MR. BUHARRY GASSAMA:

You have eloquently highlighted valid points in contributing to this debate;
and more significantly, you have compared and contrasted the varying degrees
of what VIOLATIONS are under different regimes, but before commenting on
your piece, let's take a closer look at the following quotation from your
writing:-

"It is of absolute importance that those whose human rights have been
violated should be encouraged to come forth and narrate their stories. This
should however not only be limited to violations under Jammeh if we are to
be
fair. A violation is a violation no matter under whose regime. I therefore
thank
Ebou Colley and Chongan for being brave enough to come forth and offer us an
insight into the nightmares they lived through and hope that they would not
be
deterred from continuing. I also hope that other victims, be they under
Jawara's
or Jammeh's regimes, come forth so that lessons will be learnt and
guidelines
drawn for the betterment of our country."

Mr. Gassama, taking into account the MORAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, and LEGAL
analyses and interpretation of your above quotation, it would be absolutely
difficult, if not a mammoth task, to accomplish your objective, within the
frame work of your guidelines. Whiles I utterly agree with you on the
premises that: ALL THOSE WHOSE HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED SHOULD BE
ENCOURAGED TO COME FORTH TO NARRATE THEIR HORRENDOUS ORDEAL, AND THAT
VIOLATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY BE LIMITED TO THE MORON'S REGIME ONLY, you have
missed two very essential factors that should have been take into account
before NGUM came with his blatant accusations. These two important factors
are: APPROPRIATENESS and TIMING of the accusations. We should not have
overlooked these two determining factors that could have SERIOUS
REPERCUSSIONS in our pursuit of achieving justice for all. The point I am
trying to insinuate here is that despite the fact that we may be anxious in
bringing individual torturers to justice, we must be prudent, cautious in
pursuing violators. To state this more conveniently, was NGUM's revelations
of OFFICER CHONGAN'S violations GOOD TIMING when we are appealing to all
those victims who once suffered human right violations under what/which ever
regime to come forth and voluntarily narrate the violations they
experienced. In this situation, I honestly think that NGUM'S revelation of
Chongan's violations at this point was unwise and bad timing; because we do
not wanna chase away or discourage victims like Officer chongan, even though
he might have had committed a violation himself, because we want him to
cooperate with us and assist us in bringing the current violators to
justice, then later, the ball will be in our court to hoop as it fits; but
not to EMBARRASS, DISCOURAGE and even CHASE these volunteers away. And that
was what NGUM and all his supporters did to Officer Chongan, period.

Finally, lamenting on the APPROPRIATENESS of NGUM's revelation, this is
another paramount point of contention. With common sense and human decency,
even your enemy, do not try to whip him right on the spot, but be a little
diplomatic with him and prudent in your approach in extracting some valuable
information from him/her. That is the appropriate thing to do, but to rush
to judgment or with passion, just to score some points. That is absolutely
lunatic approach to info gathering, period. To that end, Mr. Gassama, whiles
I wholeheartedly concur with you in your excellent and well detailed
analyses, I am raising an ORANGE FLAG here, not even a YELLOW FLAG. A yellow
flag is a warning not to get into a dangerous territory, whiles an orange
flags is merely cautioning you to watch out for bumps and sudden activities
going on on the road. To conclude, Mr. Gassama, What I am insinuating in my
contribution is that NGUM should have considered the TIMING and
APPROPRIATENESS before accusing Officer Chongan. God bless.

Ansumana.


>From: Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: My Take on 'What Happened To Us at RIP'
>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:50:52 +0200
>
>Hi!
>     I have not been an active contributor to the L for a while due to
>personal engagements and the fact that I unsubscribed for a while. Let me
>first of all thank Momodou Camara for resubscribing me. Momodou, I am still
>struggling with the backlog of mail and I think I'll just give up. That
>aside, like some who contributed to this debate, I have also been
>struggling with myself not to partake in the debate but I think I'll just
>throw in a few pointers. My piece is not going to be about Chongan's guilt
>or innocence in relation to the charges levelled against him. It is going
>to be about the response to it especially from those in the forefront of
>the struggle against Jammeh and the implications those responses might have
>on human rights issues in the future.
>     It is of absolute importance that those whose human rights have been
>violated should be encouraged to come forth and narrate their stories. This
>should however not only be limited to violations under Jammeh if we are to
>be fair. A violation is a violation no matter under whose regime. I
>therefore thank Ebou Colley and Chongan for being brave enough to come
>forth and offer us an insight into the nightmares they lived through and
>hope that they would not be deterred from continuing. I also hope that
>other victims, be they under Jawara's or Jammeh's regimes, come forth so
>that lessons will be learnt and guidelines drawn for the betterment of our
>country.
>     I want to move this issue beyond Chongan as an individual and try to
>focus on any other government employee who has been accused of human rights
>violations. What should our response be? Should it be one of investigation
>and corroboration or one of denial? Remember that the attitude adopted here
>by the anti-Jammeh camp is very important in relation to the programs of
>justice to be adopted should the tables be turned and the credibility of
>the fairness of future justice is at stake here.
>     The first point I would like to make is what the implication of
>speaking out should be. Should it be one of condemnation or one of reward?
>What form should both take? Should they be organised forms mandated under
>our Constitution in the form of criminal codes or the enactment of a Truth
>and Reconciliation Commission where those who speak about the parts they
>played in human rights violations are pardoned? What should be the level of
>proof that is required to ascertain guilt? Should narratives from supposed
>victims be enough? What checks should one put in place to ensure that
>people do not make false allegations due to personal grudges etc.? Since
>all these are presently not in place, should volunteering to narrate human
>rights violations be punished outright by condemnation or should it be
>rewarded by outright and immediate acceptance irrespective of supposed
>violations by the narrator himself/herself?
>     The second point is the definition of the degree of severity of a
>violation in order for it to be considered serious enough. If a soldier
>within the present setup is claimed to have violated people's rights in
>non-military settings such as shows, football matches, in the streets etc.,
>should he/she be let off the hook because the violation is not deemed to be
>as serious as killing someone or dragging someone on concrete floors and
>"mock-executing" them? Who should make that judgment? The victim, the
>soldier, some unaffected individual or the soldier's comrades-in-arms?
>Getting to grips with this qualification is an important ingredient in
>ensuring fairness in judging supposed violators of human rights.
>     The third point is a definition of the rights deemed worthy of
>protection and whose violation is deemed serious enough to warrant
>punishment. Is human rights violation defined only as those rights violated
>under custody in the form of physical and mental torture or does it go long
>enough to include beating up people just because they stand in the wrong
>line or shooting them in the legs just because they fail to stop for the
>presidential motorcade? The answer to this question is important because it
>defines our attitude to natural justice.
>     The fourth point is the criterion for accepting narration of
>violations and dispensing of forgiveness. This is important because it
>tends to bring to the forefront the potential bias of those who are
>supposed to dispense justice. Should one's past no matter how reprehensible
>be forgotten just because he/she joins the anti-Jammeh camp? Is this a
>logical qualification? Will Edward Singhateh, Yankuba Touray or the others
>mentioned in the torture narratives be automatically forgiven and all they
>are supposed to have done written off the day they join Gambia-l and start
>spilling the beans on Jammeh? If not, why? You see, justice has to be
>uniform and not selective. That is why it is important to have a set of
>guidelines which will be uniformly applied instead of relying on sentiment
>and the whims of the moment.
>     Another point is the definition of what warrants investigation and
>defence. If allegations are made against an individual for human rights
>abuses, should he/she be given the prerogative of defending himself/herself
>or should the collective take it upon itself to come to his/her defence?
>Should the collective take it upon itself to trivialise the charges being
>levelled against the individual? The answer to this is important because
>potential violators can take comfort in the fact that they can violate
>people's rights and join the majority where they can be defended based on
>the club mentality.
>     The sixth point is that of carrying out duties. Should diligent
>execution of duties be a qualification for rendering all previous wrongs
>null and void? The answer to this question, like the others, is important
>because of its implications for justice and fairness. Tombong is
>incessantly castigated on this forum for carrying out his duties as he
>deems diligent. Will all he is accused of in this forum be written off when
>Jammeh is no longer president on the basis of his carrying out his duties?
>If not, why?
>     The seventh point is that of priority. Should justice be concurrently
>sought or should one focus only on those who presently have the power to
>inflict human rights violations? If the Jammeh administration is replaced
>by another that makes his pale in contrast, should those accused of human
>rights violations under Jammeh not be pursued because the priority is
>getting rid of the present wielders of power because they are in a position
>to inflict harm? The answer to this question also has implications for the
>modus operandi to be adopted in the fight for justice and fairness as one
>must have a set of consistent and fair rules in order to achieve justice.
>     From the above, it can be seen that there are indeed numerous factors
>to grapple with when it comes to the issue of dispensing justice in human
>rights issues. The leading anti-Jammeh advocates on this forum need to
>realise that the justice they propose for the country is being scrutinised
>through their response to the Chongan affair. One must be consistent, fair
>and principled in dispensing justice if one is to be taken as a serious
>alternative to Jammeh. One should not only crave the replacement of Jammeh
>at any cost. That is dangerous. At least we know who Jammeh is and how he
>works. One should desire and fight for a replcement that is better or we
>might jump from the frying pan into the fire. Thanks and have a good
>weekend.
>
>                                                      Buharry.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------