded by asserting that Nyerere should rest
>QUIETLY  in peace (Capitalization - mine) meaning that he should fade away
>and be heard from no more. I decided to refer to Nyerere's speeches to show
>that they are still relevant today; that even death should not silence
>Nyerere; that we should still listen to what he has to say and learn from
>them. Ayittey finally made Nyerere an exemption even though initially their
>conclusion was nakedly designed to remove Nyerere from our memory to rest
>QUIETY, very QUIETLY in peace. This is how matters stood. My point still
>stands irrefutable.
>
>Let me now indicate to you that I will be very provocative in giving
>response to your submission of 27 November 1999 because of your deliberate
>attempt to distort historical facts to give credence to what is
>outrageously
>ridiculous and devoid of any element of truth. I hope you will continue to
>respond so that we can slug it out until one of us has no more blows to
>send. The truth will then be finally clear as to what actually happened
>during the coup period and who was responsible for what development during
>that period. This will come on Thursday.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: saul khan <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 05:17
>Subject: Adjoinder to Halifa misses the point
>
>
> >Mr Jallow,
> >
> >I couldn't agree with you more. I happen to believe that Julius Nyerere
>is
> >the most honest and decent African leader to date (and that is even
>before
> >he died.) But Nyerere had short-comings. And it would be very helpful to
>us
> >as Africans to call a spade a spade. To learn from our mistakes, and try
>to
> >avoid repeating such mistakes. I haven't read Mr Sallah's piece, but I'm
>not
> >surprised by what he's said from reading yours.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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

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