Saul Saidykhan,
I would begin by asserting that if human beings had the power to plug the
sun from the sky and put it back according to their design it will be up and
down by the wink of an eye. The sun, however, is there irrespective of our
will and designs. Truth is like that sun. No one can distort it forever.
Just as it is futile to try to cover the sun with the palm of one's hand, it
is also futile to try to distort the truth.
It is amazing to me that in your comment on Cherno Baba's argument that I
had missed the point when I took up issue with Ayittey, you started by
asserting the following: "I haven't read Mr Sallah's piece, but I'm not
surprised by what he's said from reading yours." This is very interesting.
Isn't it?
Even though you have acknowledged that you have not read what I wrote and
proceeded to pass judgment on the basis of hearsay evidence, you still had
the audacity to assert that: "His views .... are subjective, patronising and
utter utopian". You even added that I continue "to live in a cocoon where
the only other members (outside the PDOIS trio,) are a few fanatical
followers who truly believe he is a cross between William Shakespear and the
prophet Muhamed." (laugh). Is that really how you feel about me? Do you
really know me? Have we ever had any close contact?
Needless to say, how can you accuse me of being subjective when you have
acknowledged that you have not even read what I wrote? How can anybody take
you seriously for such sentimental display of subjectivity?
You went further to argue that I have "a knack for believing the most
ludicrous-almost absurdly delusional ideas, you've ever heard." Are you not
suffering from the same syndrome in expecting that you can convince readers
of your allegations without offering sound proof? Who in the world can you
convince that the following statement is a reflection of the facts: "Just
before Yaya Jammeh declared his candidature for the 1996 presidential
elections, I called up Mr Sallah to discuss an article I wanted to publish
in his paper detailing why Yaya would not make a good president ... doctored
constitution and all. Mr Sallah launched into one of his usual monologues,
defending the then Lt. Jammeh, and a constitution that gives a select group
of people carte blanche' to do whatever they want in the Gambia w/o ever
facing any consequences. This, while conveniently ignoring the will of
Gambians to have term limits among other things. I gave up after thirty
minutes, because he wouldn't let me speak though I paid for the call."
You made the ridiculous allegation that I was defending Lt. Jammeh. What did
I say about him? You did not mention this in your piece. Furthermore, what
do you think would have happened if an article was published in FOROYAA
asking Jammeh not to stand for elections? Would that have stopped him from
standing for elections? If you believe that this would have stopped him from
standing for elections, then you must be accused to having the knack for
believing the most ludicrous of views, to utilise your own language.
You indicated that the constitution is a doctored one to suit Jammeh. If
this is what you told me in our discussion, I believe I must have considered
you to be highly misinformed and naive. In short, anybody who would believe
that writing an article advising Jammeh not to stand for election in FOROYAA
would have stopped him from doing so would be guilty of crass stupidity and
gross naivety. Furthermore, anyone who would believe that the constitution
was doctored to serve Jammeh would similarly deserved to be considered to be
outrageously misinformed.
Most likely, out of courtesy I took the time to explain to you the situation
which prevailed at the time, as I used to do for many people who were
abroad. The picture I used to give is that two forces were at work as we
moved closer to the end of the transition period. There was the wave for no
election and a wave for multiparty elections. The wave for no election began
to gain more advocates as community leaders and other influential
personalities were mobilised by AFPRC stalwarts and the July 22nd Movement
to visit Jammeh and tell him not to accept an election agenda. The
overwhelming number of Gambians, however, wanted elections and FOROYAA made
it its point of duty to combat the no election agenda by criticising all
those who were promoting it. We have facts to give if you demand for them to
prove that we were the most vocal force for the restoration of a multiparty
electoral system in The Gambia. We were talking when all your heroes were
sitting on your laurels.
I could have told you that what was important was to ensure that the
election agenda triumphed over the no election agenda, and your offer to
write an article for Jammeh not to stand must have been seen as a very
futile matter at the time. This is the first point.
Furthermore, I wonder why you did not send that article to the Observer, The
Point, The New Citizen or another paper. Or did you?
Secondly, if what you wrote about the constitution reflected views which you
communicated to me, and I must admit that I cannot recall our conversation,
I must have told you that your fears about the constitution was misplaced;
that the constitution would have no bearing on the elections; that it would
only come into effect after the elections; that after the elections there
had to be a constitution in order to return to a democratic and
constitutional order; that it was either to revoke the suspension of the
1970 constitution after the election and rely on it to run the country or
accept a new constitution. I may have argued that the draft constitution is
superior in most respects to the 1970 constitution. I am 100% sure that I
never said anything to lend support to Lt. Jammeh's presidential bid.
Mr O.B. Sillah's comment that I should be asked how I see Jammeh's
government now is pedantic and grossly misplaced. In my response to your
remarks of 27 November 1999 I will give a fitting response to all the
questions you raised regarding the 1997 constitution, Koro Ceesay, the
banning of the NCP and all your insinuations which may be classified as a
by-product of crass stupidity or very clumsy trickery. Let us hope that none
is applicable to you. Let us hope that you lack the facts and are therefore
relying on speculation to pass your crude judgments.
Notwithstanding, I am sure my contention with Ayittey is clear to you and
Cherno Baba. Ayittey and Co. promised to prove whether Nyerere was a saint
or a knave. They never gave any evidence to substantiate one thing or the
other. Furthermore, they concluded by asserting that Nyerere should rest
QUIETLY in peace (Capitalization - mine) meaning that he should fade away
and be heard from no more. I decided to refer to Nyerere's speeches to show
that they are still relevant today; that even death should not silence
Nyerere; that we should still listen to what he has to say and learn from
them. Ayittey finally made Nyerere an exemption even though initially their
conclusion was nakedly designed to remove Nyerere from our memory to rest
QUIETY, very QUIETLY in peace. This is how matters stood. My point still
stands irrefutable.
Let me now indicate to you that I will be very provocative in giving
response to your submission of 27 November 1999 because of your deliberate
attempt to distort historical facts to give credence to what is outrageously
ridiculous and devoid of any element of truth. I hope you will continue to
respond so that we can slug it out until one of us has no more blows to
send. The truth will then be finally clear as to what actually happened
during the coup period and who was responsible for what development during
that period. This will come on Thursday.
-----Original Message-----
From: saul khan <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 05:17
Subject: Adjoinder to Halifa misses the point
>Mr Jallow,
>
>I couldn't agree with you more. I happen to believe that Julius Nyerere is
>the most honest and decent African leader to date (and that is even before
>he died.) But Nyerere had short-comings. And it would be very helpful to us
>as Africans to call a spade a spade. To learn from our mistakes, and try to
>avoid repeating such mistakes. I haven't read Mr Sallah's piece, but I'm
not
>surprised by what he's said from reading yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
