I find it hard to comprehend why some informed Gambians both at home and abroad still support the UDP/NRP alliance. Any reasonable individual who follow the birth and disinteration of NADD would conclude that the UDP and NRP were not sincrere in their decision to quit NADD. 
  Mr. Daboe wants to rule Gambia just like Jawara and Jammeh. He is not interested in empowering the people. Why can't Daboe accept the MOU after signing it. He acussed his collegues, except Sidia Jatta, of mistrust.  
  While Mr Bah was talking about "unbaked cake" and mistake in agreeing be equals when they are not equal. Mr. Bah is know for saying anything just to achieve his political objective. I will be happy if he will try to challege Halifa as he clearly explain the situation below.
  NADD should use the NADD split as a polical asset to inform the Gambians about the insincerity and incompetence in the UDP/NRP alliance. According to Mr. Bah, the UDP and NRP either did not read the MOU or did not comprehend its content before siging the document. When they win they will be signing all kinds of agreements onbehalf of The Gambia. Therefore they will be worst than Jammeh and Jawara.
  Long Live NADD
  Long Live Halifa Sallah and NADD Executives.
   
  [log in to unmask] wrote:
  

INTERVIEW WITH HALIFA SALLAH
ON HAMAT BAH’S COMMENTS IN THE STATES 

PART ONE
FOROYAA: HAMAT BAH Claims that negotiation is going on between NADD and the UDP/NRP Alliance and that within a short period of time one candidate will be selected by the Opposition to contest the forth coming presidential elections?
HALIFA: At the moment no arrangement is in place for the two sides to meet. When Hamat left a consultative process had started between Mr. Darboe and myself to explore whether any basis could be developed to serve as a foundation for any negotiation. Confidentiality was requested and agreed upon. Hamat’s comments in fact derailed the whole process.
FOROYAA: Why?
HALIFA : He created the impression that he had access to information regarding negotiation which had not even commenced and further remarked that NADD was just interested in position which completely misconstrued and trivialised the far reaching analysis and exchanges that I had with Mr. Darboe. The NADD executive gave me the exclusive mandate to discuss with Mr. Darboe without informing them of any details until agreement is reached for initiating negotiations. When Hamat made his remarks curiosity and uncertainty set in and the whole process had to come to a stop pending further clarification on what he was propagating in the US. 
PART TWO
In this edition we continue with the interview with Halifa Sallah, NADD’s flag bearer, on comments made in the United States by Mr Hamat Bah of the UDP/NRP Alliance.

FOROYAA: Why the need for Confidentiality when your own supporters were demanding to know what was going on in the midst of the widespread notion that an agreement has been reached
HALIFA: It is true that many NADD supporters at home and abroad felt disarmed. They contacted me to ask about developments and I could not explain anything to them. The reason for this is simple. None of the sides requested for the talks. Interlocutors having sympathy for either side respectively intervened in good faith to promote Consultation between Mr. Darboe and myself without any conditionality or agenda. We had the option to chat and depart or create an agenda for further consultation. The only request made by the inter locator from the other side is confidentiality. I had to respect that wish and requested for a mandate from the NADD Executive to enter into talks without having to report to them until something conclusive is reached. I respected the request for confidentiality because of the fact that this was the first opportunity to build trust between the two sides. I am sure all keen observers of Gambian polities would notice that during the period of the talks
 no derogatory remarks against the UDP/NRP Alliance and its leaders could be attributed to the NADD leadership.
FOROYAA: What axe do you have to grind with Mr. Hamat Bah?
HALIFA: I have no axe to grind with Mr. Bah. He simply put me in a tight corner and compelled me to explain what was happening to every one and thus nullified the very confidentiality sought by the other side for the two sides to engage in a consultation exercise.
FOROYAA: How? 
HALIFA: Mr. Hamat Bah said that there were people in NADD who wanted to use others as their ladder, some who never launched their parties some whose party never had a single meeting and others who had been in politics for 20 years but never got more than 2% of the votes. He then went on to state that these are the people who wanted equal share with those who had 36% and 8%. He was emphatic in saying that this was not possible. He said that they (UDP and NRP) made a serious mistake in accepting the principle of sovereign equality of parties in NADD.He emphasized that they should not have accepted equal representation, noting that it was this mistake that led to the fall out of NADD
Mr. Bah then went further to deal a blow on our consultative process by asserting that he will not disclose the discussions going on at the moment between the two alliances that we will agree on a flag bearer. He added that what complicated the negotiation is that NADD wanted positions; they wanted the cake that is not yet baked. He concluded that they are not going to make any agreement as to who will occupy which position. The president will do that. This is what Mr. Bah said in the U.S. 
FOROYAA: What do you have to say?
HALIFA: Mr. Bah’s claim that negotiations were on between the two alliances could only be attributed to two things. He was either referring to my talks with Mr. Darboe which had nothing to do with the sharing of positions or that he was referring to negotiation that did not exist. In either case the statements were at least inaccurate and at best misleading. The people in the Diaspora still have access to Mr. Bah. Could he be asked to explain which talks were on where NADD was asking for position? I repeat NO such talks are taking place. My consultative exercise with Mr. Darboe had no agenda. Nothing about position was discussed. It was also being done under a climate of perfect equality. This is the first point. 
FOROYAA: Would NADD agree to the view that treating all parties as equals led to the fall out of NADD?
HALIFA: That is the second misleading notion that Mr. Bah sold in the U.S. Of course if one relies on common sense logic what he said would appear to be true. However if one analyses the reality one would consider his state to be unfortunate since others would also exercise their right to reply.
FOROYAA: What do you mean?
HALIFA: First and foremost, an alliance is not a ladder for just one party but for all parties constituting it. He can be equally accused of using an alliance as a ladder. Such negative way of looking at things will not take us any where. Secondly if flag bearers of alliances are determined by records of previous election then Mr. Darboe would have never been the presidential candidate in 1996. Prior to that he never participated as a candidate in elections.
Thirdly, the leader of one of the parties he mentioned had won an election as an independent candidate during the first Republic and was unseated only by a coup d’etat. 
Suffice it to say that the PDOIS that he was trying to trivialise by referring to 2% had put up five candidates in the 2002 parliamentary elections and earned two seats while having over 20% in all the other three constituencies while NRP put up 15 candidates only to earn one seat, which he Mr. Bah had lost in a by election. It is therefore difficult for me to understand Mr. Bah’s logic. What he has conveyed is that there in no spirit of negotiation in the UDP/NRP camp and that they are coming up with a sprit of imposing their will. This is at least haughty in approach 

to negotiation which can never succeed.
FOROYAA: Mr Bah said that the policy of treating parties as equals was a mistake. What is your view on this?
HALIFA: It is unfortunate that I am being dragged into such a discussion at the moment when we should be engaged in the process of dislodging the APRC regime. Leadership requires hindsight. Let me ask every Gambian this simple question. When we met in the US after delivering our speeches in Atlanta in 2003 and were asked whether any party could dislodge the APRC why didn’t the UDP assert then that it had the potential to do so and simply called on the other political parties to give it solidarity? Of course, if this was said there would not have been any need to select a Coordinator. The UDP would have been asked to send envoys to the various political parties to seek their support .The parties which felt that UDP could lead them to victory would have joined them.
In retrospect, when we met in the US the UDP had boycotted the parliamentary elections and had no seat in the National Assembly. NRP had lost one seat and had only one seat. Only PDOIS had two parliamentary seats. The case of the UDP leader was still in court. There was immense hostility in the camp of the opposition. 
In my view, the parties were right to state at the time that none of them could present itself as the leader of the fold. No party could take the posture of being superior to the other to the point of playing a big brother role on the basis of its individual strength and credibility.
I am one hundred percent sure that if the UDP had taken the posture that Mr Bah is asking it to take now when we first met, all the representatives of the other parties would have left the hall to go about their business. I stand to be corrected.
We therefore created NADD as an umbrella party to create unity in the midst of diversity among the opposition parties because no single party had the strength and credibility to serve as a rallying ground for other parties. This is the simple and elementary truth. This umbrella party was designed to address the individual weaknesses of the member parties and further galvanize their collective strength and integrity.
In order to ensure that the equality of the parties is reserved as a tactical instrument to consolidate the strength of the opposition in order to ensure victory the existence of NADD was limited to five years after the assumption of office by the flag bearer. During the five years all political parties will be able to retain their individual political support and still claim ownership of their collective achievements under NADD. The restriction of the mandate of the flag bearer to one term was to eradicate the advantages of incumbency so that any political leader who failed to contest in 2006 would have equal opportunity to seek the mandate of the people in the next following election by relying on a party’s numerical strength. The principle of creating an umbrella party under which collective leadership is exercised was designed not only to harness the numerical strength of the parties but to build up the potential to harness voters who are either non committed to
 individual parties or are supporters of the ruling party. The collective leadership also serve as an insurance against any allegation of tribalism or sectionalism. Equality and collective leadership in NADD offered each voter the personality one could love and trust to justify one’s trust for the opposition.
Herein lies the viability of NADD. Mr Bah says this was a mistake what he is offering is imposition of dominance by the UDP. Clearly his proposition would not have created unity among the opposition from the very beginning.
FOROYAA: But has an alliance like NADD ever happened?
HALIFA: NADD is a united front. In some cases countries are fortunate to have an opposition party which is capable of winning an election on the basis of its own numerical strength but can better do so by co-opting other opposition parties in an alliance which it leads. On the other hand, countries may be faced with a situation where the people are not sentimental about parties and are very willing to put party affiliation aside to form a united front to achieve an aim. 
A clear example of this is Gambia in 1996 and 2001 when the UDP operated as an umbrella party for the parties which were banned. I have also pointed out the cases of Tumani Toure and in Mali and even Nino Vieira in Guinea Bissau, where the people disregarded both the ruling party and the opposition . NADD could have been another example.
FOROYAA: What is the way forward?
HALIFA: I have said that people are calling for an alliance. We should explain what the two alliances are offering the people and ask them to make their choice as to which form of alliance should be the basis of unity. As far as I am concerned, I have made it clear that I have accepted to be flag bearer because of my conviction that I could be accepted by all political constituencies in The Gambia. However, I am also willing to hand over to anyone who can be better promoted among all political constituencies in the country.
FOROYAA: Some are asking why you accepted to be flag bearer.
HALIFA: Let me also ask why did, I accept to be Coordinator when I was Secretary General of PDOIS? It is duty that called and I had to answer. I would like to remind people that I did not apply to be a Coordinator nor did I want to be one. When I appeared in Atlanta I was the Minority Leader of the National Assembly of The Gambia and I accepted to be Coordinator not to become an apolitical civil servant but to facilitate a process. My mandate ended with the signing of the MOU. However all the parties agreed to elect me as Coordinator again? That is trust.
Needless to say, I did not apply to be flag bearer. Just I was unanimously selected as Coordinator I was again unanimously selected as flag bearer of NADD. I accepted because duty called on me to do so. If duty again calls on me to hand over the responsibility to someone who can better lead us to success I am again willing to do so. I am willing to do whatever duty is imposed on me.
FOROYAA: Mr Bah alluded to a party which for twenty years could only get two percent of the votes.
HALIFA: I am the flag bearer of NADD. Since NRP and UDP cam into being I stood in three elections. In 1997 I stood with a UDP candidate in Serrekunda East. I had 8500 votes. He had 8000 votes. The APRC candidate had 9500 votes. This is not what is called 2% of the votes. In 2002 those who boycotted elections campaigned against me but I won. In 2005 I stood for NADD and won. The picture Mr Bah has been insinuating regarding the flag bearer has no affinity to what is on the ground. This is the chapter and verse of the whole story.
FOROYAA: What is NADD doing at the moment? 
HALIFA: We are not convinced that a one party led alliance can be promoted successfully. Hence Sidia and his team are in the URD; Waa and his team have covered LRD and they are now in CRD and will come down to Baddibu. Landing Jallow Sonko and his team will cover Nuimi, Jokadu and CRD North. As flag bearer we will engage in debriefing when they come back to know the way forward.
FOROYAA: You must have a lot of money.
HALIFA: That is what we do not have. We have changed our strategy. We used to rely on established organisations like Movement for the Restoration of Democracy in the Gambia in UK or Save The Gambia Democracy Project in the USA. Now we have opened up new strategies to receive solidarity from any individual Gambian who wishes to give cash or kind. Our partners can continue to do their best while we explore new avenues for funding. We need paper, ink, cassettes, T-shirts, caps, etc. The response is encouraging. We can only be as effective as Gambians want us to be.
FOROYAA: Any last words?
HALIFA: I hear some people saying that if the opposition is not united they will not provide funds or vote. My view is that whether one casts one’s vote or not others will vote for the APRC. What Gambians should do is to give their maximum, be ready to vote and then encourage the opposition to be united.
The hands-off policy is a fatalist policy. It will only lead to the retention of the status quo. In our view people should insist that the two alliances come together. However if that fails people must learn to judge where the fault lies. I can assure every one that I will be able to explain my point of view with clarity and history will never indict me for not taking the right decision at the right time to defeat impunity and poverty which are dual factors that fetter the liberty and prosperity of the Gambian people..
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤