Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue

Issue No. 59/2005, 28-31 July, 2005





Editorial

DEAD BODIES, NO EXPLANATION

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

The Secretary of State for the Interior needs to hold a press conference to explain why dead bodies are simply dumped at the mortuary and asked to be buried without identification. Gambia is an open society and nothing can be kept secret. It is better to explain everything so that no one will come tomorrow to start unearthing bodies.

 Foroyaa has contacted police headquarters and the department of state for the Interior for explanation but to no avail.

The rumours are rife that some of these people were suspected to be foreign mercenaries. Others claim that they are marooned Africans in search of routes for greener pastures in Europe. What appears to be increasingly evident is that the dead bodies are not Gambians. Ritual killing is also being rumoured. The information is spreading without any clarity. It is the duty of a state to prevent rumours that are alarming from spreading.

This comes by giving timely and accurate information to the public. Foroyaa is still investigating. We hope the relevant authorities will clear the air.

Gambians however should be increasingly vigilant.

Foroyaa is interested in any piece of information that any Gambian can give to inform the readers.



NADD’S PRESS CONFERENCE



By Yaya Dampha

On Tuesday 26th July 2005, the National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) had a press conference at The People’s Centre in Churchill’s Town.  During the press conference, the NADD Coordinator, Halifa Sallah, announced that their trip to the United States was very successful.

He said that some time around July 2003, all the political parties in the Gambia were invited to a conference in Atlanta, organised by a group of Gambians called “Safe The Gambia Democracy Project,” which is a civil organisation based in Atlanta. Halifa Sallah said that all the political parties attended except the APRC and the NCP at the time. The Coordinator said that this conference would have provided the Gambian community in the Diaspora to listen to both sides of the country’s political divide, regarding what is happening in the Gambia; that after the meeting, the group invited the opposition members to a discussion on how they can participate in the democratisation process in the Gambia; that the group emphasised the need for a respectable opposition that is indispensable. “The group urged the opposition to look into the need for a serious political alliance as an alternative government,” said Mr. Sallah.

He said that the opposition parties that attended agreed that the country needs both a responsible government and a responsible opposition to serve as an alternative government; that because democracy is about choice; that if people don’t have a choice, democracy will not survive. Mr. Sallah said that the meeting was attended by the NDAM, NRP, PDOIS, PPP and UDP and he was selected to be the Coordinator who will ensure that the parties have come together in a strong alliance. It is the same group again that wrote to them and invited NADD after its formation to visit the US so that they will explain to those Gambians and interested persons in the United States what NADD is all about explained the Coordinator. He added that the NADD delegation was subjected to all kinds of questions during their meetings at different places or states in the US so that people will be able to make up their minds about the Alliance, in order for them to be able to make informed choices and that was one of
 the main objectives of their trip and which was achieved.

He said that all parties in NADD were represented by virtue of their being members in the executive committee; that they arrived in the United States and started the programme in Atlanta; that they visited and spoke in Raleigh, in North Carolina, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington DC, New York, Seattle among the many places they’ve been to.

“We have met many Gambians and concerned persons everywhere and made presentations to them and allowed them question and answer sessions which lasted for several hours and these meetings were attended by people of different inclinations some of whom would come to give their support while others were sitting on the fence and that some came even to challenge,” said Halifa Sallah.

“However, after the interaction with these people who were in large numbers, it became evident that they were convinced of NADD’s message,” added Mr. Sallah.   He said the groups that they met understood very clearly that NADD is a strategic alliance, which is necessitated by the dictates of reason and wisdom; that each opposition party has its own principles, polices and practices; that they are entitled to seek the mandate of the people for the simple reason that NADD has realised that the APRC government has changed the constitution by virtue of its majority in the national assembly to abolish the second round of voting; that the opposition is pushed to a position where it can lose elections by virtue of its division and not by virtue of the popularity of the regime.” “It was very clear to the opposition that going for the 2006 election by different candidates has the likeliness of helping the incumbent to stay in office not because of the fact that people want them to stay in
 office, but because of the opposition’s division of the votes,” said the Coordinator. He continued that it is in this respect that they saw it in the National interest to converge and develop a strategy to put up one candidate to contest the presidential election and candidates for the national assembly and local government elections; that the person will serve a single term at the end of which, he will not support any candidate, in subsequent elections after the first five years of the transition. Mr. Sallah said that NADD will give the people their undiluted choice, to determine who they want, to govern their country. Mr. Sallah added that NADD also realised that since people were conceding their rights to trustees seeking the mandate of the people, it was necessary to offer them a guaranty so that it will not lead to giving advantage to some one who will also promote self perpetuating rule and lord it over the people. Mr. Sallah said that all parties and their leaders were
 committed to the fundamental objectives that will put an end to self perpetuating rule and not allow anybody to emerge again in the political history of the Gambia who will behave in an autocratic manner. He said that this is why they agreed that the person who will lead the alliance will not seek for a second mandate and will only stay in office for five years after which he will not support any candidate; that this creates a level ground for multi party contest where people will seek the mandate of the people not through the support of others, but because of their programme and the candidate they will put. He said that this is precisely the reason why NADD came into being and it was explained very clearly to the people in the United States who endorsed it.

Lamin Waa Juwara also made similar remarks and informed the press about some of the personalities who attended the meeting. Mr. Juwara said that Gambians in the US have raised funds for NADD and that this fund raising will continue. Mr. Juwara said that the economic hardship of the country also affects those in the diaspora since they are sending monies to maintain families here. He said that without this monies being sent back home, there could not have been anything for some of us here; that those in the diaspora that whether or not they are given the franchise to vote, they will convince their people back home to vote for NADD in all elections. Juwara said “there is room for accommodation for every one in NADD whether APRC or whatever..”



LETTER TO PRESIDENT JAMMEH



PART TWO

First and foremost, it is necessary to explain why NADD came into being. In short, it is the interest and right of every opposition party to seek the mandate of the people on the basis of its principles, policies, programmes, practices and the merit or quality of its chosen candidates. The 1997 constitution provided for a second round of voting to ensure that no person becomes president with less than 50% of the votes cast. Under such a system opposition parties could put up candidates to test their strength against a party in government. If the party in government has less than 50% of the vote, as was the case in Guinea Bissau and Senegal, then the opposition party with the highest number of votes would contest with the candidate of the governing party in a second round of voting. In that regard, the opposition parties could form an alliance to support the opposition party with the highest number of votes. Under such circumstances one does not need any form of formal alliance. One
 needs an electoral alliance. The party which comes into office is free to govern as it wishes just as in Senegal and Kenya. The opposition parties which help the person or party to come to office would not have any authority to influence how the person or party rules.

On the other hand, you, Mr. President, utilized your parliamentary majority to amend the constitution to abolish the second round of voting. This meants that any attempt by the opposition parties to put up candidates to test their strength would lead to their division.

For example, 5 opposition parties can share 70% of the votes and still allow the candidate of the ruling party to win by 30% of the votes cast. Hence apart from the desire for opposition parties to unite, the single most important decision which made it strategically necessary for the opposition to unite is the revocation of the provision for the second round of voting.

The opposition parties had two options. They explored the viability of rallying around one party and its candidate and programme. It was a common view that such an alliance would have serious limitations. In the first place supporters of other opposition parties and more in the ruling party may not be won over by such a party. Secondly, there would be no way of determining whether the party won because of its merit or the support given to it. In that respect the party who attain victory will have no obligation to honour any memorandum of understanding signed.

The opposition parties finally concluded to establish an alliance under whose ticket the 2006 presidential elections would be fought so that all the candidates will be accountable to the alliance and could never violate the provisions of the memorandum of understanding without cost.

One may now ask why was NADD registered?

The answer is simple. The constitution has made it abundantly clear that no association can put up a candidate under its name unless it is registered with the IEC. It is therefore evident that if NADD aimed to sponsor candidates it had to be registered. This is why prior to the registration of NADD, elections were fought under party led tickets. After such electoral contests, the lack of consolidation of NADD was seen as a major obstacle to success. One may now ask; how was NADD registered?

A review of the electoral decree revealed that there was no specific law for the registration of an alliance. However section 127 of the elections decree reads:

“Where any issue arises relating to electoral matters which is not addressed by this decree or any other law, the commission shall resolve such issue in keeping with the standards and rules of natural justice and fairness.

(2) A decision of the commission with respect to an issue arising under subsection

(1) shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court of law.



In fact, the decree says that the decision of the IEC is final. It is the 1997 constitution which subjects the interpretation and enforcement of all laws to the dictates of the Supreme Court.

Section 127 obliges the IEC to handle electoral matters that are not provided by any other law according to the dictates of natural justice and fairness.

How did the IEC handle the issue of registration of the alliance?

According to the constitution an association may be registered as a party. The IEC conceived an alliance as an association of parties. It conceived it as fair to the alliance as a party of parties or an umbrella party. This is the portion that minds which are neither fair nor innovative fail to comprehend. The position of the IEC is however very simple to understand if we look at the trade unions. The Gambia Workers Confederation and trade Union Congress are all trade unions but they are unions of unions. In the same vein, an association can comprise individual membership or group membership. An alliance is an association with group membership. Since an association could be registered as a party, the IEC told the court that it registered the alliance as a party of parties.  The objective of the IEC was not to enable us to become members of two parties but to enable our parties to come together under an Umbrella Party.  This is in line with the spirit of Section 91 (1) (d) which reads:

“A member of the National Assembly shall vacant his or her seat in the National Assembly if he or she ceases to be a member of the political party of which he or she was a member at the time of his or her election”

The provision is clear.  You said that you put the provision in the Constitution.  I doubt whether you have any understanding of what gave rise to Section 91 (1) (d).  Infact, my most disappointing moments during the court case is my failure to hear reference being made to the fundamental principles of jurisprudence which enable judges to make landmark judgments.  Our counsel started very well by dwelling on the spirit of the Constitution and the mind of the makers of the Constitution.  If you know your role as the custodian of executive power and had respect for the separation of powers you would not make yourself the maker of the Constitution.  Where parliament is the maker of laws judges to try to know the mind of parliament before interpreting legal provisions.  In the case of the 1997 Consitution the reasons for the provisions are clearly stipulated in the report of the Constiutional Review Commission.

The reason for putting Section 91 (1) (d) in the 1997 Constitution is clearly explained.  It was mainly due to the desire to prevent cross carpeting of members of parliament.  It is specifically stated in the report of the Constitutional Review Commission that in the past opposition almost disappeared in The Gambia because of opposition members joining the ruling party after being elected by the people on an opposition ticket.  Secondly, it conceived as important to have a strong opposition in order to consolidate democracy.  This is why it makes it a provision for a person to vacate his/her seat if one moves from the party to which one was a member when elected to another party.  Thirdly, it saved the seats of members, if parties merged to become stronger.  This was the letter and spirit of Section 91 (1) (d).This is the interpretation that should be given to it.  Hence the IEC was not favouring the Opposition.  If the APRC and NCP sought registration it would have done the same
 thing for them.  However, the APRC/NCP alliance is just an alliance in words.  All the National Assembly seats belong to the APRC.  There is no NCP Secretary of State, Chairperson of Council, Councillor or Political Representative in office.  This is the outcome of Alliances that do not have legal foundation.  They simply depend on the good will of those who control executive power.  Maybe after this letter you will favour the NCP with little recognition rather than humiliating its leader in major gathering to drive him towards political extinction.  This is the type of alliance we did not want.

NADD is an Alliance which sought to be a United Front for all Gambians irrespective of party affiliation to rally around to bring about a level ground for future multiparty contest under a democratic environment.  Hence if one understands the purpose of NADD and the mind of the IEC one would not question the integrity of the process.  on the other hand, if one simply considers the outcome of the court case one may cast doubt.  There is however no need for you to jubilate.  There are many roads to achieve an aim.  What is important is to remain focused on noble intentions.  Let me state without any fear of exaggeration that the verdict of the court will give rise to the very opposite of what is intended. Whether a review shall be pursued or not the outcome of the court case will lead to the consolidation of NADD.

My only regret about the case is the attempt being made by you and those working under your instruction to subject the members of the IEC to unparallel intimidation.  Fabrications of all sorts have been made against them.  A press release from the State House went as far as to accuse them of criminal behaviour.  This is the height of indecency and abuse of executive power.

In that press release it is claimed that the National Assembly declared our seats vacant and that our seats should have also been declared vacant by the IEC.

Mr. President, the Constitution is very clear on the guards and fences around the exercise of duties by the IEC.  Section 44 Subsection (3) of the Constitution states that “In the exercise of its functions under the constitution or any other law, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”

How can a Commission act on a matter which it has knowledge of just to abide by the dictates of a Clerk who gave reasons for declaring our seats vacant that the Commission knew were erroneous.  Before the decision of the Supreme Court was made the Commission knew that we had not ceased to be members of the parties to which we were members when we were elected.  It was clear to them that they had registered NADD as an Umbrella Party.  It was their sovereign right not to be dictated to but to wait for the decision of a court.

If your government had any respect for law you will not try to influence a Clerk or Speaker of the National Assembly who are employee of the National Assembly to declare the seats of their employers vacant.  This is why it is still amazing to me how this fundamental safeguard of the separation of powers is defended by the judgment.  Where in the World could a Nominated Member elected Speaker and a Clerk employed by parliament have the authority to remove an elected member of parliament and members of the Independent Electoral Commission removed for failing to abide by their decision?  It is only possible in a place like The Gambia under your government where justice is standing on its head and reason is off balance.

It is now every clear that if the separation of powers are not protected by the courts and the independence of oversight institutions protected by law executive encroachment to stifle their independence must be the order of the day.

Let me give you concrete examples of how you are reducing the independence of the IEC to ashes.  Your press release accused the members of the IEC of misconduct.  The allegations which appears to one as mere fabrications have been elaborated in your press release.  Now, what is the appropriate thing to do under the Constitution?  The answer is simple, Section 42 Subsection (6) (c) of the Constitution states that “The president may remove a member of the commission from office for misconduct, but, before removing a member, the president shall appoint a tribunal of three judges of a superior court to enquire into the matter and report on the facts.  A member of the commission shall be entitled to appear and be legally represented before the tribunal.”

Mr. President, you claimed to know the Constitution, could I say that you have no respect for the Constitution.  What moral authority do you have to indict the IEC of misconduct when you have no respect for the procedure established by the constitution to investigate into the misconduct?  Instead you are threatening to prefer criminal charges against them.

Let me make further observation of how you uphold constitutions and other law, with total disregard.  Section 42 Subsection 5 (c) states that “A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the commission if he or she is, or has at any time during such period of two years been, the holder of any office in any organisation that sponsors or otherwise supports, or has at any time sponsored or otherwise supported,  a candidate for election as a member of the National Assembly or of any local government authority; or if he or she has actively identified himself/herself with any such organisation.”

Mr. President, look at your recent appointments to the IEC.  It is not obvious that your former Secretary of State for Agriculture has actively been identified with the APRC.  Do you have any respect for law?

Lastly, you claim that no law exists that makes it a requirement for Gambians abroad to register and vote Section 39(1) of the constitution states that “Every citizen of the Gambia being eighteen years or older and of sound mind shall have the right to vote….”

Section 141 of the Elections Decree states that “The Independent Electoral Commission may make rules for Gambians in any foreign country to vote in a Presidential election.”

It is not your prerogative to announce that Gambians abroad will not be registered. This is the prerogative of the IEC.  Your statements constitute gross interference with the Independence of the IEC.

I have shown with overwhelming thoroughness that you either donot understand the constitution in your manner of removal of the IEC commissioners and so on or that you have no respect for the constitution. The only remedy is for the people to remove you in 2006 and select such other person who respects the constitution and create the conducive  environment for the independent operation of the courts. Fruthermore, you have shown total comtempt for the courts by threatening extra judicial measures to handle matters that have already been handled by the courts.

 You therefore have little moral authority to question our understanding and respect for the provisions of the Constitution.  This is how matters stand on the Constitution and NADD.

Mr. President, you also claimed that the Opposition has been undermining your anti corruption campaign and had been agitating for family members abroad not to send money to those at home of they fail to vote for NADD.

It is important to put things in their proper perspective, I have been among the first to declare that your operation no compromise was motivated by queries raised by the World Bank and IMF of the unauthorized expenditures of your government from national coffers and gross mismanagement at the Central Bank.  As the executive instead of accepting responsibility you decided to pass on the blame through Operation No Compromise.

Let me give concrete facts on how your government had mismanaged the revenue base of the country and sectors such as agriculture.



8 DEAD BODIES DISCOVERED AT BRUFUT

“FOUL PLAY CANNOT BE RULED OUT”



By Yaya Dampha

Eight dad bodies were on Sunday found around Brufut forest which is not more than five hundred meters from the Brufut Police Station.

According to eye witnesses, the bodies were all lined up along the roadside so that passers-by could see them. Many people in the town of Brufut also believed that these dead bodies were dumped at where they were found since no trace of killing was found around the site and none were recognised by those who saw them as people from within the area.

Five out of the eight corpse were said to have knife cuts on their necks and the rest are believed to have been seriously traumatized on the head. No gun shot marks were seen on their bodies and the eight were neatly dressed and not seem to have come from the sea.

When contacted, the Police PRO, Aziz Bojang, told our reporter that the matter is a very serious one and is still under investigations. He said he could not comment on the nationalities of the dead persons or how they might have met their death and told our reporter that he is ordered not to make any statement.

The Communications Officer of the RVTH, Mr. Malick Mboob also made similar remarks and confirmed that the bodies have been in the mortuary but failed to make more comments.

However, sources close to the RVTH confirmed to Foroyaa that during the post-mortem at the hospital, one police officer identified one of the dead men as a Senegalese national. However, our reporter was told that from one of the dead men’s pocket, some Euros amounting to three hundred and fifty was found.

Many in town are confused about the killings and called on the relevant authorities to make official statement on the issue.



LEAVE THE IEC ALONE

“A Dialogue With The President”

Faithful to your dream of perpetuating your rule, you keep manufacturing one scheme after another to ensure that you are re-elected. But the prospect of success is becoming bleaker and bleaker as the days go by. This leads you to despair and make frivolous comments.

It is not surprising therefore that when you were swearing in the new chairman and members of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), you made comments that were completely out of place, comments that are calculated to subject the IEC to your influence; this is intolerable. You went as far as to address the IEC as if you were addressing an APRC rally by predicting that the 2006 elections will be a disaster for the opposition, as they will lose miserably to the APRC.” Such remarks to newly appointed electoral commissioners are most inappropriate and uncalled for. It is as if you are asking the IEC to do all it can do to ensure that you get a resounding victory in 2006. Such comments should be directed to your supporters and the public at large, not the IEC.

Whether you will be elected as president or not will be determined at the polls. The role of the IEC is to act as a fair and impartial vampire. You should not misuse your position to influence them in any way and this is what you seem to be doing.

Assuming that the Daily Observer quoted you correctly, you told the new electoral commissioners that “the issue of extending the votes to Gambians living abroad is not tenable.” Who are you to decide whether or not Gambians abroad should be allowed to vote? Gambians living abroad are citizens, just like you, who have been compelled by economic or other circumstances to live abroad in the search for greener pastures. They struggle hard, sometimes working for up to 12 hours to accumulate money to provide for their families living in the Gambia. They build houses, provide capital for relatives to invest in economic projects, pay school fees, give donations to public institutions like schools and hospitals and assist in many other ways. The foreign exchange that they send back home contribute a lot in off setting the balance of payments deficit. In short, their contribution to the economy is immense. You now take it upon yourself to say “no, they will not vote, that those who wish to
 vote should take it upon themselves to come during election and vote.” On what basis?

You even went on to say that it is not necessary for them to vote because they have renounced their citizenship of the Gambia which is untrue. The overwhelming majority of Gambians, living abroad have not renounced their citizenship even where they have acquired the citizenship of another country.

What is outrageous is your statement that “there is no clause in the country’s laws that states that voting should be extended to Gambians resident abroad.” This is totally incorrect. I am quite sure you did not consult the Attorney General before making such statement or if you did you did not heed to his advice.

Now, read this following very carefully so that you will understand section 26 of the constitution which makes it a fundamental right that: “Every citizen of The Gambia of full age and capacity shall have the right, without unreasonable restrictions (a)”To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) “ to vote  and stand for elections at genuine periodic elections for public office, which elections shall be by universal and adult suffrage and be held by secret ballot. In other words, every Gambian adult whether at home or abroad has a right to vote and stand for elections for public office, which elections shall be by universal and equal suffrage and be held by secret ballot.” This section is entrenched and cannot be changed without a referendum supported by 75 percent of the votes. Such is the importance of this section.

In order to exercise their right to vote in elections, section 39 (1) of the constitution states categorically: “Every citizen of the Gambia being eighteen years or older and sound mind shall have the right to vote for the purpose of elections of a President and members of the national Assembly, and shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in a National Assembly constituency for that purpose.” This however applies to all Gambians. It is also an entrenched clause. So what authority do you have to exclude Gambians living abroad?

In fact the elections Decree had anticipated that Gambians living abroad have a right to vote and therefore empowered the IEC to “make rules for Gambians in any foreign country to vote in a presidential election.

It is IEC’s plan to register Gambians living abroad as voters and funding agencies have shown willingness to fund this project. So, what is the problem? You said the government cannot afford to finance this project, but funding agencies are willing to do so. So why don’t you assist in facilitating the process so that other Gambians who have equal rights like you, can have a say on how this country is run. This is how every democrat thinks.

If you persist in sabotaging the plans of the IEC to extend the franchise to Gambians living abroad you will simply expose yourself as a presidential aspirant who fears that Gambians living abroad will vote for the opposition. This explains your desperate move in opposing the extension of the franchise to Gambians living abroad.

You are also quoted as saying that “all parties will be given equal airtime, anyone who want extra time will have to pay for it.” You have taken the posture of granting air when it is a requirement of the law that equal airtime be granted and IEC is to ensure that it is granted. You have no role to play here.

In a word, section 93 (1) of the Elections Decree states: “The Commission shall, during an election campaign period, ensure that equal air time is given to each candidate and national party on the public radio and television.”

In addition section 93 (2) of the Elections Decree also states: “The Commission shall, in compliance with subsection (1), determine the time to be allocated to each candidate and political party per day or such  other period as the Commission may consider reasonable, taking into account the number of candidates and political parties making a request under subsection (3).”

You went further to state that “anyone who wants extra time will have to pay for it.” By your statement you are giving the impression that you are the one running GRTS.

The Chief Executive of GRTS is the Director General who shall be “responsible for the execution of the policy of the Board and the transaction of the day-to-day business of the corporation.” Allow him to do his job.

You are reported to have urged the IEC to apply the laws governing political parties to the letter, without bias. That’s fine. You went on to say “you are independent as long as you play by the rules but if you fail to deliver, I will step in to regulate the situation….”

What you are simply telling the IEC is for them to act according to your whims and caprices, otherwise you will fire them. This is the only way one can interpret your statement.

You know very well that your claim that the IEC is partial towards the opposition and abide by their dictates is unfounded. Every keen observer is fully convinced that this is nothing, but a scheme to put the IEC under pressure so that they will avoid hurting you whenever they make decisions. In other words, you are trying to influence the IEC, leave them alone to perform their functions.

You claim that the setting up of the IEC    is not imposed on you by anyone. This statement is not accurate. The establishment of the IEC is a constitutional requirement supported by about three-quarters of the votes cast at a referendum in 1996.

In short, section 42 (1) of the constitution states clearly “There shall be an Independent Electoral Commission for the Gambia which shall be part of the public service.” What the constitution says must be and has to be, whether anyone likes it or not.

This is an entrenched clause requiring a referendum supported by three quarters of the votes cast before it can be amended or revoked. I am sure you have not forgotten that section 42 (1) led you to table a bill at the national Assembly to dismantle the IEC and constitute it only when elections are approaching. You managed to get the APRC national assembly members to pass the bill. But you failed to take it to a referendum. Why? The only plausible explanation is that you were afraid that the revocation of section 42 (1) would be rejected at a referendum. Hence you have no right to claim that you set up the IEC out of your own free will to ensure free and fair elections.

Mr. President, your best future is to expand the democratic space and support the IEC to conduct free and fair election. When you are voted out of office you will then benefit from your good work for which many will remember you. To do otherwise is to create problems for yourself.



X-RAY FILM SHORTAGE AT RVTH

“COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER DENIES ALLEGATION”



By Yaya Dampha

Reports reaching Foroyaa intimated that the RVTH is facing acute x-ray film shortage and that many patients were referred to west Field Clinic where they paid more than six hundred and fifty dalasis to get this service. One Aji Yama Saine said she was referred from RVTH to West Field Clinic because there was no x-ray film at the RVTH. She said she paid over six hundred dalasis to acquire this service at the West Field Clinic. She said she was not the only one who was referred to West Field Clinic for lack of x-ray films at the RVTH. Another Fatou Ceesay said that she also had a similar experience and that she found it very hard and frustrating since she could not at that time afford the amount.

When contacted, the communications officer, Malick Mboob, said that there is no x-ray film shortage at the nation’s main hospital and that the x-ray department had infact got new supplies of x-ray films. He said that those days are over when the RVTH runs out of x-ray films and drugs. He said that the persons who reported this to Foroyaa must have a personal reason for doing so.



Police Deny Imposing Curfew in Wellingara Ba



By Pateh Baldeh

Reports reaching FOROYAA have it that Police in Bureng, Eastern Jarra have imposed curfew in the village of Wellingara-ba.

Many residents who spoke to our reporter, who visited the area, said the Police Officers in the area have imposed curfew on the said village without advancing any reason. They said the Police enter compounds and ask inhabitants to go to bed after mid night. They said some people were arrested in the streets. The villagers have expressed dissatisfaction over the actions of the Police. They accuse the Police of dispersing people at a wedding gathering and interrupting the area’s weekly Lumo. The villagers accuse the Police of arresting and detaining people for allegedly violating rules, however, they wonder why the Police never take the detainees to court.

The station officer at Bureng Police Station denied the allegations and said they were only on patrol after the apprehension of alleged Cassamance fighters in Kalagi.






---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤