Hamjatta,
A debate is an educational enterprise. It is supposed to facilitate the
improvement of the analytical skills of those who engage in the enterprise.
It is supposed to encourage investigation to verify claims.
I have tried my best to be resourceful in quoting laws for you so that you
are in a better position to verify your claims. Instead of employing your
analytical skills to deal with the Koro Ceesay issue and the 1997
Constitution, you are increasingly resorting to castigation.
This is precisely the reason why I deem it necessary to contain your
castigations and bring you back to the fundamental points at issue. However,
I will pay heed to your cautionary remarks and raise further questions and
observations before making more comprehension comments on what I deem to be
mere castigations from you and Saul after restraining me from dealing in
depth with the whole coup period.
ON THE INDEMNITY PROVISION:
You would recall that in my memorandum of 3 January 2000, I indicated the
following:
+ACI-Can you quote the Indemnity provision in the constitution for me and then
give your interpretation as to why you have come to the conclusion that it
revokes the Coroner's Act and indemnifies any officer who is accused of the
type of allegations that are being made in Koro's case?
+ACI-I am sure that once you do such an analysis, you will refute your own
deductions. Notwithstanding, I will quote the law for you and make the
necessary analysis just in case you do not have a copy of the constitution.+ACI-
Your responded as follows in your posting of 3 January 2000:
+ACI-I believe I've indicated to you from the onset of how material limits would
hamper any attempts on my analysis to look/be empirical. No, I don't have a
copy of the 1997 constitution here with me in the UK. But I'm very familiar
with it and my arguments against it's defects are demonstrably superb to say
the least.+ACI-
Clearly, your response is robbed of all humility. You should, therefore, not
accuse anyone of engaging in a chest pounding exercise.
In my memorandum of 17 January 2000, I quoted for you the relevant portions
of paragraph 13, subparagraphs (1) and (2) of the Transitional and
Consequential Provisions of the Constitution which contain the indemnity
provision.
In your correspondence of 21 January 2000, you insinuated the following:
+ACI-Frankly I was hoping that the next time I write about Halifa would be when
I debunk his misconceptions on the Indemnity Clause.+ACI-
This again reveals a gross lack of intellectual modesty. This is clearly
revealed when I posed the following contention on 4 February 2000:
+ACI-As I said earlier, historical account of the coup would have made
everything clear. You preferred to block that option by narrowing down the
debate to the issue of Koro Ceesay and the 1997 Constitution. Interestingly
enough, when you deal with the issue you do not hesitate to speak about
everything and anything to the point of drawing very erroneous conclusions
without establishing the foundation on which those conclusions are drawn. I
will be very concrete in my next posting to show the absurd nature of the
impressions you are trying to give.
+ACI-Having been completely trapped, you are now trying to wiggle out of the
trap by dwelling on generalities instead of addressing concrete issues.
+ACI-This is precisely the reason why you have not been able to say anything
about the indemnity provision vis-a-vis the Coroner's Act for the past 16
days.....+ACI-
Your response is as follows: +ACI-I have complained to you earlier, I believe
ever since we embarked on this, that material limits would hinder progress
on my part since I do not have in my person some relevant materials that
would be essential to make my arguments look empirical and not just hooha or
idle chatter. In lieu of the aforementioned, when you brought/quoted a
section of the Indemnity Provisions, which on the face of it seemed to look
rather whittled compared to the claims I make of the sweeping nature of the
Indemnity Clause, I decided to contact someone back home to get the whole
Indemnity Provisions+ADs- for I believe there is an overrider which overrides
the section you quoted in your posting. Had I received that I would have
dealt with that ages ago. If you could supply all the relevant sections on
the Indemnity Clause at no further trouble or cost to you, I shall be glad
for it and proceed duly to state why I think the Indemnity Clause does make
the Coroners Act amongst others impotent in the pursuit of justice for
crimes committed during the transition. If, on the other hand, you could not
supply the relevant Provisions, then you will have to maintain patience
until it becomes available. I hope you understand.+ACI-
How can you debunk misconceptions, as you claimed, without even being sure
of what the provisions contain? Does this not amount to intellectual
pretentiousness? If you can send me a fax number, I will provide you with a
fax copy of the original text so as to leave no room for any doubt.
ON TRANSPARENCY
You wrote: +ACI-Secondly, contrary to your claims, I never said Waa Juwara
alleged that you were having secret rendezvous' with the erstwhile AFPRC. In
fact what I said then was that Juwara's provocatory remarks during an
interview with the Daily Observer's Sheriff Bojang soon after he +AFs-Juwara+AF0-
was released, spurred you to write a lengthy rebuttal in the Daily Observer.
In that rebuttal, you claimed amongst others that you did meet +AFs-if my memory
serves me right+AF0- with the late Capt. Sadibou Haidara, then the AFPRC's
spokesman, to discuss the transition and the way forward. You said then that
the reason why you never revealed this was because you didn't want to
+ACI-muddy+ACI- the political waters as it were then. What I wrote then exactly was:
+ACI-Remember when Waa Juwara PROVOKED YOU INTO TELLING US how you had secret
behind the scenes meetings with the erstwhile AFPRC? Your reason for the
discretion then: you didn't want to muddy the political waters then.+ACI- This
was posted on the 16th. of January, 2000 entitled Re: Reply To Hamjatta.+ACI-
It is very clear that you have abundant facts from my replies on how the
National Consultative exercise came into being. I had made public the
establishment of a Democratic Front which called for a national Conference.
Musa Manneh, who was distributing the petition to be signed for a National
Conference, was arrested. I had explained to the Daily Observer that this is
what led to my meeting with the then Minister of the Interior, Captain
Sadibou Hydara, for his release. It was made categorically clear to him that
the exercise was an absolute necessity to get the Gambian people involved in
determining the transition process+ADs- that there was no substitution for a
National Consultative process.
You preferred to ignore this fundamental development and instead give the
impression that you did not know what I was talking about as manifest in
your memorandum of 16 January 2000:
+ACI-I have noticed your attempts to play the 'insider journalist' by claiming
to have all the vital info leading to the creation of the National
Consultative Committee. Like the new evidence on Koro's death, you wouldn't
reveal it until according to you +ACI-at the appropriate time+ACI- whenever or
whatever that would be. I have always known that when it comes to this
transition you are what in Western media circles they call 'insider
journalist.' It is not the first time you have displayed it. Remember when
Waa Juwara provoked you into telling us how you had secret behind the scenes
meetings with the erstwhile AFPRC? Your reason for the discretion then: you
didn't want to muddy the political waters then. Interesting isn't? Talk of
transparency. Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not an 'insider journalist' so
I cannot give names of persons and States which applied pressure on the
AFPRC on the time table issue. So if you are gonna supply it, do it then my
good friend. Don't procrastinate because of my ignorance.+ACI-
Even though you know very well what I am talking about when I mentioned the
revelation of facts at the appropriate time, you give the impression that I
am engaged in a cover up.
All List members who followed the debate are aware that you restricted the
exchanges to two issues, that is, Koro Ceesay and 1997 Constitution. Suffice
it to say, you are the one who indicated that the same pressure that was put
on the AFPRC to come up with the National Consultative Committee could have
been put on them to come up with an ideal constitution. This is why I raised
the question for you to explain who put pressure on the AFPRC to come up
with the the National Consultative Committee. The answer should be given by
you. Instead, you preferred to evade the substantiation of your own claims
and redirected the question to me with treacherous insinuations.
In my view, I was simply playing a role in establishing the Democratic Front
for the convening of a National Conference to chart a way forward for The
Gambia. I had no authority to put pressure on anyone.
Interestingly enough, you proceeded to show how transparent you are when I
raised the following question: +ACI-Can you submit the names of your list of
voters and how you conducted your poll in the name of transparency?+ACI-
The following is your response: +ACI-Also you took time, to make a passing jibe
at my straw poll that I conducted about the PDOIS even insinuating the
insincerity of the exercise.
+ACI-Frankly, I'm more flattered than offended by your sarcastic insinuations.
For it seemed you did take seriously my claims that PDOIS is losing support
in it's traditional heartland: the post independence generation. All I will
say is this: I sampled at random 21 adults who are eligible to vote in an
election ages ranging between 18 to 35 with three questions, namely:
+ACI-1. Who did you vote for or who would you have voted for if you were
eligible during the 1992 elections?
+ACI-2. Is PDOIS the same party it was before 1994?
+ACI-3. Why do you think/say it has changed?
+ACI-I'm not a professional pollster +AFs-psephologist+AF0- nor a very good enthusiast
for it. Forget my amateurishness. I carried that straw poll merely to
indicate how as I proffered to Jabou, that we were not part of a lunatic
periphery. That the views I express are virtually mainstream. As for the
names and addresses, don't even think about it. It is against the ethics of
confidentiality to reveal names and addresses of individuals randomly
sampled in a poll. Believe me, if I were to solicit their consent in
distributing their names to others, it would be in sharp breach of the trust
that in the first place made them to talk to me. Disregard this straw poll
at your own disadvantage. I hope that quenches your thirst. If not I'm
sorry, but I will not breach the trust of others to satisfy you.+ACI-
Apparently, you are now the 'insider' election supervisor who provides
statistics without being ready to give evidence.
ON CRONY-ISM
You asked: +ACI-First and foremost, where did you read me calling anyone
'cronies' of whatever/whoever as you alleged in your posting? Could you
refer me to relevant material. It should help us all if you put this
allegation within the context in which you refer it to me.+ACI-
My reply is to be found in your 18 January 2000 memorandum which indicates
the following: +ACI-I have over the past two months or so bored you with my
ravings and rantings on Halifa, the 1997 constitution and the so-called
transition. In the process I might and has indeed stepped over the feet of
others. Oft times knowingly. Oft times oblivious to it. To the innocent I
say, +ACI-please accept my unconditional and profound apologies.+ACI- I make no
apologies to toe curling hypocrites. To them I say, +ACI-in your faces.+ACI- I hope
we will all move on.+ACI-
What are the characteristics of your +ACI-toe curling hypocrites+ACI- whom you
castigated with such uncharacteristic impudence?
ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESENT STATE OF THE GAMBIA
You wrote:
+ACI-My contention runs thus: if any individual voice in the public realm bears
a measure of responsibility for the tragic inversion of priorities as The
Gambia slid towards into the abyss, it would be Halifa's and his colleagues.
This is highly contentious. The realism rooted in it however, goes that,
events that Halifa gave and lend credence to during the transition has a
direct and indirect bearing on recent events. The long and short of it is
that Halifa should bear/should part responsibility for the retrogressive
nature of our State of affairs.+ACI-
Hamjatta, what responsibility do you give to Jawara who ran away+ADs- what
responsibility to you give to the PPP Cabinet+ADs- what responsibility do you
give to the members of the House of Representatives like Sheriff Dibba,
Lamin Juwara, Mbemba Tambedou and the rest who kept quiet after the
dissolution of the House? what responsibility to you give to the Bakary
Dabos who initially helped to consolidate the AFPRC? Did we become minister
sunder the AFPRC Government?
You mentioned Ngaga Ceesay's intervention on constitutional matters and
accused me of depriving you of a forum. What was Ngaga Ceesay writing about?
The people in the L will be surprised when we quote what FOROYAA was
criticising and what Ngaga Ceesay was defending and what you were trying to
lend credence to. History cannot be deceived, in deed. I will be quoting all
these to show the role we were playing to defend a democratic and
constitutional order at a time when many forces were dormant.
Was the Bar Association banned from discussing the constitution over radio?
Did they oppose the 1997 Constitution in toto? Did you make any phone calls
to Radio 1FM or write article to any newspaper in the country to oppose the
1997 Constitution or explain its content? If you so, can you provide us with
the article? Were you in the country when the AFPRC was about to be
transformed into APRC? Who took the colanuts to religious and opinion
leaders? Who became the 'yai compins' of the APRC? What do you think Halifa
Sallah should have done to prevent PPP, NCP and GPP stalwarts joining the
ranks of the APRC to give it a political support base? Was the election held
on the basis of the 1997 Constitution? Of course, you will answer to the
contrary. I am sure that you are aware that the 1997 Constitution came into
being on 16 January 1997. How is the constitution being utilised now to
ensure restriction of the democratic space? Is it adherence to the
constitution or its violation that encroaches on fundamental rights and
freedoms? Were we the ones promoting the 'no' election agenda or former PPP
Parliamentary Secretaries and stalwarts? Were you in support of the National
Consultative Committee and its conclusion to limit the transition period to
a two year programme? If the 1997 Constitution did not come into being on 16
January 1997, how would the country have been governed after the elections?
On what basis would detainees have been released? What would have been the
powers of the President and the National Assembly? What would have been the
status of political parties?
Please give concrete answers to these questions.
How can people who have rejected ministerial posts in order not to be part
of a cabinet which makes decision for a country be accused of being
responsible for the state of the country? I will wait for your reply.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
