Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue

Issue No.57/2005, 21-24, 2005

Editorial

July 22nd  Revolution?

Who has been liberated?

A revolution is designed to liberate a Nation or people. It means the end to the old way and the beginning of a new way. Ask any Gambian whether they are faring any better this year than they did last year and the answer is likely to be in the negative. Ask any Gambian whether they feel more secure this year than they felt last year and the answer would be in the negative.

Ask any Gambian whether President Jammeh has grown to be a more mature statesman this year than he was last year and the answer is in the negative. If one follows his speeches and compares it with that of Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Toumani Touray of Mali, one discovers that he lacks total sense of direction and vision. Every word he utters makes the heart to be ill and the mind to slumber. His ideology is insult. His vision is a nation without critique. He went as far as to display utter contempt for scrutiny at the level of the National Assembly by pouring venom on Halifa Sallah and Hamat Bah and promised that they will not return to the National Assembly.

FOROYAA calls of Jammeh to change his attitude before lecturing our young ones to change their attitude. If advisers are morally bankrupt their insults can only inflame the youths, it cannot provide them with moral guidance.

This nation has a leadership that is developing a greater capacity to heap insults on its opponents than debate with them on fundamental issues of concern to the Nation. If this continues the worst pages of our history will continue to be written with threats and insults. The people need to take their destiny into their hands and win the Republican Revolution by banishing all those monarchical tendencies from position of public trust. This is the demand of sanity and it should be answered by the people.



LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT

Halifa reacts to Jammeh’s Interview

Mr. President, on my return from the United States where I toured 8 states, some alone and others with my colleagues, under the auspices of the Save the Gambia Democracy Project and their affiliates such as the Movement for Democracy and Development and the group in Raleigh, North Carolina, I was informed of your slanderous subterfuges and tirades against my person, my colleagues and the National Alliance for Democracy and Development. I could not rest until I give a fitting response to your irresponsible comments.

Mr. President, if you consider your opponent as donkeys then you must also by extension see their supporters as donkeys. In the same vein, those they oppose must also be donkeys. Hence you are implying that you are either a donkey contesting with donkeys or that you are the only human being riding on the back of a nation of donkeys. Either conclusion would constitute an insult to the Gambian people. This is the tragedy of allowing a person without sound ethical or intellectual properties to preside over the affairs of a Nation. Such a person must be crude in vision and raw in behaviour. Such uncouth characters must bring endless shame to a dignified and sober people. This is enough justification for you to be removed in 2006 so that the dignified Gambian people will be free from your unruly behaviour.

However, such base perceptions will not be allowed to pervert the fundamental discourse regarding the future of our nation and the destiny of our people. We will give a fitting response to every attempt to vilify us or denigrate our integrity to help the people to have an informed notion of your style of leadership and the need to dump it in the waste basket of history once and for all.

Mr. President your assertion that Hamat Bah and myself will not return to the National Assembly because of your claim that we are opposed to everything and are overbearing to the majority despite our number is at best preposterous. I have never called you a dictator before because I am fully convinced that you cannot dictate how I conduct my politics. However, the fact that you are tormented by your opponents in parliament to the point of wanting to silence their voices attest to your dictatorial tendencies. You have confessed to the whole world that you belong to a defunct era of rulers of one party state. This is why you still lament that things were better for you when there were no political parties. Amazingly enough, you accuse me of belonging to the Soviet era when few tyrants monopolize power in the name of the working class. This is a laughable prognosis since I refuse to accept your offer of ministerial post so as not to be linked to an autocratic government. You can never
 tarnish my democratic credentials and my repulsion for a reign of impunity. I stand for the total empowerment of the people. Unlike you I am fully convinced that genuine democracy can only be built when the free associations of youths, women, workers, professionals, media practitioners, human rights activists, farmers and other interested groups serve to dictate the policies and programmes of government at all levels. I strongly believe that the media should be the instrument for the amplification of the voices of the people if there is to be a transparent and accountable government. You are afraid of the organised influence of the people. This is why your government is afraid of peaceful demonstration. This is what led to the murder of innocent children on April 10 and 11th. Furthermore,  your revulsion for Justice made you the architect of an indemnity provision. I wish to repeat that the allegations of your security operatives that the head of the students union Mr. Omar Joof was
 under the influence of the opposition was utter fabrication. I will present you with a comprehensive view of what happened. I was totally in the picture as an elder who is always consulted by youths in this country when they are in a state of despair. I wrote letters to the secretary of state for education and interior to avert the problem. That early morning of April 10, I spoke to Army Commander Badjie to give my advice. Since your government is afraid of an organised people you plunged the nation in bloodshed. Hence if you are looking for a replica of the soviet state you better look at your own government. Your fear of the media is what led you to come up with all the draconian media laws while you utilize the state media in the most irresponsible manner to chide and castigate your imagined and real opponents. Who can you accuse of trying to bring a soviet type of government? You know very well that PDOIS had more influence in the armed forces of the Gambia during Jawara’s day’s
 than you ever could have had.

Mr. Marena who is now NIA director and Mr. Bah who was your Secretary of State for the Interior were brains in the Intelligence services.  Ask them and they will tell you how much Kukoi held PDOIS in high esteem and how he hesitated to intervene in the Gambia when his envoys realised our commitment to derive our authority to lead the country on the basis of popular consent. Press Jagne would tell you how we could have allowed ourselves to be used to gain power when certain foreign agents planned to build arm catches close to a foreign embassy to implicate the Gambia in the Cassamance conflict and destabilize the regime. If we were interested in a soviet like government we would have been where you are today earlier. Suffice it to say, you know very well how weak you were in October 1994. You can pretend to others but not to me. At that time when your camp was in total disarray  I called for a National Conference which could have done what NADD aims to do now. Since your aim was to
 establish a monarchy you succeeded in mystifying your weakness to translate it into strength by neutralising all your colleagues and develop civilian security operatives to contain the military. This is what gave rise to your call for committees for the defence of the revolution. If we were interested in a soviet type regime we would have used our influence to seek for power. Are you oblivious to the boldness of Sana Sabally, Kukoi and the endless information being passed about the arrest of some military officers? Are you not conscious that every attempt you make to stifle the legal opposition you are nurturing the strength of the illegal opposition. Do you really have this love for this country or you simply are a political charlatan who talks about patriotism inwards but is doing everything to undermine the peace and stability of the Nation by your arrogance, political misconduct and intolerance. If we were interested in power by the barrel of the gun rather than power derived
 from the consent of the people you would have never been in power today to lord it over the people.

You should remember that you have no personal power. What you have is state power. Your duty is not to abuse it but to use it responsibly to protect liberty and promote the welfare of the people. Since you have become omnipotent in conception and do not have advisers allow me to tell you that the quickest way to create a crisis of legitimacy and governability in a country is to try to wipe out a parliamentary opposition. I know you cannot wipe out the parliamentary opposition. However, every attempt to do so encourages the non parliamentary opposition to step in the shoes of the parliamentary opposition. This is the type of uncertainty that arrogance in the leadership can foster.

In my view, your arrogant and hostile attitude towards NADD which came out with a code of conduct to promote political decency confirms that you are an ambassador of mischief and not the ambassador of peace you often proclaim. If you were a different type of leader the birth of NADD would have ushered in a healthy multiparty politics in the Gambia characterised by mutual respect and peaceful coexistence of political leaders. You know very well that I have been calling for political decency on your part for the sake of the Nation. I am the least concerned about my personal security. I know that my death will not go unavenged in the speediest and most judicious manner. Hence I am speaking out not to enhance my personal safety but to safeguard the welfare of our people. I therefore urge you to abandon your unruly political conduct and prepare the ground for decent multiparty political conduct.

You have also been using religion to kill its letter and spirit. What happened to the Imam of the Airport Mosque? How can you justify your religious convictions by presiding over ceremonies where palm wine is poured and the intervention of ancestors sought to secure NAWEC machines? What about your presiding of wrestling matches of half naked females? Religion, to you, is a tool for maintaining your power. The time you spend watching wrestling matches and cultural display and the amount of money you waste on such things is more than you spend promoting human values and virtues. Unlike you I spend most of my days helping the young of today as we helped your own generation to develop values and virtues to serve people and humanity. It is amazing that you are calling people who contributed to your own upbringing idiots. I remember the plays Mr. Sam Sarr and myself used to produce when you were in Gambia High School. The plays were designed to bring you up to be a humble and respectful
 person. It discouraged vanity (Hebate amut Ngering,” “Belful na bone na throat”). Apparently, you have not learned from all this and you now prefer to transform your elders into donkeys on whose backs you ride. How great is your betrayal of cultural values which Gambians hold dare!! History will never forgive you for such traversy of human decency unless you change your ways with immediacy.

Lastly you indicate that we have proven to be ignorant people without knowledge of the constitution and therefore landed our selves where we are.

I am confident that you lack the intellectual maturity to understanding what happened without explanation. This is what gave rise to your simplistic assertions.



Halifa’s Reaction To  Supreme Court Decision

Foroyaa: As coordinator of the National Alliance for Democracy and Development, NADD; the secretary general of PDOIS and Minority Leader in the National Assembly, people are expecting you to clear the air regarding the Supreme Court decision that has left the National Assembly of the Gambia without a minority or opposition?

Halifa: I have been in Seattle close to Alaska and the Canadian border. I could not get access to the judgment that was sent to me until recently but had been briefed of the essence of the decision.

Foroyaa: Can you throw some light on the case?

Halifa: There is the famous diction of jurisprudence that justice must not only be done but it should be seen to be done. I would like to explain our position on the matter and leave the people to gauge the judgment of the Supreme Court on their own without any attempt to prejudice their minds. This will enable each Gambian or concerned person to determine whether justice is seen to have been done according to one’s own mature judgment.

Foroyaa: Most people expected that the NADD leadership would have studied this issue sufficiently enough to avoid the type of development that has taken place. How can it be explained?

Halifa: It is important to explain why we decided to register NADD, how it was registered and the implication of the registration for the sitting members of the National Assembly and the parties to which they belong when they were elected. These are the fundamental points at issue.

Foroyaa: Why did you have to register NADD?

Halifa: It is true that Gambians in the Diaspora did invite opposition leaders to discuss their basis of unity. This however was not sufficient to give birth to NADD. As long as their was the second round of voting the possibility existed for parties to contest the presidency in the first round and then give their  support to the leading opposition candidate in the second round. It is worth mentioning that the elimination of the second round of voting through constitutional amendment by the APRC executive and majority in the National Assembly is the single most important action that gave adequate justification for the birth of NADD.

Foroyaa: How?

Halifa: It became clear to the opposition leaders that if they are unable to unite to put up one presidential candidate to contest against Jammeh, their division can spell easy victory for him. The need for and alliance or united front was realized by the opposition parties. Consequently, many sessions were held to discuss the possible forms of alliances that could be established.

We had the option to establish a party led alliance or an umbrella association with its name, emblem and other attributes. Since the political parties had their own supporters many executive members felt that if the leader of a given party were to be made a flag bearer to contest under his/her party ticket the supporters of other parties may not cast their vote for the person for fear of giving advantages to the party the person represents at the expense of their own parties; that the person may end up perpetuating himself or her self in office.. It was reasoned that  since all the parties were to surrender their right to put up candidates in favour of one person it would be best for that person to surrender his/her party loyalty in favour of loyalty to the alliance. It was agreed that the establishment of an Alliance as a transitional instrument to promote the establishment of the standards of best practice in economic management, public service administration and good governance
 was the best mechanism for mass mobilization for change in 2006. It stood to reason that no party could object to a transitional flag bearer who would lead for only five years and refrain from either seeking a second term or giving support to any candidate. This could bring about change and a level ground for future multiparty election .This is what gave rise to NADD.

Foroyaa: Why did you have to register NADD?

Halifa: The reason for this is simple. The constitution and elections decree states categorically that only an association which is registered with the Independent Electoral Commission can put a Candidate for elections. We had to register NADD in order for candidates to contest presidential, National Assembly and council elections under its ticket.

Foroyaa: Why did you register NADD as a political party and were you not mindful of the implications?

Halifa: We reviewed the elections decree to find out whether there was a provision under which we could register the Alliance. Even though there was no specific provision for the registration of an Alliance Section 127 of the Law gave the IEC discretion to address electoral matters that are not provided for by any law. 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.

We conveyed our memorandum of understanding to the Independent Electoral Commission and relied in the discretion to register the alliance.

Foroyaa: Did the IEC register an alliance or a political party?

Halifa: It registered an alliance as a political party.

Foroyaa: How can an alliance be registered as a party?

Halifa: The elections decree makes provision for an association to be registered as a party. It did not restrict the definition of party to an association comprising of individual.

It stands to reason that an association can comprise individuals or groups. An alliance is an association composed of groups or political parties. It is an association based on group membership, As an association the alliance was registered as an umbrella party. This is what the IEC did.

Foroyaa: Has this been revealed to the Supreme Court?

Halifa: The Counsel for the Independent Electoral Commission did not mince words in defending the basis of NADD’s registration. He stated clearly that NADD was registered as a party of parties; That the parties comprising NADD are not deregistered and that as far as they were concerned they have issued directives for the parties comprising NADD to act through the umbrella party.   We had no intention to mislead them about our intention to register an alliance. They acted on the basis of fairness and natural justice to register the alliance as an umbrella party. The supreme court is however the final judge

Foroyaa: Can you throw light on section 91(1) (d) of the constitution which the Supreme Court relied on to declare your seats vacant?

Halifa: Section 91 1d states that a member of the National Assembly shall vacate his or her seat in the national assembly if he or she ceases to be a member of the party of which he or she was a member at the time of his or her election provided that nothing in this paragraph shall apply on a merger of political parties at the national level where such merger is authorized by the constitutions of the parties concerned.

Foroyaa; Have you ceased to be members of the parties to which you were members at the time of your election.

Halifa: Our position is that we have neither resigned nor subjected to expulsion from those parties. Those parties have not been deregistered. Infact, the Supreme Court acknowledged that up to the time they were hearing the case we belonged to our parties and NADD.

Foroyaa: On what basis did the Supreme Court decide that you have ceased to be members of parties to which you were members at the time of your elections?

Halifa: The Supreme Court decision should be read by all who are in a position to do so and evaluate on the basis of one’s mature judgment. What I deduced from the decision is that NADD is a distinct party and that as of the time of the trial we belong to two parties; that since NADD was formed at a later date we have abandoned our origna1 parties.

Foroyaa: What is your reaction to this decision?

Halifa: I hope legal pundits would be able to explain to me whether an association comprising groups cannot be registered as a party. Secondly, I would like to know whether the IEC cannot utilize its discretionary powers to register an association comprising of parties, as a party. If they had done so, should a court penalize those who relied on the discretionary powers of the IEC to register an alliance as a party when the IEC has acknowledged that an alliance is an association with group membership and it could be registered as a Party.  Of course, the court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce section 91 (1) (d). We can only express our opinions.

Foroyaa: Can nothing be done to challenge the decision?

Halifa: We will look at the development and decide whether to resort to review by the Supreme Court.

Foroyaa: What next?

Halifa: We can seek a review. To subject our judicial system to continental review we may submit a case to the African Commission human and people’s rights. I am very concerned with the issue of the separation of powers. The seats are not my main concern. We can easily be seated again by the people in a by election. In my view any representative who is afraid of a midterm review of one’s mandate by the people cannot be a democrat. Infact a by election will give an opportunity to the people to endorse or reject our decision to establish NADD as an instrument for putting an end to self perpetuating rule and prepare Gambia for a genuine multi party electoral contest, free from intimidation or inducement. My basic concern is the integrity of the National Assembly and its members. National Assembly members risk being equated with employees of speakers and clerks if they can interpret and enforce constitutional provisions rather than being mere custodians and couriers where the law makes
 provision for them to serve such purposes. We therefore need to focus on the integrity of the seats of National Assembly members so that a speaker who is just a nominated member and a clerk who is an employee of the National Assembly members would not be able to obstruct the performance or duties of those whom they are appointed to serve. Our counsel made a brilliant submission on this as an objection but the court utilized discretionary powers to set its decision aside to examine other substantive issues but reduced the exercise of the discretionary powers of the IEC to one of ILLEGALITY.

Foroyaa: Shouldn’t section 91(1) (d) be reviewed?

Halifa: Section 91(1) (d) was put in the constitution to prevent a cross carpeting of National Assembly members in search of personal benefits. The provision is there to encourage genuine alliances. Supreme Court can interpret laws in a progressive way or in a conservative way. It is the progressive interpretation of laws in line with the spirit and intention of the makers of the law that helps to consolidate our democratic existence. In my view, the doctrine of the separation of powers is still new and African countries would need members of the executive, legislature and judiciary, who are truly committed to these principles to ensure the checks and balances necessary for the arms of the state not only to serve the public interest but also seen by the public to be serving the public interest.

Foroyaa: What message do you have for the public?

Halifa: I am genuinely convinced that a country needs a responsible government and a responsible alternative should the government fail to meet the aspirations by the people. NAAD is designed to draw all opposition parties to be committed to a rectification program that would even serve the interest of the country.  Once the standards of best practice in governance has been consolidated, the Gambian people would be free to choose their leaders without fear or inducement. This is NADD’s agenda. Of course the Supreme Court decision has not nullified the agenda. What it has done is to consolidate NADD and make it the architect of the third republic. In my view, 7 July can be symbolically taken as the date for the founding of NADD and the Third Republic. I have no regrets

Foroyaa: Have you been informed of Jammeh’s comments on NADD?

Halifa: The Gambian people deserve a responsible government and a responsible alternative government. A responsible government would dwell on issues to

promote the liberty and welfare of the people. A power hungry leadership will never recognize the good in the citizenry and would promote indecency and hatred as means and preserve their political kingdom. Those who wish to be responsible alternatives should promote political decency, seek to win the confidence of the people with their wisdom and humility and promote national unity and the empowerment of the people. I would want the Gambian people to realize that president Jammeh has no personal power. What is in his hand is the power of the state. This power belongs to the people. Africa has passed the stage of tyranny.  Since president Jammeh abuses the state power entrusted to him by the people they reserve the right to take it away from him in 2006 and entrust it to NADD to test whether they also will use the power of the people to promote their liberty and general welfare or not. There is no need for despair. The struggle for the empowerment of the Gambian people is on course.
 There will be no hesitation or break. All difficulties shall be surmounted to attain victory. The by elections will give the first signal of the beginning of the end.





D1.5 MILLION THEFT CASE ADJOURNED

The criminal case involving the State and Papadadour Senghore Joof, an Accountant at the Accountant General’s Department, was on Wednesday adjourned by Justice Izuako of the Banjul High Court.

The adjournment of this high profile case came on the heels of the co-opting of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal by the Chief Justice, Steven Alan Brobbey.  Justice Izuako was part of the panel of Appeal Court Judges who presided over some cases at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. Papadadour Senghore Joof and Baba Gassama, a former High Court Accountant were arraigned in the court for stealing one million, five hundred and fifty eight thousand, four hundred and twenty Dalasis from the Gambia Government between January 2001 and August 2004.  Thirty two charges were preferred against Baba Gassama, while six charges were preferred against Papadadour Senghore Joof.

Baba Gassama later entered a plea bargain with the prosecution and the charges preferred against him were reduced to six counts.  He pleaded guilty to the six counts and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment.  The court also ordered him to pay one million, five hundred thousand Dalasis to the State.  His co-accused who pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him is now standing trial at the High Court.



HARRY’S SUPERMARKET PROPRIETOR IN COURT

The trial of the proprietor of Harry’s Supermarket, Surresh Kumar Wadwani continued at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court last week.  The accused is charged with the sale of expired food items contrary to the criminal code and the economic crimes decree (specified offences).

In his testimony before magistrate Mboto, Chief Detective Lamin Manneh said that he met the accused at the headquarters of the National Intelligence Agency on 13th February 2005. Chief Detective Manneh testified that he was on duty at the said office where the accused was brought the previous day in connection to the sale of expired goods at Harry’s Supermarket.  He pointed out that he was part of the four man team that was selected to conduct a search at Harry’s supermarket.

“We left with the accused person to Harry’s Supermarket where a search of expired items was conducted.  During the course of the search, some expired food items were found on the shelves and upon further search within the Supermarket, some expired foodstuffs were also found.  These expired items were collected and taken to the head office in Banjul.  When we arrived in Banjul, the items were kept until a medical officer examined them” he remarked.

Testifying further, the witness said the items were taken back to the Supermarket where they were examined by a medical officer.  At this juncture, the prosecutor, Nyalon Sarr asked the witness to tell the court the name of the medical officer.  In response, the witness told the court that he could not recall the name of the medical officer.  Detective Manneh said he later took the cautionary statement of the accused person, noting he had cause to read the cautionary wordings to the accused person.  He said he had made it known to the accused that he did not need to say anything unless he wished to say something.  The witness informed the honourable court that he wrote the statement of the accused in the presence of an independent witness.  Mr. Sarr later gave the witness the cautionary statement of the accused.  After glancing through the statement, the witness identified it as the statement of the accused.  At this juncture, the prosecutor applied to tender the document.  His
 application was not opposed by Sheriff Tambedou, the defendant’s lawyer.  The cautionary statement which was dated 13th February 2005 was admitted in evidence and marked exhibit E5.

Sheriff Tambedou later cross examined the witness after the prosecutor finished leading her witness in his evidence in chief.  Mr. Manneh testified that the witness was kept in the NIA headquarters for almost a week.  Continuing his testimony, the witness told the court that the investigative team went with the accused to Harry’s Supermarket on 13th February 2005, pointing out that Exhibit E was written after the team returned from the said supermarket.  Mr. Manneh informed the court that the investigative team took some items after conducting a search of the supermarket.  He said the items were in NIA custody for four days before they were returned to the supermarket.  He also told the court that he would not know whether Harry’s Supermarket was closed on 12th February 2005.  Mr. Manneh testified that Harry’s Supermarket was closed during the course of the investigation.  On Tambedou’s suggestion that Harry’s Supermarket was closed by the NIA on the 13th February 2005 to the 4th of
 March 2005, when the court ordered for it to be re-opened, the witness replied that he wouldn’t know.  The witness further testified that he wouldn’t know whether the NIA operatives took the keys to Harry’s Supermarket from the accused.  Going further, the witness said when the investigative team arrived at Harry’s Supermarket on 13th February 2005, they met a team of NIA operatives who spent the previous night there.  He went further to say that he was not part of the team that went to the accused person’s house, nor had he ever been to Harry’s Supermarket for shopping.  The defence counsel later asked the witness whether he had cause to do anything relating to the matter apart from what he told the court, and the witness responded in the negative.

The case was adjourned at this juncture for the prosecution team to call their next witness.



PRESIDENT JAMMEH GOT IT ALL WRONG

Do we ever sit to ask ourselves what kind of leader we want? Have we made up our minds on the type of Gambia we want for ourselves, our children and posterity? What is required in a democratic state of government or what does sovereignty mean? Why is it significant for a country to be totally independent? Is Yaya Jammeh a president or a king? Or has he forgotten that power belongs to the people and he was elected by the people?

According to the 1997 constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, section 1 subsection (2), “the sovereignty of the Gambia resides in the people of the Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity, the powers of government are to be exercised in accordance with this constitution.” This section categorically shows that the people of the Gambia have the final say to pertinent issues affecting their wellbeing or affairs. This emphasizes the importance of the people as the source of political power in the Gambia. So why is Yaya Jammeh acting as if he is an apostle or an angel sent from heaven? The fact that President Jammeh can sit on the national TV and threaten citizens especially the opposition has exposed his inability to lead this country. This is not the kind of leader Gambians really need. We want a mature and honest leadership. We want a president who will really speak the language of truth.  President
 Jammeh must know and also realise that the politics of indecency, character assassination, slander and libel are things of the past. Gambians must exercise zero tolerance for monarchs and tyrants. If he thinks he can use abusive language because he is president then he is not fair with himself and the Gambian population at large. Nobody is above the law. If he thinks the APRC government has absolute power and can adopt autocratic rule such that the fundamental human rights, rule of law and separation of powers are disregarded, making the system too undemocratic, then he are making the greatest mistake in the history of this land.

During his speech on July 22nd, he was elaborating on the National Anthem more especially the portion that states: ‘let justice guide our actions.” But what does he do when innocent people lose their lives and no justice prevails? In the case of Deyda Hydara what has the APRC government done except to make the victim himself a culprit. What about Koro Ceesay, an ex-Minister of Finance, who was assassinated and Ebrima Sillah, BBC’s correspondent, whose house was burnt to ashes? The arson attack on the Independent Newspaper, the closure of Citizen FM and all other injustices prevailing in the Gambia since July 1994? What I would like Jammeh to understand is that, he must practice what he preaches. He cannot throw dust into the eyes of the people. He must know and accept that power emanates from the will of the people. Do you understand why the president contradicts himself, confuses issues and pretends to be angry while talking to the viewers on important issues?  It is either because
 he doesn’t understand the subject matter or he doesn’t want the people to know the truth. Therefore, he keeps on threatening or using abusive language against people who are really enlightened.

Gambians do not need a pretentious leader who hides behind religion to gain support from the majority. The electorate has the final say not the president. The president should desist from the politics of pettiness. Gambians must really teach him a lesson.

It seems he is a bit scared and I would like him to exercise tolerance and self-control. He should try to be a role model and avoid giving the impression of a pompous leader. President Jammeh must not see the opposition as enemies. The opposition is the alternative government who should be regarded as partners. This is the politics of the twenty-first century and the APRC government must accept the truth. These bye-elections will determine if Gambians still own their minds.

Yaya Jammeh said he wishes there was no opposition at all in the Gambia because the opposition cannot rule this country. So who can rule it? His intention is for a one party system in the Gambia; for the people to vote for incredible candidates in the legislature. Essentially, he wants the legislature to be the stooges of the APRC.

Furthermore, is it not an irony for him to say that there is press freedom in the Gambia? Has he forgotten that there is prevalence of press censorship? The APRC government has taken absolute control over the National Radio and Television. This is why priority is not given to the opposition to express their concerns. If equal access is given to them like the APRC, then, why was the signing ceremony not shown on GRTS? Or why was the launching not fully covered? The APRC has monopolized everything.

In conclusion, Gambia belongs to all of us and it’s through our collective works and responsibilities that we can take the country forward.

In this spirit as stated in the constitution, “We continue to pledge our firm allegiance to our beloved country and pray that the Great God of Nations will keep us all ever true to the Gambia.”

By Fatou Janneh

Churchill’s Town



IMMATURE LEADERSHIP IS A THING OF THE PAST MR. PRESIDENT

I have been mesmerized to hear the president speak in the manner he did when I tuned on GRTS last Thursday, 21st July 2005. As a bonafide citizen of the Gambia and as somebody who is concerned about the welfare of the country, I always make it a duty to listen attentively to the speeches made by the president so as to analyse and know what type of a leader we have and to make a conscious decision in times of elections.

Mr. President, I think eleven years of leadership should have made you mature and conscious of what you should say and what not to say but sad to say I am not impressed by your utterances.

Mr. President your attacks or character assassination of the opposition members especially the NADD leadership does not befit the president of a sovereign nation like the Gambia. Mr. President, the NADD leadership would not talk in the way you did.  You said Halifa and his allies have brought no development in their constituencies.  That is definitely not true and you know that very well. Every genuine and conscious person knows that the services what those people are offering to their electorate. Not a single member of your party members in the national assembly can or is serving his/her electorate in like manner.

Concerning the court decision of Darboe’s murder case it seems you don’t even want to heed to a court decision instead you want to bring chaos in the country. Gambians would make the right decision which would not be in your favour. Let me remind you that NADD consists of mature leaders who would pursue the politics of maturity and enlightenment but not violence, insults and chaos as it appears that is what you wish.

Mr. President, let me assure you that you will fail miserably because Gambians are too conscious to plunge their motherland into chaos.

Fatoumata Touray



THE SUPREME COURT RULING

Following the recent political developments in the country, notably the Supreme Court’s declaration of the seats of opposition NAMs as vacant and President Jammeh’s sacking of the IEC commissioners, it has occurred to me that it is necessary to engage the public on these issues. This article is actually prompted by the fact that there have been comments that the NADD is to blame for the ruling by the highest court in the land; and based on this premise some justify the sacking of the IEC Chair and two of his commissioners.

With all due respect I beg to differ with the Supreme Court on its judgment in whether the Opposition NAMs have vacated their seats.

The declaration of vacancies of opposition National Assembly seats by the Supreme Court on the basis that the opposition NAMs have joined another political party is not consonant with the reality. It appears either the Supreme Court has not carefully considered the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) of the NADD or the IEC’s reasons for registering the alliance.

First it is necessary to inform the public that there are seven constitutional scenarios of which any one of them, if it arises is enough to render a National Assembly seat vacant. These seven cases are:

1.         When a NAM resigns from his or her party of election

2.         When a NAM is expelled by his or her party

3.         When a NAM’s party has been dissolved

4.         When a NAM has misconducted himself or herself

5.         When a NAM has died

6.         When a NAM ceases to be a member of the party that sponsored his/her election

7.         When a NAM has missed a certain number of National Assembly sittings

Based on the above therefore, the Supreme Court should determine whether any of them did arise. The fact is none of the above did arise. Therefore constitutionally they cannot lose their seats.

Secondly, if the Supreme Court had carefully considered the MOU of NADD they would have realized that NADD is a “party of parties”. This means that an individual human being like Halifa Sallah cannot be a member of NADD in the first instance. Only PDOIS as a political party can be a member of NADD, out of which stems Halifa’s membership of NADD. In this case therefore, NADD and PDOIS are not parallel, but rather one is above the other. For NADD to exist there has to be political parties as members. How therefore can Halifa be accused of ‘joining another political party’ just because he is a member of PDOIS, which is also a member of NADD? There is no case of change of allegiance or conflict of interest by any of the opposition NAMs because NADD is not a political party in the sense of PDOIS, UDP or APRC, etc. Halifa, Hamat, Sidia or Kemesseng’s joining the NADD does not put them into any conflict with their membership of their respective parties, and they have not changed any
 allegiance from their parties to another party. The interest and objectives of NADD and those of PDOIS, UDP, NDAM, NRP, and PPP are synonymous and identical. This is a basic technical fact on which the Supreme Court should rely and rule in favour of the NADD and justice.

Thirdly in the course of the proceedings, the IEC informed the Court that NADD was registered as a party of parties. Why has the Supreme Court failed to see what the IEC has seen in the first place?

Fourthly, for the information of the reader, at the launching of the NADD on Sunday 29 May 2005, all the political party leaders repeated one after the other that their parties still exist and they remain in the positions they hold in their respective parties. The Supreme Court need not necessarily consider only the law. They also must view their ruling against the backdrop of the time and circumstances of the society so that they do not set a very bad precedent, but to make a ruling that is progressive and in the national interest.

I recall during the Brown vs. Board of Education case regarding segregation in American schools in 1954, the Chief Justice Warren took it upon himself at the time to travel around the United States just to gather enough evidence to make a ruling. The American Supreme Court considered very well the future of America, the implications of their ruling on race relations, the development of education and the current situation at the time. With backing from the law they took a decision, which all men and women of conscience have come to realize, is in the best interest of all Americans. Among other things, the Chief Justice Warren states in his judgment that,

“In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation (Emphasis mine). Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.”

 Today all schools in the United States are desegregated.

Can we say that the Gambia’s Supreme Court did consider the development of democracy and good governance in this country as they made their ruling? Did they consider the behaviour of the Executive in this country vis-à-vis the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution? Did they not realize that ours is a growing democracy, which lacks very many essential elements in our laws, which therefore need to be created and nurtured? One example of that fact is the present case they just decided. Everyone knows that in this age an institution like the IEC, or even our Constitution should have laws providing for the registration of alliances as in other countries.  But ours does not have. This therefore is not the fault of NADD or even IEC. This is a clear indication that we still have a very immature democratic dispensation for which the Supreme Court itself must serve as one of the leading institutions to contribute to the maturation of that dispensation. They should not serve to
 immobilize that dispensation.  My expectation was that the  Supreme Court would have taken their time to consider all the ramifications of their ruling, on a matter that can have lasting effect on the people and country.

On the sacking of the IEC Chair, it goes without saying that President Jammeh continues to champion himself as the leading violator of the 1997 Gambian Constitution, which provides enough basis for his impeachment by the National Assembly! That constitution over which he presided clearly states that to sack the Chair of the IEC, there should apply at least one of three things:

1.         Misconduct – professional or otherwise

2.         Inability – of mind, body or other cause

3.         Conflict of interest – by virtue of certain circumstances

When a charge is made, the next step is to appoint three judges of the High Court to determine the truth or falsity of the allegation. Based on their recommendation, you act accordingly. In this present case, did Yaya Jammeh follow these provisions? He certainly did not, as is characteristic of him. The next logical move therefore should be for the former IEC Commissioners to take the matter to court, or citizens, civil society groups and indeed any other concerned body can take the matter to court so that sanity can reign over this tiny country.

Interestingly the reasons forwarded by Jammeh for sacking Mr. Roberts and his colleagues conversely question the legality of his own election as president since 1996. Is he going to step down and call for new elections, therefore?

In conclusion, it is apt to remind Gambians that democracy, freedom and development require a struggle that has to be consciously waged with unshakable determination and clarity. If Gambians are following events since 1994, one notices a clear and determined policy by Yaya Jammeh to dominate our lives day in and day out. This project of theirs shall continue as long as Gambians condone it. The question now is, for how long shall fellow majority Gambians condone the destruction of their lives by other fellow minority Gambians. They should know how to vote.  The ball could be in anyone’s court…

A very concerned Gambian



WOMEN AND POVERTY



Amie Sillah Reporting

Poverty in the Gambia is widespread and increasing. Studies show that there are gender and regional disparities in poverty. ‘Women are more vulnerable to aspects of poverty relating to income and access to property.’ (SPAII, PRSP) (Strategy for poverty Alleviation II, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper). According to the same source “Poverty is further complicated by the fact that the individual probability of a person being poor is their sex. There is a higher incidence and severity of poverty among women as compared to men which leads to the relationship between gender and poverty referred to as the feminization of poverty.” The great majority of women who reported to be working are in the agricultural sector and only one third of them report receiving cash income for their work as compared to 43 percent for men. They are also represented in manufacture (at a small scale), at wholesale and retail, social and personal services. Average earnings of men are consistently higher than
 those of women regardless of poverty status and type of occupation. When cash incomes are considered in sectors where there are a substantial number of men and women employees, men earn twice more than women. This could be attributed to their lower literacy levels, lesser qualifications and skills. Cultural, social and customary norms and practices means that women continue to have a lower social status than men, they have unequal access to education and control over productive resources and decision making. They cannot own land in the rural areas and they lose out on family properties in the event of divorce of a spouse.

A visit to the quarry at Bafuloto

Together with my friends Aja Ya Fatou Sonko and Fatou Touray of Foroyaa Newspaper we visited the women at the quarry. Their conditions of work is deplorable. They have old inadequate tools. The work is hard and tedious. Most of the time they have to rent tools from men to enable them do their work or sometimes they work for men to earn few dalasis to take to their families.

The women speak out

Mba Fatou was asked why she was working under such strenuous conditions at her age. She seems to be over 60 years.

Mba Fatou: “I am a widow. I have an only son who was deported from Europe and he came home mentally ill. My relatives are equally poor like myself. I have no help. I am renting a room and a parlour. I have to pay my rent and feed myself and my son. Who will do it for me if I do not work?”

Foroyaa: what do you think can ease your condition?

Mba Fatou: Better working equipments, transportation of our raw materials and good price for our product (the gravel we produce).

Foroyaa: You don’t have good price for your product?

Mba Fatou: We don’t. we sell the gravel to men who act as middle person between us and the building contractors.

Foroyaa: What message do you have for our readers?

Mba Fatou: We are calling on NGOs, foreign friends, philanthropists and government to help us with equipment, transportation to have better price for our gravel. We want to be economically independent to better take care of ourselves and our families.

Foroyaa: Thank you for sharing your views with us.

Mba Fatou: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for recognizing and coming to us.

Satou speaks out

Satou is a young woman with a family of six children, three boys and three girls. Her elder children are attending school. Her husband is a labourer earning starvation wages. She took the decision to work at the quarry to support her family. She seems to be in her early thirties.

Foroyaa: Satou, why did you decide to work at the quarry under these hard strenuous conditions? (She sowed us her harden rough hands, we were deeply moved.)

Satou: My husband earns very little money. He could not even take care of himself not to talk about our family. My elder children are attending school which I am sponsoring. The feeding, clothing and welfare of the family rests on my shoulder. The work is very strenuous but how ‘for do’. Human beings must learn to survive.

Foroyaa: We are impressed about your emphasis on your children’s education. Why do you give it a priority?

Satou: Look at you as role models coming to speak to us to learn about our success and our constraints. What makes it possible if not education. Education is light. Education is empowerment. We women at the quarry would not have been here suffering if we were educated. We would have chosen better options. Lack of conventional education make us limited. I want to educate all my children to give them better options.

Foroyaa: Well said Satou. You are courageous and ambitious. What are your constraints?

Satou: They are many as has already been highlighted by Mba Fatou. What we need is better equipment, transportation to sell our product at good bargaining terms rather than passing through middle persons who give us little money for our hard work..

Foroyaa: Would you leave this job if you have better options.

Satou: Personally yes but all the same if the conditions change I’ll stay because we can get good money if we are better organised through assistance from any quarter.

Foroyaa: thank you very much for sharing your valuable time and experience with us.

Satou. It is a pleasure.

Mba Mariama speaks out

Mba Mariama is a market woman taking garden produce from gardeners on loan basis to sell and later repay. She was having problems of repayment. Gardeners were at her throat. She is living from hand to mouth. She seems to be in her late fifties.

Foroyaa: Why did you switch from selling at the market to becoming a quarry worker?

Mba Mariama: I switched from being a market seller to being a quarry worker because it frees me from debts. I was heavily indebted to the gardeners and they kept harassing me. Now I get my little money from my gravel and take care of my needs without being indebted to anyone.

Foroyaa: But the work is strenuous. Market selling is easier do you agree?

Mba Mariama: Of course yes. Market selling is easier but am living from hand to mouth, I was heavily indebted. Now I am free. I am coping with the little money I have free from debts.

Foroyaa: Thank you very much for sharing your experience with us.

Mba Mariama: It’s a pleasure. We are calling on all friends abroad and in the Gambia to help us help ourselves.

Many women of all ages were met at the quarry. They collect their firewood for cooking. They contribute to buy condiments and cook their meals by turn at the quarry site. They shared their experiences with us and treated us as sisters. We took the pickaxe and experienced the work. It is indeed strenuous. They sang and dance to entertain themselves. Despite their poverty, these women are amusing and jovial. They are hopeful that someday there will be light at the end of the tunnel. Fatou Touray explained the experience of a woman who used to work at the quarry.

Fatou explains: “She was a relative working at the quarry to support her family. She worked until her pregnancy was heavy. One day she felt sick but could not buy her medication. She died with her pregnancy leaving five children behind.” This is the fate of our Gambian women working under difficult circumstances to take care of their families.



8 REBELS EXTRADITED TO SENEGAL



By Surakata Danso

Information reaching this reporter have disclosed that the government of The Gambia have finally handed over the 8 rebels reported caught by Police in Kalagi, to the Senegalese authorities.  Readers would recall that the rebels were arrested at the Kalagi check point, in June of this year and had been under security detention.  On the fate of the Spanish old man arrested along with the rebels the source disclosed that he remains in Gambian Police custody.

Readers would further recall that since the arrest of the men in Gambian soil the ammunitions like RPG’s, rifles, machineguns and pistols, a Senegalese security chief had visited the Gambia during which he made Senegal’s position clear on the whole issue of these arrested rebels.  The security chief indicated that his country’s will refer to these arrested people or bandits until such a time when the MFDC would associate with them.





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail

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