Brother Yanks,

Badou de Kaolack is from that barren area between Kaolack and Thies. Often those natives blend in easily with Gambians and they pass themselves for gambians because Dakar wants no part of them. You done good Yanks. He's looking for a stage. I heard communication throughout Senegal was interrupted all last week. No phone, no intinet, no TB, no tamtam.

Haruna. bai Linguere. Aaarohna.




-----Original Message-----
From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Press Release:- Badou of kaolack's anxieties with the Mandingo tribe.


Brother Haruna
 
The professor is indeed a funny fool!
 
Is he really from Kaolaka!
 
The Prof doesn't know his subject of lecture. Yet he bragged about it!
 
Thanks
 
Brethren Yanks

 
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:21:51 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release:- Badou of kaolack's anxieties with the Mandingo tribe.
To: [log in to unmask]


Heheheheehehe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very funny Badou. i have no idea what you're saying here but its funny. I'm sure of that.
 
Haruna.

-----Original Message-----
From: Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]>
To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements


I think a responsible person like you will not engage in insult that will neither benefit you nor any other party.I do not care your insult  but that speaks the  level of  IQ you talking about . I am not here to interpret the constitution or to make the difference between the constitution and a decree for you. What I stated here are the failures of UDP based on individual efforts or advice. You are not ready to answers them instead you engaged on circumlocution. No flimsy excuse here, I think you need summation to think buddy .  





From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 6:18:02 AM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements

Ok Professor (so called)

Now i know you are not really the professor you bragged to be.

You asked why then the UDP accepted the constitution for the past 16 years. If you 
had peruse my previous posting, instead of merely reading it, you would have saved 
yourself from ansking that question. I explained to you that military decrees are 
imposed on their subjects, unlike the constitution which the subjects have to choose
before they become its subjects.

I further explained to you that due to the misrepresentations made by that constitution's
sales-team, being the PDOIS, we ended up buying military decrees of Jammeh than the 
constitution we had thought we had bought.

So in simple terms, we continue to have military decrees, which as i explained above are 
imposed on their subjects. Therefore, to answer your question; the UDP did not accept the 
constitution of the AFPRC, it was imposed on them, thanks to the PDOIS. The UDP was not
in fact in existence at the time, but its supporters at the time relied on the representations made
by PDOIS, the only political party existing at the time. 

However, as you have rightly stated earlier, the PDOIS did not care about what the constitution
contained, but all it cared for was to do away with the term military decrees on our constintutional 
book.

You will further find the reason for my answer that i prefer neither the AFPRC military decree 
nor the quasi military decree constitution that succeeded it.

I would have prefered a constitution that guarantees the rights of our people and that cannot 
be easily tempered with by the executive or the legislative, to suit the whims of President Jammeh.
But a constitution that would require an almost 100% public support in a referendum, in order to 
have its certain clauses amended, such as the presidential term limit of 10 years. 

Unfortunately, this was not the constitution, sold to us by PDOIS. Therefore i refuse to make
preference from the same bad thing with different names.

As for your claim that even a two year old can tell the difference between a military decree and 
a constitutional law, but you cannot tell the difference, i think that vividly explains to me the level 
of your IQ.

So please save us the brag Professor Samba, that you can teach any one on this forum!

On the issue of retributive justice, i did not ask for you to define it for me, obviously i know that 
already, but i want to know what you meant by it in your postings in this topic. In order words 
why do you have to mention it in your postings for this topic, was it just for a red-herring sake.

I leave you to ponder further!

Nemesis Yanks
(The retributive justice)

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:39:04 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
To: [log in to unmask]


Thanks for your vague , empty and shallow answers. You do not even answer my questions at the same time asking me for another thing which you answered yourself. All you stated here is nothing but rhetoric's. Because even a 2 year born knows what a constitution mean much more a military decree. If they are the same to you find , who cares. Why then UDP accepted it for 16 consecutive years? 
 
Please answer my question or you remain mute. Because you are exposing your emptiness to your readers.
 
You see how empty you are . You name yourself as "Nemesis Yanks" Nemesis means retributive justice  to frame for a layman like you meaning if  you are a killer someone will kill you too or if you do good, the same goodness will follow you.
 


From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, August 8, 2010 5:17:28 PM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements

Professor Samba (So called) 

What is a military decree and what is a constitution? I hope you know what you
are talking about. You claimed that "the constitution allowed and paved the way 
for Lawyer Darboe to become an opposition leader, what do you want to say a 
military decree cannot allow and pave the way for the same. Do you know what 
is a military decree? 

Less you fail to understand; a military decree and a constitutional law are more or
the same thing; in simple term they both bear characteristics of law; if only you know 
what that means. Their only difference is how they came to being. 

Especially with reference to the topic here. Do you know that the people behind the 
drafting of those military decrees are the same people behind the drafting of the constitution 
you are referring to. Except that the constitution was sold to us by PDOIS, whilst the 
military decrees were imposed on us by the AFPRC regime. 

Do you know that Jammeh still doesn't know the difference between the two. 

The PDOIS had fooled you into believing that there is such a huge difference between 
the two terms. No wonder you still want us to believe that there is a big difference between 
the two terms. 

Therefore, to answer your question, as to which one i prefer, my simple answer is, i prefer 
neither of them. 

The majority of Gambians are still at lost of whether they have a constitutional legal system, 
which was promised to them by the PDOIS, or whether they still have the same AFPRC military 
regime ruling by their military decrees. Can you tell them the difference?

As you have rightly stated; the PDOIS had advocated the AFPRC constitution without telling the 
Gambians what it contained but only because it was better than the military decrees existing at 
the time. What a dumb way to sell a constitution book!

Now can you even tell us which section of that constitution contained the charge of Sedition or 
what it state about the presidential term limit. 

There is an old adage that you don't judged a book by its cover. PDOIS owe Gambians an 
appology, for they sold us a constitution, simply because it was better than having millitary decrees, 
when in fact that constitution was full of military decrees. 

As for Retributive Justice, I don't know what you mean by that professor.

Nemesis Yanks
(Retributive Justice) 
 


Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 11:15:59 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
To: [log in to unmask]


Let me give you some ideas Mr. Nemesis Yanks, (retributive justice) it seems you are just a Johnny Just come into Gambian affairs who is also lost in regard to what I have written. You got to know that the late Mr. Alieu Njies murder case was just an example that speaks volumes of the smart move to establish the constitution than a military decree. In fact , because of that constitution that even allowed and paved the way for Darboe to become an opposition leader. Can you tell this forum what would have happened if there was no constitution? Do you (Nemesis, retributive justice) prefer Military decree to the constitution we have now? Darboe been prosecuted or not prosecuted is irrelevant to me but what I was insinuating is the wild accusation against Halifa / PDOIS for their smart move. Modern politics is all about dispensation of strategies; and principles but not anger, insult and blame games.So do not even go there,by associating me of  in support of  the Kangaroo courts of Jammeh. I already mentioned that. So say something else .........

You should  read and understand well before throw out your invectives which is totally irrelevant.






From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, August 8, 2010 10:33:56 AM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements

The ramblings of Baura-mad-man!

I guess Mr Samba has taken up the challenge to create the havo and mess that he bragged he could
do to the UDP within two weeks. We shall review his efforts in two weeks to see how best he has done
to achieve his goal. 

However, from reading his posting below, it seems that this so called "professor" of ours is excellent at 
empty rambling than creating the havo or mess he seeks to achieve.

I hope to respond to his ramblings fully later, but for now i wish to correct him on one issue, which is
his supposition that somehow the PDOIS advocated constitution of the APRC had saved Lawyer Darboe 
from going to prison in the murder case of Alieu Njie. 

It seems this foolish Professor had failed to reason that Mr Darboe had been prosecuted under that same 
constitution, which he claimed to have saved him. If the constitution had saved him, he would not have been 
prosecuted in the first place.

It is therefore donkey reasoning to reason that it was the constitution rather than that the fact Mr Darboe 
had not committed the crime he had been charged with, which had saved him from going to prison. Mr 
Darboe was saved by his conduct, which is that he was not guilty of the crime that were peddled against 
him. 

Even a kangaroo court was able to establish that fact. However, unsurprisingly to my intellect, this retarded 
head, Professor Banura could not reason that fact. 

Besides if that constitution could save anything how come it had failed to save Halifa from losing his 
most coveted job of being the National Assembly member for Serrekunda, when the issue of NADD being 
a political party was brought to the same Kangaroo courts. 

Think before you write Mr Samba.

Got to go for now, but will come back to the rest of your donkey reasoning!

Nemesis Yanks 



Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 17:14:09 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
To: [log in to unmask]



Political maturity, discipline and principle cannot be possessed out of contention .This is why is equally important for party members to make a responsible and convincing press release to the people. This is why there is also a need for political parties to make alternatives with remedies in order to make a damage control system in place. IN that note there must be a committee that will handle and review issues before immediate and hasty decisions are made by individuals, family members or “Tereh Kaffoo”.  However, this cannot be done by venting anger, insult or personal attack against those who do not ascribed to their individual or collective thoughts and beliefs. This type of political masquerading has become a common place for us since lifting the ban on political parties in 1996. There is no place for malarkey in Gambian politic comes 2011. The Parties will tell Gambians what changes they will effect when they are elected but the changes that we may believe in.

The reason why I made a swift response to the UDP/UK's press release is because it is taking us in retrospect and will hindered  the efforts of genuine Gambians who are working ostensibly  to make our home land bacon of  democracy. This will also exacerbate the division amongst the opposition parties. By and large, UPD in particular have better things to take care of than this frivolous attacks which have no place in this 21 Century . More so the signing of the MOU of NADD was an “error in the making” committed by UDP. So they cannot hold Halifa or any body accountable for that. It is time to tell and present fact with evidences. If one does not state the fact; and you ignore it, double standard and hypocrisy will obviously take a center stage. Thereby the dramatist or political bickering will grow out of proportion. These are the devices paid by the vice to the virtue through the works of internecine characters----- UDP is entirely responsible for anything that happened in NADD, in 2006 period. I can say without any wobbling, UDP holy agreed and append their signature without any persuasion or coerce.

I will give an eerie account of the inexcusable errors made by UDP in numerous occasions since the hay days of  1996. These would have been corrected before actions are taking and appending their signature on it. This leaves one with a question that does UDP really has an organized structure and principles to follow? I vehemently believed that the UDP/ UK are Johnny just come into the platform, you welcome on board. The catharsis that faced and still facing UDP as a party since its inception is that they act on individual advice that trickles down to family members. This has caused and still causing a prosaic effect to dissuade true and sincere UDP members who foresee the interest of the Gambia. This type of political meandering has shrunk the image; and popularity of the party and above all left the party in a casket .It  has caused an irreparable damage to the image of the party as a whole. The proponents of UDP/UK must understand that there were many like them but where are they? You hardly hear from them today, why?
The following are the typical examples where, a prominent party like UDP  has failed Gambians woefully,  through errors that they do not want to admit instead shifting blames:
 
1.) In 1995 REFERENDUM, PDOIS told Gambians is better to vote and have a constitution than a military decree but other oppositions in their campaign told voters PDOIS support and promotes APRC’s ideas. They were proven dead wrong because this is why today one can go to court and defend himself  despite the kangaroo courts. To resonate this in conjunctions to the 1997 constitution, Lawyer Dorboe was saved by the same constitution from going to prison when there was a class between UDP and APRC in Basse .Where Mr. Njie , APRC driver was killed. Imagine if told there was no constitution in place. There will be a macabre, where Daniel will come to Judgement.
2. Darboe said he regrets boycotting 2002 National election .Members will bear me witness that the idea of boycotting came from Wajuwara. You see how misleading an individual decisions and advice can be resulted to. PDOIS was also blamed for their participation in that election.
3.) In 2006 Darboe appends his signature on the MOU of NADD and pull out with reason that he was persuaded to sign it. Who persuaded him to sign it? Before it was some UDP branch members in the US who were attacking Halifa and now new faces of political protagonists from UDP/UK squarely apportioned the blamed on PDOIS / Halifa .The truth will always prevail and politicians will come and go but the fact of records will be indelibly mark on the walls of history for the purpose of posterity. Rhetorically, where are the proactive groups like UDP/ US branch? Are they functional or dead? This UDP/US branch was so powerful that it has an endemic effect that scared president Jammeh to dead. Why Darboe should allow such political fragmentation? Is he aware of what is going on and the colossal effects it is going to have on the party?
4) We have also witnessed here the verbatim of a UN document by UDP and their alliance with NRP/GPDP in 2006.  They used the said document as a party manifesto. This was a treasonable offense, plagiarism, especially in this academic world.

I hereby attach a copy of the result of two previous elections so that we can be a better judge if UDP can shade the tears of Gambians in this difficult period of our time.Do we also expect them to bring a change that will be better than PPP and APRC? (Source IRIN NEWS)
    


The United Democratic Party is a conservative political party in The Gambia, affiliated to the International Democratic Union, founded in 1996 by the human rights lawyer Ousainou Darboe. As a candidate in the presidential election of 18 October 2001, he came second with 32.6% of the popular vote; he took second place again in the 22 September 2006 presidential election with 26.7% of the vote. The 17 January 2002 parliamentary election was boycotted by the party. In the 25 January 2007 parliamentary election, the party won four out of 48 seats.[1]
In 2005 UDP joined the opposition National Alliance for Democracy and Development which only lasted for a short term due to differences in opinion among the various leaders of the opposition. The UDP is the most popular opposition party in the Gambia, polling nearly 35% and 27 % of the votes in the 2001 and 2006 Gambian presidential elections respectively (BBC News). However, due to suspicion of unfair voting practices the leader of UDP has declared openly that he is not willing to accept the results of the 2006 presidential election.
The motto of the United Democratic Party (The Gambia) is Justice, Peace and Progress and the party flag is bright yellow in color with a unity handshake depicted in the center (UDP Manifesto). The party practices two methods of memberships: a) individual and b) affiliate consisting of farmers' groups, trade unions, culture groups and youth groups etc.
The executive members of UDP include - Yaya Jallow, Ebraima Manneh, Amadou Taal, Lawyer Mariam Denton and Momodou N Shyngle Nyassi etc among others.
There has widespread reports in the Gambia of torture and arrests of UDP stalwarts who claim to fight against an authoritarian government led by President Yahya Jammeh of the ruling APRC party 
 
 
 




From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 5:04:19 PM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements

"I will continue educating these folks who needs to go back to school and 
beg their degrees once more if told there is one already or not". Banura Samba

Mr Samba, indeed you are one egoistic fool of this forum. Less you failed to notice, 
no one is in need of grammar class than yourself, Professor.

So teach yourself to write better than your prospective students and save us your 
empty bravado.

Nemesis Yanks 

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:12:59 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
To: [log in to unmask]


Nyang, not all who go to school and graduate with a  degree in law or other areas can think out of the box. This is the most frustrating and pathetic sides of Gambians. Those whom you considered to know better are the ones blundering and pretending to outwit the masses. In this forum should be meant to enlighten  but not to cow tow  or succumb to the ill conceived and perception  of others. I will continue educating these folks who needs to go back to school and beg their degrees once more if told there is one already or not.

Thanks ,
Badou 





From: Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 4:30:04 AM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements




Badou, good that you know the caliber of people you are trying to put some "water into their heads". They will never deal with the pertinent points and issues but to engage in fault finding ;missions to rely on to for blames on others. Why there good laywyer went on to append his signature on the document that a certain Daffeh is strugggling to PR upon. 
 
Make no mistake you are being delivered a official position of the UDP by these people. LJD never mind, i call them these people. Still better than Suntou who insults people. 
 
Nyang

--- On Wed, 8/4/10, Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 2:29 PM


From Daffeh ,"Suntou, I have just asked the guy to read the statement again, he seems glueless", it should be clueless. Contrarily to your  point of view (POV) , if I seemingly sound "glueless" (clueless) you must be held responsible for it because I can't get it why this didactic narration here instead of analytical analysis's that will bring everybody on board. Mr.Daffeh ,I humbly begged to defer with your adjectival clause "-------glueless" (clueless) instead you are the vary one who is cluesless. All what I have stated is that UDP must accept their error and all the oppositions , including PDOIS, NRP  , you name them , must stop attacking each other. 

With all honesty and respect I have for UDP  , I must state this here that certain so called members jump into conclusion by throwing out  invectives  unto others who critiques UDP and its leadership instead of engaging them into a constructive discussions. A notable example of this is Haruna who most often doggedly insult people for no reason or he is boozing out of control.  I must commend Suntu this time for making a sound analysis but went ahead to inflict some personal attacks which we do not need at this time. 

Thanks..
Badou.



'


From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 9:24:49 AM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements


Suntou, I have just asked the guy to read the statement again, he seems glueless.
 
well done on your piece.
 
Daffeh


On 4 August 2010 15:13, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Maybe you need to read the release again.
 
Kind regards
 
Daffeh




On 4 August 2010 07:25, Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 UDP/UK Members,
It is rather paradoxical  and whimsical to state that  "largeregistration of NADD as a political party was a disaster". Mr. Daffeh , you tend to refute Halifa's statement that "the registration was a constitutional requirement".

 In a hindsight, I hold UDP entirely responsible for the disaster you are claiming here, why?  When the MOU was written and tabled out where were you, Daffeh and all the intellectuals of  UDP?  The UDP I used to know, equipped and surrounded with well educated and informed people , where are  Borro susso's? Where you blindfolded into signing the MOU without foreseeing these issues ? Why didn't you point out , raised those concerns and blatantly refuse the formation of NADD, hence you know the unconstitutionality of it ? But you accepted everything in it and even Darboe went to the court to deffend NADD's constitutional requirement.Why would Darboe waste his time ,resources and energy , knowing fully well that the verdict of the court will not be on their sides (NADD)?  

There is nothing more than intellectual suicide by an intellect who appends his signature to a document and he or she takes a U-turn and said it was a mistake (disaster). I totally find your press release disturbing and misleading because at this hour who will believe you and Darboe in your attempt to convince the Gambians? Just apologize to Gambians because you have betray them, period rather apportioning the blame on each other. I think UPD/UK would have engaged the Diasporas; and Gambian opposition at home with the topic reconciliation  and unity rather than precipitating the flames of  disunity. This is absolutely going to be dejected result of  2006. Where no one gains except fortifying  Jammeh's grip on power. Analyzing and blaming each other millions times as Joe Stated  will not help or bring changes for 2011.


HISTORY HAS WARNED US IN 2006 AND STILL WARNING US FOR THE LAST TIME ,  2011. 
BADOU.
"Abaraka allah ma sundomo yelehla" 






From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 12:33:59 PM

Subject: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements


31st July 2010 

Press Release: - UDP/UK’s Response to Halifa Sallah’s Press Statements


On the 26th June 2010, the spokesperson of PDOIS and former flag bearer of the National Alliance for Democracy and Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently concluded Jarra Soma Congress, that the  and utterly laregistration of NADD as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating that the registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60 of the Constitution to back his claim. The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] dismisses this statement as irresponsible, deceitfulcking basis. This is a statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to distort facts and hoodwink the Gambian public on the subject of what actually led to the collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned into a complete farce. Here are the facts; 



In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established NADD, the signatory parties including PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as follows; 

‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who seek to establish an alliance.......’’ 

The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article 1 of the same MOU, the establishment of an alliance called NADD. This is what Article 1 states;

‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development with the acronym [NADD].’’

All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an alliance. There is no single reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even by the provisions which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD as an alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;

‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’

Those of Article 16 are as follows;

‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’ 

It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as an alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an incontrovertible fact.

Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then

Two conflicting statement have been advanced by Halifa as to the true status of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12 of his press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but went on to claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger. These are contradictory and irreconcilable positions, and it clearly shows that Halifa was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to what was actually envisaged by the MOU that established NADD.

The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’ hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase all together. We have therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of what was envisaged in NADD’s MOU vis-a- vis the relevant constitutional provisions.

Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a requirement that NADD put up candidates in its own right and under its own banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit postulation of this under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks about symbols. This is what Article 8 states;

‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus; provided that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’

Article 16 states the following;

‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be determined within one month of the coming into force of the agreement with the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’

It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form part of a broad instrument, the context of which has been well defined by the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or can be deduced from the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the MOU obsolete or having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and perverse but also inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble and Article 1 which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.

Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor candidates in its own right and under its own name in any given election. Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by Halifa, it would still be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section 60 states;

‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public elections.’’

Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa has been making into or purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been enforceable without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were promulgated in the context of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while still maintaining the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD] could not put up candidates in its own right and under its own name while still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If Halifa had not arrogantly rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional matters, he would have been better advised on this point.

Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It presented them with two options; they could either re-negotiate the terms of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should they desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent parties as a vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential election. Under Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states;

‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall be based on the principle of unanimity provided that matters of procedure shall be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present and voting. In the event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may agree unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’

As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek a unanimous agreement as to which path to take. However, since PDOIS has it as an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle to the UDP and its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to wittingly register NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory parties, and despite strong opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader described it as a ‘disaster’.

It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might not have been a significant factor in its disintegration since there was a time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP from the organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.

The Supreme Court Judgement

It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party. Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now case settled law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court, not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear such matters. This is what Section 127 states;




‘‘The Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for the interpretation or enforcement of this constitution other than any provision of sections 18-33 or Section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and freedoms.’’ 

Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no need to show sufficient interest- for ‘anybody who alleges that an Act of the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or omission of any person or authority is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’ Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the position of the law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either file an appeal at the Supreme Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing him arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done sooner rather than later.

Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral Commission had conceived it as such is utterly frivolous and unintelligent. The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are certainly not the custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just like anybody else. 

Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are able to sponsor candidates in a public election. Hence, the IEC could not have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections. It follows therefore that the only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be registered as a political party and be deemed as such by law. As a matter of a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the establishment of an alliance, not a political party.

The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful of certain opposition elements who are hell bent on stoking controversy and division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s politics. As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to be united and rally behind the main opposition United Democratic Party under the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011 presidential election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of duty to our beloved country, the Gambia. 

THE END.

Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General




¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤






¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤






¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤




¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html 
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 



¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤