Halifa, thanks for your response. I hope Saul and Hamjata
would agree to leave it to the list members to decide. I'm
interested in obtaining the booklets and any other material
that would assist me in forming my opinion on this issue. My
e-mail address is [log in to unmask] Drop me a
line as to how to effectuate this transaction.
Thanks
Joe Sambou
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: 1997 CONSTITUTION
Author: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
<[log in to unmask]> at PO_EXTERNET
Date: 01/14/2000 8:35 AM
Joe,
Thank you for the message. I know I am beginning to sound like a broken
record. I also feel that the topic has been exhausted. However, I do not
have a choice. I have been placed in an accused box. As long as the
questions keep on coming, I will have to continue to answer. Of course, my
humble view is that we have reached the stage of agreeing or agreeing to
disagree.
All reasonable human beings know that history does not develop just as we
please. Our choices and decisions are dictated by the length and breadth of
the circumstances we inherit.
It is not in dispute that The Gambia had to have a constitution in order to
move to a constitutional order after the coup. It is not in dispute that the
1997 Constitution is superior to the 1970 constitution. It is not in dispute
that the 1997 constitution has flaws. The point at issue now is whether
those flaws should have led to its total rejection or not.
My position is that since the 1997 constitution has essentially the same
flaws as the 1970 constitution which had obtained for 24 years prior to the
coup; taking into consideration that contains superior provisions which
empower the National Assembly to have more effective control over the
executive and the people greater power to control misrepresentation through
the exercise of the right to recall, it was best to accept it and start from
there to work for the elimination of its flaws. This could be done in two
ways: if the people had elected another government other than APRC, the
changes could have been inevitable. Where the APRC is in office, more
pressure could be exerted where freedom of expression and association are
guaranteed for changes than under a coup set-up. This is my point.
For Hamjatta and Saul, the 1997 constitution should have been rejected.
According to them, we should have gone back to the drawing board for a new
draft, and may I add, under a coup set-up. What they fail to explain is when
that new draft would have been acceptable to those who held power and the
people in general. All they seem to say is that Gambians and the
international community would have put pressure for an ideal constitution to
emerge. They are yet to explain why that internal and external pressure has
not been brought to bear since 1997 to deal with the flaws which should have
led to the rejection of the constitution, as well as the banning of major
parties which claimed to have very large mass following.
Since my position is sensible to me, and their position is sensible to them,
we should just simply agree to disagree, full stop. They are free to say
that I was in error; I am also free to call them dreamers if I so desire.
This is how matters stand.
I agree with you that nothing new can be added to these two different
positions. It should be left to the rest of the G-L members to decide which
position they would have supported if they had not had the opportunity to
vote 'yes' or 'no' during the referendum.
If you are interested in some of the booklets we produced during the period,
they are available. FOROYAA produced the whole draft constitution in twelve
booklets which cost D24.00 as compared to D100.00 for the whole draft
constitution produced by the then Printing Department. Anybody who is
interested may contact us. I believe those who have seen these pamphlets
could already confirm that we took a very critical view of the provisions of
the draft constitution and had made many recommendations in those booklets.
In fact some people used to take these criticisms and make them their own
and then attribute to us a very uncritical posture that is a classic case of
drinking from the well and spitting in it at the same time. Pardon me if I
sound a bit arrogant.
I hope I have not bored you by this intervention. I am simply trying to
throw more light on what we tried to do during this period to contribute our
quota in shaping the future of the country even though we did not have any
army or control any mass movement to put pressure on anyone to do anything.
Halifa Sallah.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Sambou <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 07:58
Subject: 1997 CONSTITUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
