Halifa,
With your usual rhetorical manoeuvre has managed to box himself into the
corner of the vestiges of retrospective pedagogy that you stuffily accuses me
of. Since you employed so much of polemical pedagogy and semantic sophistry
to answer my concerns and lamely debunk my postulations, I shall reply with
those two pronged fronts.
However, first things first. In a posting dated 07/12/99 entitled On My
Postulation you quoted a previous posting which was a response to my first
piece since the debate started. In that response you wrote "...... I will
postulate that the 1997 constitution has all the basic faults that could be
found in the 1970 constitution and other laws under the Jawara regime, and
has fundamental provisions that are indispensable for a democratic society
that the 1970 constitution did not have." Apparently upon your return members
had chosen to ignore this and again you wrote triumphantly that: "upon my
return, I have not seen any response to contradict this postulation. What has
happened to the critics of the 1997 constitution? Some argued that I was
allowed to do the talking during the coup period. Who is holding people from
tearing this postulation into shreds......" Halifa, should I infer from the -
what has happened to the critics of the 1997 constitution - that you are not
a critic of the 1997 constitution? Again where did you get the lopsided idea
that we have raised issues of any kind that makes comparative analysis of the
1970 and 1997 constitutions? Was there any dispute about the development of
the 1997 constitution over the 1970 constitution? Fairly and squarely, the
1997 constitution did away with much of the monarchical proclivities, gender
discrimination and most of the democratic deficits that were inherent in the
1970 constitution. It did usher in more powers for the elected
representatives of The People, separation of powers and Teutonic shifts of
emphasis in expression of the democratic will of The People in THEORY. The
realities on the ground are however different as we all know. Suffice to sum
up here that our dispute was not with how many points the 1997 constitution
gained over the 1970 constitution. Rather our dispute was premised on the
blanket Indemnity Clause, the term limit and age of the presidency, how still
the executive (presidency) still has enormous monarchical dispositions that
the Constitution Review Committee has not fundamentally stripped off the 1997
constitution and how Jammeh later tampered with the draft to suit his designs
and ambitions. It was a deliberate deviationist ploy and intellectual
dishonesty on your part to bring up a point that was never in dispute; that
of the 1997 constitution's developments over the 1970 constitution. The idea
that Saul and I found the 1970 constitution preferable to the 1997
constitution is a figment of your feverish imaginations and very
hallucinatory brought up solely to gain cheap points.
In your posting of 17/12/99 entitled Reply To Hamjatta , you chided me
that I "saw the opportunity to philosophize on common place notions that have
no bearing to the point at issue." Stripped of the hyperbole, I admit guilt
to the charge that I "saw the opportunity to philosophize" but temperately
and seriously tells you in your face that my philosophizing did have a
"bearing on the point at issue" and they are not mere "common place notions."
In a reply to an earlier piece of mine you elegantly went on about dilating
on the nuances and constituents of Cultural Studies, Political Science and
Economics. You did actually and tacitly present them in isolation of each
other. And you did divorce social scientists from beliefs/belief systems. In
as much as you pre-empted the philosophizing it is a bit rich of you to chide
my excitement to have a go at your naive inferences on knowledge and a tall
order for you to try to harness my opportunism to philosophize. I make no
apologies for seeing "the opportunity to philosophize" and did so in a grand
manner. In your rebuttal of my thesis on the aforementioned, you resorted to
the highest form of rebarbative and imbalanced polemical pedagogy that has
all the echoes of semantic sophistry. You wrote after bunkum repetitions of
earlier postulations, that: "since Pan Africanism is a social phenomenon, it
has a corpus of economic, political and cultural programmes and policies
which could make it a reality. One must study the economic, political and
social factors which make it a viable option for development in the African
Continent. This is precisely the reason why I said I DO NOT HOLD a Pan
African belief. I DO HOLD THAT the economic, political and cultural
programmes that could be classified under Pan Africanism are viable," (All
emphasis mine) Halifa what are you playing at here? Isn't it risible and self
contradictory for you to "HOLD THAT the economic, political and cultural
programmes that could classified under Pan Africanism are viable" and funnily
maintain that you "DO NOT HOLD a Pan African belief"? Is this the "simple
manner" in which you sought to "state simple concepts.....so that it can be
understood by even a simpleton"? Well, "simpletons" like me do not know what
to make up of your denunciation and pronunciation at the same time. It seems
to me your are in need of tutoring on the nuances and semantics of HOLD in
the context that you used it so you can render able your malfunctioned
"faculties of differentiation and discernment" despite your intellectual
profundity.
Now you may ask precisely what defines HOLD. I shall refer you to the
Oxford Dictionary (ninth edition, ed. by Della Thompson by BCA by arrangement
with Oxford University Press) HOLD in the context of your postulation is
defined as a: verb transitive (often followed by TO + infinitive or THAT +
clause) THINK; BELIEVE (e.g. held it to be self evident; held that the earth
was flat). Hence it is clear here without any dint of ambiguity that HOLD
THAT translates a belief in something. Is it becoming clear to you how you
shot yourself in the feet with your risible and self contradictory
proclamation of Pan African belief and on the other hand denouncing my
attempt to label you as a believer in Pan Africanism. Do you now see the
reason why I earlier said you are leading towards an intellectual cul-de-sac
when you attempt to divorce social scientists from beliefs/belief systems.
Isn't it a dead end for you to belief and disbelief at the same time? Since
you 've got the point now on HOLD THAT, I hope you will come up with a
clearer and unambiguous statement on where you stand with Pan Africanism.
Again since the carburettor of your thoughts were disjointed and rendered
hapless by the semantics of the central theme of your rebuttal on the Koro
issue, that of "circumstantial evidence", it is quite proper for me to begin
debunking your spurious assertions by stating what "circumstantial evidence"
would constitute. Here again I shall make our point reference would be the
ninth edition of the Oxford Dictionary which defines circumstantial evidence a
s: (of evidence, a legal case, etc). tending to establish a conclusion by
inference from known facts hard to explain otherwise. To simplify matters
further we turn yet again to the Oxford Thesaurus (1996, compiled by Betty
Kirkpatrick by BCA arrangement with Oxford University Press). which spells
out that circumstantial evidence is based on circumstances indirect,
incidental, evidential, deduced, presumed, inferential, conjectural. In your
posting you wrote: "circumstantial evidence can provide facts that a
journalist can publish which can enable people to have an idea of the truth
even if one does not have sufficient evidence to state it as the truth." I
ask you this after we both had agreed on what constitutes circumstantial
evidences and in your own words that circumstantial evidence does act as an
essential source in investigative journalism, what do you
infer/deduce/presume from the lack of official police investigation, puerile
handling on the part of the state and shirking of responsibility in invoking
the Coroner's Act to hold an inquest into the circumstances surrounding
Koro's mysterious death? Halifa the lack of police investigation into Koro's
death and subsequently the impotence on the part of the state/AFPRC
government to invoke the Coroner's Act to hold an inquest on the mysterious
death of a State minister is circumstantial evidence. You have complained
being starved of leads after exhausting all possible investigative avenues;
well here is one lead I'm offering you. The lack of police investigations or
the lackadaisical nature of it and the unwillingness on the part of the AFPRC
government to invoke the Coroner's Act to hold a public inquest is
circumstantial evidence and a lead.
Particularly, I did find offensive your petulant ripples of
holier-than-thou afterthoughts in your closing remarks about the Koro
tragedy. You wrote: "we did everything that was possible to get to the facts
and we concluded as everybody is concluding now, that there should be a
coroner's Inquest. If it fails to do so, anybody can speculate whatever one
wants. However, no one has the moral authority to question our integrity
because of the manner we approached this." Oh yeah. Good gracious. What a
banquet of sanctimonious tosh!!!!!! How can you claim to have to done
"everything that was possible to get to the facts" when you overlooked the
obvious circumstantial evidences that I mentioned above and did you carry out
any forensic DNA examination of the site to scientifically ascertain whoever
were present during Koro's death? Do you now see the sham that is coming out
of your pretentious attempts to look smart and professional investigative
journalists? Do you now see why I called you a novice journalist on his/her
first assignment. Halifa you don't have the resources or the training to
carry out a scientific forensic scrutiny of the site that Koro was found. The
State could and should have done this even if it means acquiring help from
outside the borders of the Gambia. What was at stake was too much to be left
in the hands of muted silence and in the puerile hands of your investigations
that reeked from the outset of absurdity, naivety and simplicity?
Halifa if you fail to follow the lead I just offered you, I will have
every moral authority question your integrity. And get this: you shall lose
my confidence and consequently my vote come the 2001 elections. Also get
this: had this tragedy occurred in Britain and the State acted just as it did
in the Gambia without any police investigations a Coroner's Inquest, the
bereaved family would have used this circumstantial evidence to land a legal
case whose merits would far over weigh it's demerits in court. And guess what
would happen if Koro's family decides to use this circumstantial evidence in
court today. Yes, it would be thrown out of court for the simple reason that
it refers to a period in our history which no one can question, investigate
and prosecute our venerable leaders and those who acted in their names.
Thanks to a blanket Indemnity Clause that your precious 1997 constitution
which you so vigorously campaigned for, gave to the erstwhile AFPRC and their
lieutenants. Your precious faultless 1997 constitution which you so
vigorously advocated and campaigned for, renders Koro's family hapless in
their pursuit for justice for their son. Is it become clearer to you how your
misplaced enthusiasm has landed you in a miasma of murky circumstances that
questions both your judgement and integrity? I hope this salves your
conscience.
It is very laughable and risible for you to suggest that there was no
panic in the ranks of the ruling elite and the soldiers when Koro died. See
how holier-than-thou you sound and look when you pretend to be omnipresent.
Halifa have you or any of your reporters been at the Royal Victoria Hospital
mortuary when Koro's body lay there for the first time? The panic and open
out burst amongst soldiers in uniform was revealing. I was there just
opposite Gamtel Telecoms House, an eyewitness to the panic and tears that
rolled down the cheeks of soldiers and civilians alike. This was prior to
your so-called "investigative journalist" and Koro's burial. Now log that in
your selective and subjective memory. By then you had unwittingly brought
calm within the AFPRC ranks. Are you proud of your role now that the picture
is becoming clearer?
A historical disquisition of you/PDOIS from 1994 to today would discover
how you metamorphosed from cautious doubters to grudging acceptors of the
military take-over; and upon your legal drama with the former AFPRC,
transformed from grudging acceptors to enthusiastic supporters of a process
that even simpletons can decipher from the outset as flawed and hell-bent on
perpetuating the ruling clique; and from enthusiastic supporters to defenders
of a flawed and bogus transition whose sole purpose was to legitimise an
illegal usurpation of power taken at the back of The People. If as you
maintain that you are:
1. Committed never to participate in a government (process) that is taken
without the participation of the people.
2. Committed never to participate in a government (process) that is not
serving the interest of the people.
3. Committed never to take power at the back of the people'
One wonders why you went to such painstaking lengths to help
(unwittingly?) legitimise the illegal through a process that is both flawed
and designed for the sole purpose of perpetuating the AFPRC? Is it because of
historical immediacy, misplaced enthusiasm or you Halifa/PDOIS (the Fox who
knows so much) had been spoofed by Jammeh/AFPRC (the Hedgehog who knows but
one big thing. As the debate intensifies and the bullets punch more holes
into stories and alibis we shall find. In the end the truth and nothing but
the truth shall prevail.
Good Evening.
Cordially,
Hamjatta Kanteh
hkanteh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
