GAMBIA-L Archives

The Gambia and Related Issues Mailing List

GAMBIA-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kebba Jobe <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:19:14 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (124 lines)
Ebrima, you wrote:

"So, "Kebba Jobe", where do we go from here? It is rather difficult to
maintain a meaningful debate with someone who is in agreemment in the main.
As you know, I am not afraid of open debate, and I have referenced detail to
support all my claims and statements".

Ebrima, this debate is about our country and what is happening here. We may
agree on some points but there are perhaps many others that we will most
probably disagree on. There is a need for this debate to continue so that by
the end of the day we will all be better informed. Others following it are
also putting forward their comments which give different insights to it.

When I posited that "the government is not Jammeh and Jammeh alone", you
totally disagreed. My position on this is that we deserve a system of
government that does not revolve around individuals (presidents) as seems to
be the case in most African "Republican" countries. Accoding to our
constitution, the three arms that constitute the governement are the
Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. The fouth arm, the media is young
and growing. It is my opinion that the powers of African presidents are, for
all intends and purposes very similar to those of monarchs. The only
difference is the socalled elections which are in, most cases, usually not
free, fair or transparent.

I am sure you will agree that whilst the general direction of government is
determined by the executive, it is equally true that these direction must be
in conformity with laws that are formulated by the lesgislature to safeguard
the interests of the people they represent. Under the 1997 constitution, our
elected national assembly members cannot be removed by the executive, their
renumerations cannot be altered to their disadvantage by the executive and
they cannot be appointed Secretaries of state. On ther other hand, the
legislature under certain circumstances may cause the removal of the
executive, in this case the president. Under this set-up why do you want to
exonorate the NAMS? Here we have some seemingly decent people, who lied to
their own people that they will promote their interests in the national
assembly, swore to put the national interest before self, swore to safeguard
the very constitution that guarantees us our aspirations, and yet time and
time again put party above all else. Take the recently passed Indemnity bill
for instance. With the exception of Hon. Kebbeh, a NOMINATED member, who
said ""We should not look at things like that, Security Forces should not be
given carte blanche to kill because something could happen tomorrow. Adding:
"are we backdating because of April 10/11 or what? We can pass the bill but
with some amendments", almost every one else was either absent or voted
along party lines. The point am making here is that the whole government,
including the NAMs, should be held accountable for most of what has
happened. I also posit that as long as the majority of the electorate
continue to see the presidency as the alpha and omega of government, we will
continue to have a rubber stamp national assembly and rubber stamp Public
service commission. The presidency must be DEMYSTIFIED for a way forward and
this can only be achieved by patiently and honestly discussing issues of
national interest even if don't agree.

DAMPHA

Dampha, if you think that I want to bring disharmony to the opposition by
labeling some of you angry and trying to applaud Ebrima and way he is
debating me, then there must be something seriously wrong with you. What
would I gain from that? If you also believe that because I have agreed with
Ebrima on certain issues so far, that I will not challenge if posts things
that are not factual, then you are be bigger fool than I thought. I endevour
to respond to all and sundry about any issue I feel is incorrect WITHOUT
HESITATION. Get it?

You wrote "You attempted to absolve Yaya by saying that the trigger happy
animals that massacred our children were NOT acting on Yaya's orders". Where
and when did I ever say the above? Please don't misquote me. I have NEVER
DEFENDED ANY EVIL ACT COMMITTED BY ANYBODY.

My friend get real. What were you thinking of when you say "I am glad that
you admitted that you veered off from the debate topic Ebrima was engaged
in"? I did not admit veering off from any thing. I continued to use veer
just to give you that feeling of cornering me. I had conluded commenting on
what Ebrima wrote and decided to to bring in other issues that I considered
relevant to Lers, you and Ebrima included.

You wrote: "I noticed how you craftily tried to make it a matter of 'either
or' when you asked to me opine about who to blame: security personnel or
yaya. I say not so fast. I blame both of them".

You later wrote: "Simple logic demands that we focus on the person that will
not hesitate to order the massacre of our children".

This was followed by: "I understand that unlike animals, our souldiers have
independent minds and should reason".

And: "But apart from the gullible, like you we all realize the duress these
soldiers work under".

What on earth are you trying to say? First you blame both, just to come back
telling us that these 'trigger happy animals' as you call them, cannot be
blamed because they 'work under duress'. Are you cuckoo? What sort of logic
are you talking about for God's sake? This is a classic case of gullibilty
and hypocricy, if you ask me.

You also wrote:

"It is the hight of naivete for educated Gambians like yourself to try to
extricate Yaya from activities of parlimentarians. Do you honestly believe
that parlimentarians are responsible for the indemnity legislation or any
legislation for that matter?".

You see your warped logic at work again. First, you tell us that yaya is
inextricabily linked to the parlimentarians as far as the imdemnity
legislation or any other for that matter just to backtrack implying that the
parlimentarians cannot be blamed at all.

Dampha, I still maintain that the anger in you will not allow you to see the
bigger picture. Our problem cannot be narrowed down to only
Yahya. I opine that, we have a mystified presidency, a less than honourable
bunch of NAMs, brutal security forces and very gullible so called
educated/informed paper tigers.

Bye 4Now, KB Jobe.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail 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
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2