Hamjatta,

When this debate started, the impression was given that you were an
objective critic who simply wanted to raise questions regarding my political
conduct during the coup period. I considered your motive to be sincere.

However, in your submission of 18 January 2000, it became unmistakably clear
that your objective is far from being an objective critic. One can see from
the following conclusion that you conceive yourself to be engaged in a
wrestling contest which culminated with the trumpeting of the end in the
following words:

+ACI-I have over the past two months or so bored you with my ravings and
rantings on Halifa, the 1997 constitution and the so-called transition. In
the process I might and has indeed stepped over the feet of others. Oft
times knowingly. Oft times oblivious to it. To the innocent I say, +ACI-please
accept my unconditional and profound apologies.+ACI- I make no apologies to toe
curling hypocrites. To them I say, +ACI-in your faces.+ACI- I hope we will all move
on.
    +ACI-For I decided to call it a day. I'm throwing in my towel after the bout
with my good friend Halifa. For I have made up my mind. Now there is no
point in stretching this exercise to embarrassing levels.+ACI-

Clearly, this blaring overture which announces the end of the contest is a
thin veil to cover up your egotistical calculations whose vainness I shall
expose with unmerciful thoroughness.

It is abundantly clear that despite my attempt to offer you an ego insurance
by concluding that we should agree to disagree so that we could conclude by
leaving the other members to draw their own conclusions, based on the
evidence placed before them, you preferred to indict me as a historical
villain in the following words:

+ACI-My contention runs thus: if any individual voice in the public realm bears
a measure of responsibility for the tragic inversion of priorities as The
Gambia slid towards into the abyss, it would be Halifa's and his
colleagues.+ACI-

Most assuredly, your intention is no longer to provide objective criticism
but to serve as both prosecutor and judge with the sole desire to
assassinate my integrity and that of my colleagues. In this regard I have no
option but to take up your challenge and sweep your contentions into the
dustbin of history.

The most interesting irony is that you believe that you are really engage in
a wrestling match. You have put on your wrestling gear +ACI-ngemba+ACI-, jumped in
the ring with fans shouting only to eventually declare your triumph and your
desire not to stretch the battle to embarrassing levels.

But Hamjatta, are you really serious that you are engaged in a wrestling
match or is it a figment of your imagination? Wake up Hamjatta+ACE- Wake up+ACEAIQ- If
you are really serious about a wrestling match, then you should have put on
your wrestling gear in 1996, not the year 2000. Had you engaged in a real
wrestling contest in 1996 instead of  one conjured in your sleep in
1999/2000, then your conceptions would not have failed to stand the test of
truth, time, science and practice.

Clearly, Hamjatta, the arena for the debate on the draft constitution is not
cyberspace, but the Republic of The Gambia. The relevant date was 1996 not
the year 2000. Let us find out how you fared in your wrestling competition
in 1996.

Now Hamjatta, when the real debate was on in 1996, what did you say and what
did you do?

+ACI-My adopted political quietism during the transition has been the subject of
your sneering. I will say this to you, Halifa I adopted political quietism
due to filial duties. It has a lot to do with my ageing father for whom I
depended on for financial and moral support, who on the point of tears
begged me not to be part of the politics of the period as a young man. He
has never in his life ever begged me for anything. No young African male
with moral tact would every day bring his parents to the point of tears. If
not only for my love for them, I wish also to be blessed, for my blessing
mainly comes from respecting and honouring them.+ACI-

Hamjatta, do you mean to say that you were as quiet as a door nail during
the transition period and had said nothing about the +ACI-downsides+ACI- of the
draft constitution when it really mattered?

+ACI-You are repeating a question I've already answered. I've said I adopted the
principle of political quietism during the transition and after due to
filial duties. I hope you will now get to the point.+ACI-

Yes, I got you loud and clear. I was simply making an emphasis. In short,
when one looks at the real arena, one does not see a giant wrestling star
wearing a wrestling gear+ADs- on the contrary, one sees a person wearing a
baby's diaper with kid's gloves throwing his fist in the air. It is amazing
that while you are shouting your voice hoarse regarding the 'downsides' of
the 1997 constitution in the year 2000, you were quietly sitting under the
pedestal of patriarchal injunction waiting for a blessing. It is a real
irony, Hamjatta. A real irony. No wonder you cannot understand the forces
that were at work and the context within which we had to function. Wake up
from your sleep, Hamjatta. The wrestling match that you have trumpeted is
nothing but a by-product of your imagination.

Your criticism of the 1997 constitution has already been made by those you
are criticising. We have produced 12 solid pamphlets to help all those who
wanted to have an insight to do so. These pamphlets were published prior to
the referendum. We never told people what to do, as is clearly evident in
the pamphlets. We simply explained to them how we saw things and left any
critical minded person to make his or her own contribution. It was our duty
to expose the content of the draft constitution and we did. Many active
young people took these booklets around and tried to explain them to the
people. No one could accuse us of distorting the real content of the draft
constitution. We are not aware that the Bar Association or any other
institution had given the draft constitution such an extensive coverage for
the Gambian people to know the content.  Yet, you did not hesitate to
establish a barrage of innuendoes, subterfuges, tirades and sophistry to
give the impression that we were simply selling the 1997 constitution to the
Gambian people. Like a hound which has lost its track you sniffed at random
for any comment made regarding the 1997 constitution just to drum up the
erroneous conceptions you have tried to peddle all along.

In my reply to Rene, on an issue entirely different from our debate, you
decided to interject as follows:

+ACI-Your reply to Rene was very educative and interesting to say the least. It
is interesting to see the lengths you went to reveal the essence of
Republicanism as opposed to Monarchicalism. Your points were taken.
    +ACI-I do have a problem with the modesty you show towards the monarchical
dispositions of the 1997 constitution whilst interestingly enough you are
verbose and triumphalist of it's strong points. Your minimalist approach
when it comes to exposing the downsides of the 1997 constitution is
beginning to worry me and making me ask where your sense of objectivity and
fair play is.
    +ACI-In your posting, you stated categorically that +ACI-further more, the
concept of a president for life is a monarchical principle. Such a concept
should also be alien to a Republican constitution. One may also add that
having a president who has absolute power to appoint and dismiss cabinet
members without giving any explanation is also a monarchical principle. It
gives the executive unchecked authority in determining how departments of
state are to be managed and transformed all members of cabinet into servants
of a president who can be removed for disloyalty and not necessarily for
inefficiency and corrupt practices. Such cabinet members, therefore, become
servants of the controller of executive power instead of owing loyalty to
the people.+ACI- Interesting stuff isn't? What surprises me though why you never
bothered telling members that you might have been making an indirect
critique of your beloved 1997 constitution. All that you have mentioned
above are defects inherent in the 1997 constitution. Today Jammeh is not
stripped of this +ACI-absolute power to appoint and dismiss cabinet members
without giving any explanation+ACI- by the 1997 constitution. You never bothered
mentioning this to members.
   +ACI- Again your beloved 1997 constitution never stripped +ACI-the executive
unchecked authority in determining how departments of state are to be
managed and transform all members of cabinet into servants of a president
who can be removed for disloyalty and not necessarily for inefficiency and
corrupt practices.+ACI- It goes without saying that there is no independent
voice in Jammeh's cabinet. Anyone who cares to note knows that Jammeh's
cabinet is ram jammed with poodles and functionaries whose first loyalty is
to their master, Jammeh. It is worth mentioning this also to members.
    +ACI-Most importantly, since the 1997 constitution doesn't have in place
effective mechanisms that in your own words doesn't abolish +ACI-the concept of
a president for life.+ACI- Since the term limit on the presidency was
deliberately expunged by Jammeh himself, it is safe to conclude that he has
set himself up +ACI-life president+ACI- which you did acknowledge as a +ACI-monarchical
principle.+ACI- You didn't bother telling this to members. Perhaps most
seriously, you never bothered to inform The People of all of these defects
when you were busy selling the 1997 constitution to The People. Where is
your objectivity? Where was your sense of fair play?+ACI-

At first, your views appear to be very luminous. However, after the
dissemination of  part 1 and part 2 of our booklets, it should be obvious to
anyone familiar with the contents that your allegations constitute a crude
falsification of reality. It is abundantly clear from the publication that
we did analyse the monarchical features of the executive presidency. In
fact, the very ideas regarding the monarchical features of the executive
presidency is unique to our own analysis of constitutions, in general. This
is precisely the reason why I asked whether you have read our booklets when
they appeared, and you responded as follows:

+ACI-Yes, I've read your booklets ages ago when they probably first came out.
Again it struck me odd that you who passionately exposed the shortcomings of
the 1970 Constitution and the Jawara era, would resort to only low risk
rhetorical questions as your critique of such a fundamentally flawed
constitution.+ACI-

This is incredible. I have never thought that you could stoop so low in your
deception in the face of glaring evidence that is now before everyone.

Anybody can see, after reading books 1 and 2, which have been dispatched to
the L, that as far as the art of the deceptive twisting of facts is
concerned you stand without a rival.

At first, you tried to give the impression that we were not critical at all.
Now, you are whining that our approach was low key. The fact that most of
the things you considered to be the 'downside' of the constitution have
already been analysed in books 1 and 2 while you continue to maintain your
posture indicates to me that your dishonesty has assumed the proportion of a
charlatan. I say this without any desire to assassinate your integrity.

To state what is incorrect unknowingly can be deemed to be an error. To
deliberately fabricate evidence and gloss over the fact when it is nakedly
before everybody's eyes constitutes a fraud that is too crude to ignore.

Why do I accuse you of fraud? You want to give the impression that we
supported all the contents of the draft constitutions when books 1 and 2
have shown clearly that we objected to many of the provisions. Your
allegations, therefore, have failed to stand the test of truth.

Furthermore,  I have asked you whether you wrote any critique of the 1997
Constitution during the debate on the draft. You responded in the negative.
This has shown that your criticisms have failed to stand the test of time.

I asked you whether you have read our critique of the draft constitution,
you answered in the positive. You argued that our criticism was low key.
However, you acknowledged that you did nothing. We did something, but you di
d nothing. Despite your allegation that we did little, we published the
whole content of the draft constitution for anyone who could read simple
English to understand without being spoon-fed. Needless to say, everything
dealing with the monarchical inclination of the executive presidency that
you have alluded to is covered in books 1 and 2.  It would not in fact be
unrealistic for any reader to conclude that you are simply spitting in a
well from which you may have guzzled. There is absolutely no doubt that you
have moved from being a mere critic into a charlatan by attempting to
attribute to me a posture which is manifestly erroneous and attribute to
yourself views that are extensively covered in our publication.

Suffice it to say, your attempt to stigmatise our effort while extolling
your political seclusion and nullity, as a virtue, has exposed your
intellectual dishonesty. This is precisely the reason why I had to raise
certain questions so that through your comical confessions everyone in the L
will understand that a person who had taken no part in shaping events at
their moment of happening can have little credibility in discussing about
strategy, tactics and a way forward for the Gambian nation. You simply
sought to utilise high sounding phrases just to cover up your lack of
activity. This is why you sentimentally bewail the absence of an ideal
constitution whilst in a deceptive fashion you contrive unrealistic
proposals that would make such an objective unrealisable. Let me offer
concrete proof.


ON THE 1997 CONSTITUTION

Science dictates that in order to understand a situation objectively, one
must understand its essence and the contextual framework which encompasses
it. Being faithful to this conception, we did public the content of the 1996
draft constitution. This is irrefutable.

Furthermore, we went beyond content to examine the context precisely because
a true understanding of the draft constitution was inconceivable without
taking content and context as essential ingredients.

Throughout your debate on the 'yes' or 'no' vote for the draft constitution,
you have ignored context and dwelled only on content. You keep on repeating
what everyone knows, such as the indemnity provision and the lack of a term
limit. Even people who voted 'yes' expressed their reservation on such
provisions. Hence, your conceptions of the flaws of the 1997 Constitution is
common place. One does not need to be an intellectual to be aware of these
flaws.

To shape the life of a nation, however, requires more than platitudes. It is
a question of translating knowledge into practice. Practice in politics
demands the correct reading of the forces at work, the establishment of
strategic objectives, the employment of tactics that would ensure the
realisation of strategic objectives. Such strategic objectives and tactics
provide for priorities and programmes that could make them realisable. These
programmes are characterised by the setting up of institutions and
instruments to ensure their implementation.

It is evident that when the coup occurred, the 1970 constitution was
suspended and executive and legislative power assumed by the coup makers
independent of the will of the people. They who suspended the 1970
constitution became the law makers. Hence, the strategic objective was how
to return the country to a constitutional order and  a multiparty electoral
system. The instrument which time and circumstances created for ensuring a
return was the National Consultative Committee. Even though it did not
conduct a referendum, its decision became binding because of the mandate
given to it by the coup makers. A two year transition programme was
established leading to the restoration of a constitutional order and a
multiparty system.

It goes without saying that there could be no restoration of constitutional
order without a constitution. A constitution could not be promulgated
without the consent of those who held state power. Hence, an ideal
constitution could either be drawn with the consent of those in power or by
overthrowing them and have such other government which will ensure the
establishment of an ideal constitution.

In stating this, I was simply examining all the variables and the scenarios
possible for drawing up an ideal constitution. However, you interjected
that:

+ACI-I'm  not amazed that you believed that +ACI-there were only two options
available to  the Gambian people, either rise up and overthrow the APRC or
to overthrow to  an electoral contest.+ACI- Again your classical imagined
Hobbesean State of fear:  that we would +ACI-rise up and overthrow the APRC.+ACI- I
don't know where you've got  this idea that Gambians were gearing their
machetes, guns or whatever to  fight a civil war. You have used this
scenario everywhere to instil fear in  the hearts of the ignorant. Where is
the evidence that things were  degenerating to this extreme? Didn't the
chance offer itself on so many  occasions but Gambians prefer to pursuit the
avenue of peace and dialogue?+ACI-

I deliberately quoted this to provide a basis for showing the endless
entanglements that the Gambian people would have found themselves if they
were to pursue your naive propositions. One can gather from what you have
said that you did not consider the overthrowing of the AFPRC to come up with
an ideal constitution as a realistic prospect. Hence, the option that you
left available is drawing up a constitution under an AFPRC Government.

How then were we to restore constitutional order? That was the task before
us. The National Consultative Committee proposed the establishment of a
Constitutional Review Commission as the institution which was to draft the
instrument that could lead to the restoration of constitutional rule. The
Constitutional Review Commission submitted its draft to the AFPRC who had
been promulgating decrees. The AFPRC put out its approved draft which
Gambians could have accepted or rejected.

The National Consultative Committee had also called for the establishment of
an Independent Electoral Commission. Before the referendum on the
constitution, the dates for presidential and National Assembly elections had
been set as far back as May 1996. The referendum for the constitution was
set for 7 August and later changed to 8 August 1996. The ban on political
parties was supposed to be lifted after the registration of voters. However,
on 22 July 1996, Jammeh made a pronouncement which was published by the
Daily Observer of July 24, 1996 as follows:

+ACI-Captain Jammeh insisted that the proposed September 11 election must go
ahead as planned even if it were to rain on that day.+ACI-

Furthermore, it was added that +ACI-In his speech broadcast life on Radio Gambia
and television, Captain Jammeh, however, made it abundantly clear that the
ban on party politics would not be lifted before the August 7 referendum on
the draft constitution+ACIAOw- that the +ACI-ban on political activities would be
lifted after the referendum and that elections would take place in
accordance with the time frame stipulated in line with the electoral laws.+ACI-

This pronouncement indicated two possible scenarios depending on the casting
of a 'yes' or 'no' vote. If the Gambian people rejected the draft
constitution, the country could have still proceeded to elections according
to plan without a constitution to prescribe the powers of those elected and
their limits, as well as the relation of the various institutions of the
state. In that case, the people would have gone to elections just to elect
monarchs who would rule by decrees.

The other option is to suspend the elections and extend the transition
period while a new draft is considered. In that vein, the AFPRC would have
continued to rule by decrees.

Interestingly enough, this is what you had to say:

+ACI-... that had we voted +ACI-no+ACI-, we would simply return to the drawing
board and come up with a draft that makes more sense than that we were being
blackmailed/threatened with. Has it not struck as absurd that with or
without a constitution we will be forced to have elections? Why did we have
to hold elections when the wrinkles in the issue of the document that will
guide us in the second republic has yet to be ironed out? Why did the case
arise such that with or without a new elections will be held and the winner
will be a democratic leader ruling with decrees? Does any of this make sense
to you. Wasn't this a classic case of putting the cart before the horse?+ACI-

This shows very clearly that you did not take into consideration the
concrete realities that prevailed on the ground.

It is also not surprising that you did not see the political imperatives
dictated by the moment and plunge into an infinitely absurd twaddle by
projecting the following as a logical deduction which is essentially a very
paltry conclusion:

+ACI-My problem is getting the right constitution. If it means a delay of
say a year, so be it. It is easy to shrug this off as another charlatan
nostrum but it had every chance of bearing fruition then. I have noticed
streaks of determinism in your interpretation/analysis of the transition. I
don't wish to sound pedantic, but lets save smugs of fatalism or else you
would start looking like a high sounding Pangloss turned upside.+ACI-

This is clearly the recommendation of someone who has been condemned to
political seclusion and does not understand what was what. A delay of a
year+ACE- Even one who is standing on one's head instead of one's  feet  can
clearly see that the context did not permit the realisation of such a
proposal.

Let me repeat again: Gambia was scheduled to hold elections. To postpone a
decision on a constitution would have meant two things: either to elect a
president and members of the National Assembly without indicating what the
role of the institutions were going to be, as well as the relation between
the judiciary and these various institutions. Decrees would have been the
order of the day.

On the other hand, one could have recommended for a postponement of the
elections and therefore give the AFPRC another mandate to rule by decrees
for a year.

In short, Hamjatta, taking your position that Gambians did not take the
overthrow of the Jammeh regime as an option, rejecting the draft
constitution would have meant waiting indefinitely for the AFPRC to deliver
a constitution which will water down the indemnity provisions and ensure its
negation and further make it easier for the them to be excluded from the
electoral process or be removed from power with greater ease. The fact that
you can rattle off such absurd expectations does not give the impression
that you have an ingenious way of looking at reality.

I am sure that few Gambians would have been convinced that it was best for
them to be deprived of political participation and be subjected to an
absolute rule by decrees until they come up with an ideal constitution.

Our position, Hamjatta, was based on the science of political practice. This
science holds that once strategic objectives are established, tactics must
be established to facilitate their realisation on a quantitative basis. This
calls for a minimum and maximum programme.

Needless to say, those who intend to unite theory with practice must
establish minimum and maximum programmes in order to work quantitatively and
qualitatively to attain their strategic objectives.

The constitutional debate was brought forth by time and circumstances.  Once
the AFPRC suspended the 1970 constitution, one of the strategic objectives
was to restore constitutional order. Suffice it to say, if the country were
not to fall behind its point of departure constitutionally, one of two
things had to happen. It
had to restore the 1970 Constitution or adopt a better constitution.

Hence, any mature Gambian who had the strategic objective of restoring
constitutional order in mind would have had to establish a minimum and
maximum programme. A maximum programme should have entailed the
establishment of an ideal constitution which is, of course, a subject of
debate. A minimum programme would have been the restoration of the 1970
Constitution or anything that could be considered to be more advanced.

When we reviewed the content of the 1996 draft constitution, we discovered
that it had many flaws which we had tried to expose in our booklets. In
short, it is not our ideal constitution. However, we gathered that even
though it had flaws, they were substantially the same flaws that were
inherent in the 1970 Constitution. On the other hand, it had provisions that
were more ideal than those in the 1970 Constitution. In that respect, the
adoption of the draft constitution became a minimum programme for the
restoration of a constitutional order. In our view, if it contained
provisions that made it to be worse than the 1970 Constitution, it would
have been proper to call for its rejection. This is how matters stood on the
issue of context. It was on this basis that we supported a 'yes' vote.

To conclude, it is important to mention that we did not support a 'yes' vote
not just to attain the minimum programme of restoring a constitutional
order. We also saw the approval of the draft constitution as an instrument
for giving legitimacy to the drive to restore a multiparty electoral system.
This is precisely the reason why an open letter was written to the head of
state immediately after a 'yes' vote was cast for the restoration of
political activities.

In our view, it is not for President Jammeh or the APRC to lead the nation
to work out an ideal constitution. It is for the Gambian people to elect
those who have no interest in living as monarchs so that they will be able
to draft the type of constitution that would truly be consonant with the
letter and spirit of republicanism, in particular, and people's power, in
general. That is a maximum programme which is still on the historical
agenda. I hope everything is now abundantly clear.

Hamjatta, I hope it is evident that all your empty chatter is a
manifestation of someone who is simply trying to cover up the real facts by
utilising high sounding words in cyberspace. Everything you are now saying
is simply reduced to a mere figure of speech minus any practice.

Since you did not engage in any form of practice during the transition
period, you could not fully comprehend what was required at the time.
Consequently, all the suggestions you are now making cannot but be stricken
with incurable barrenness. The sooner you acknowledge this, the better for
your own historical record. Deception is in deed no longer possible.

I will sum up the Koro Ceesay debate after getting your response on this
issue.

Greetings.

Halifa.

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

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

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