Haruna,
Consider for a minute, if all the things Halifa have
mentioned that we should have done at Independence did materalized, how
would we picture the Gambian political situation today] Rene.
Haruna, when I made the above remarks I had in mind the
following from Halifa:
"The whole truth is that 1965 was just one more phase in the
struggle to attain the right to self determination and Independence. It
was the decisive phase precisely because the era for colonial
domination had passed and it was left to our own national will and
resolution to determine our own pace for the attainment of our right
to self determination and Independence. The external personality of
the country had been redefined. Gambia was seen as an Independent
Nation everywhere around the globe. Our leaders had the duty to
Construct the instruments, institutions, administrative and Managerial
practices to ensure that the internal personality of the country did
conform to the external personality of Nationhood, especially when it
came to our membership of the OAU. This was the task of Nation
building.
This task had six fundamental features, that is, Juridical, civil,
political, social, economic and cultural. It was necessary for the
political leaders, irrespective of party affiliation, to expose the
defects of the 1965 constitution and its inadequacies as the Juridical
instrument of a sovereign Nation and Sovereign people who were expected
to have attained the right to self determination."
How would we evolved politically today, if our political leaders
notwithstanding the loyalty to their parties and interest, came
together to denounce the independence constitution as a monarchial
construct, and instead demanded to build the six fundamental features
that Halifa calls the country's 'internal personality?.
This was the thrust of the argument I wanted to make in that remark.
After your notes, I will move to my other remarks.
Rene
-----Original Message-----
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and
Independence On the 18 F...
Rene,
Remmember I told you I liked you. Well I love you now. You raise some
important points and the educational value of what Halifa shares is
unassailable. However, it is not the road to Gambia's
self-determination. Let me review your notes so I can do it justice. It
should not be treated casually.
[-----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] To:
[log in to unmask] Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 11:07 am
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and
Independence On the 18 F...
Haruna, Consider for a minute, if all the things Halifa have mentioned
that we should have done at Independence did materalized, how would we
picture the Gambian political situation today] Rene.
That's the problem I perceived Rene. What Halifa suggests was that if
the constitutions of Gambia in both 1965 and 1970 were explained to the
people, then they would understand their sovereignty and yield a
greater interest in their true independence. Now the only way the
constitutions could have been explained fully to all (or most) of us
would be to not have the constitution written in English in the first
instance. It ought to be written in our local languages first and then
translated into English. So let's assume the constitutions were written
in our local languages and explained profusely to all of us at the
material times. We would still interprete it differently. And the
political parties will explain them differently to their partisans. The
limited independence we had in 1965 as Halifa cliarvoyantly shared was
more due to the indomitable tide of independences in west Africa
than our own volition and efforts. Left to our own designs, I suppose
we'd still be having the inter-necine conflicts. And in 1965, it was
some of us who worked on that, if minimum independence. We owe a debt
of gratitude to those people key among whom as Halifa pointed out was
Edward Francis Smalls and Sir Dawda Jawara among others. In every
history, it is the people who change status quo antes. The profuse
explanation of constitutions and contracts is too mechanical and
discrete to be relied on for any reorder of cards. So Rene, as much as
it sounds good that altering a single regime of events in history could
yield us true independence and value-sovereignty, I must shy away
from such listless hope. What is certain is that the permutation of
events might have changed or the genesis of epochs may have been
different, but whatever independence and sovereignty we would have had,
would have been yielded by Great Britain. They had no incentive to
yield us wholesale independence, and sovereignty is related to
recognizable nationhood. We must not forget about The Gambia's
geographic position inside of Senegal who were colonized by
a culturally different overlord. This dynamic had more to do with our
sovereign yields than any profuse understanding of our constitutions.
[ I think the arguments.he raised are very profound,] Rene.
I agree with you entirely. The argument Halifa raised has been raised
at the time. If our pioneers had their way, the 1965 constitution
would have been written in our constituent languages and or
translated to us. However, we could not do that and it was not in Great
Britain's interest to do that. You could make the argument that had we
been able to do that at the material times, the mere profuse
understanding of the constitution would encourage Great Britain to
grant us total independence and sooner. The problem you then get into
is that Gambians had very little part if any in that ultimate decision,
and were it not for the tide of independences that swept Gambia into
the minimum independence we received, our profuse understanding of our
constitutions will not by itself significantly alter our history. There
is what we call the time value of history which seems to escape many a
philosopher. Philosophers cannot handle this intrinsic dynamism in
history. if they could, all our history will be benign as to us.
[and we may not have realized it then, but with the benefit of
hindsight and a thorough understanding of the political dynamics that
evolved, the historical narrative put us in a better position to right
the wrongs of yesterday.] Rene.
Again Rene, saying we had not realized what the yield of our history
will have been is like saying what if the sun were green????? There
were a few individuals who understood the constitutions at the time.
And they worked diligently to yield us as much independence as they
possibly could from contemporaneous history. Narrating your history to
you does engender reflection on your part. BUT YOU CANNOT redo the
events you played no part in yielding. And if you do them, you will
only succeed in doing them in a different environment....TIME. Just
imagine, if we had back then, the Halifa we have now, you could
justifiably say we would have come out better knowing what Halifa's
desires are now. But we cannot reprosecute history. The best you can do
with history is narrate it and were you to have played any part in
historical events, learn from your mistakes and not repeat those
mistakes again. But Halifa's audience today is not responsible for the
history he narrates. Don't you think if Yahya had the benefit of
hindsight and historical knowledge of what he did even 30 years ago,
that he would do things differently if his desires for outcome has
changed????
[This is the opportunity that people like Halifa, who has taken the
time and discipline to study the historical narrative wants to
impress.] Rene.
You don't get it do you Rene? There is no opportunity for a do-over of
history. There never will be. The opportunity Halifa availed himself of
after painstakingly collating our history will be apparent to you
instantannement. Just sit tight.
[Clearly, at the time of independence Halifa was very young; and if I
have to assume he was not more than ten years old. Therefore, it must
have taken a lot of conviction, aptitude, vocation and a sense of
purpose, for Halifa to dedicate his time and efforts not only to
understand the political dynamics of that era; not only to interprete
its history but to impact on that history as well.] Rene.
Don't get carried away. You just told us Halifa was too young to impact
on that history at the material time. How on earth can he impact on
that same history now?????????????????????????????????? I would however
encourage all our education and growth in the historical sciences.
Perhaps Halifa may have been 10 years old and too young to affect the
history which he now wants us to try to reprosecute, but he remmembered
not to take the temperature with his tongue.
[To create a vision: a country that deliberately construct its entity
and survival rooted in the best instiutions and structures, that
affords it citizens to live a prosperous, free and dignified
existence.] Rene.
Ok what about that? Do you know you can create a vision too Rene?
Whatever you have an interest in, you will participate in constructing
or deconstructing depending on your outcome desires. People make
institutions and structures tailored to their purposes. What is a
prosperous, free, and dignified existence Rene??? You PDOISards like to
sing don't you??? What're you talking about???? For starters, if you
have to design my freedom, prosperity, and dignity, I want no part of
it. What about your own freedom, prosperity, and dignity?? You must
realise that you and I and Bailo and Suntou view these values
differently. What PDOIS has been engaged in since her existence in
Gambia, was to inform and educate us on our constitution and history.
When will it dawn on PDOIS that they can only reorder the decks as to
themselves? What you and Halifa believe is that when a people is aware
of their history and constitution as you narrate it to them, then they
will accrue more interest in yielding the outcome you suggest naturally
flows from that education. That is undone and I think PDOIS is engaged
in a monumental foolhardy as a political party. It is engulfed in
hallmark and inescapable conflict of interests and the people have
known it for decades. I advise you cease recolonising us only to
experiment with what independence we may yield from that. Our children
will not let us.
[The argument, I believe, Halifa is making is that we have to
deliberately construct the instruments that govern our relationship
with one another; as well as the relationship that bind us to the
geographical space that we all call our home. Since we all have biases;
since we all have different interest persuasions; and may profess
different religious and ethnic identities, we should construct the one
thing that we all share in common, our Gambian indentity and our
constitution, from a position of total surrender to the dictates of
what is just; what is right and what is humane.] Rene.
What do you think every Gambian is engaged in everyday Rene?
[This was never done from the time of our independence; and this is
what we ought to do now.] Rene.
You're funny Rene. Just because you haven't been doing that does not
mean your fellow citizens have not. Or is it that we must do those
things as Halifa and PDOIS designed them to be certified as done?????
Men you guys can talk. I advise PDOIS get to work already. Its much too
late to begin now, but begin you must. Imagine you have a blank canvas
and crayons. Plan your life with the givens you are dealt with today.
And whatever you do, do not plan Haruna's life. Please. I have not seen
a lazier bunch of folk in my entire life. With this attitude Rene, the
only saving grace for PDOIS and Halifa is coincidence of cycles and
seasons. Lightyears my friend. We may not be here to witness the next
100 year flood.
Haruna. Don't get me wrong, the historical education is appreciated.
The opportunity Halifa afforded himself from the profuse discipline and
hard work in narratives, is to repackage PDOIS-2011 and discount it for
sale again. Read the penultimate paragraph of the discrete treatise.
Allez!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 12:55 am
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and
Independence On the 18 F...
Dad, thanx for sharing. What a way to sell PDOIS-2011. I mean the
history is all good but it seems to me Halifa and PDOIS were and still
are part of that history. To now tell us we got to start over because
the earlier constitutions were not explained to All the people of
Gambia is incredible. I think PDOIS has been explaining the 1970 and
1997 constitutions to "ALL" the people for over a decade now. Look
where that got them. It would seem self evident to me that if PDOIS
translates the current constitution into Mandingo, Fula, Wollof,
Sarahule, Jola, Serer, Aku, and Manjago, that they would get more
mileage out of it than try to explain it in English to ALL the people
of Gambia. That still would not alter Gambia's history. So to say we
have to go back now and do the explaining to all the people would imbue
patriotism in the people to become independent from Britain again is
mind-boggling. We may not have been independent in 1965 or perhaps in
1970, but by God we are now independent of Britain. We are not going
back to prosecute history because it will be another history we will
make. And that may keep us unindependent from Britain. What a waste of
time and intellect. Revisionism is for the faint-hearted. History is a
permutation of events. It is not linearly iterative. Altering one
single regime of events in history(explaining the constitutions to all
the people), if that is possible, will alter the entire history. That
will not necessarily alter the outcome of your history. It merely
alters the permutation of events. People alter their own histories. Not
the events. Explaining constitutions to all the people does not
necessarily yield comprehension or the same comprehensions.
I suggest we work with what we've got and make it better. If you were
to pick Halifa up right now and drop him in the middle of Suomi and
tell him this is your new home from now on, I'm not sure he'll survive
for a week. Life is dynamic. We cannot turn back time because the new
arrivals can't wait for us to do that. So we need to learn to solve our
problems as they are presented to us each day. Learning history is good
for all societies. It is the lessons of history we must use to adapt to
contemporaneous challenges. This is cheap propaganda. Let's begin again
because we needed PDOIS leading us inorder to be certified independent.
Its like saying "follow me to the BIG DINKO and we can climb out the
other slope and be independent of the DINKO. Just the thought of it is
exasperating.
Any criminals and criminalities among us will still survive
constitutions. So I say instead of starting from square one (I don't
know why PDOIS likes going back to drawing boards? Can't they get it
right the first time? And how many times should we be going back to
drawing boards anyway?), confront the malignancies and criminalities
today that reduce your sovereignty to nil. If you can't do that, please
give us our friggin peace.
Vat is zis??? Haruna. I don't want to be recolonized so I can be better
independent. NO. I'm not kona do it.
In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:37:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
The Road to Self Determination and Independence On the 18 February
celebrations
By Halifa Sallah
Independence is not an event. It is not an emotive or sentimental
construct. It is a by product of an evolutionary epoch making process
which spreads over decades of historical engagements. It constitutes
the harmonisation or weaving of diverse communities and social entities
into a complex social organisation that we call a Nation. It is a
vision and a Mission to affirm the right of a people to self
determination in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural
domains. Independence has two fundamental features.
First and foremost, it aims to affirm and assert the right to
Nationhood, that is, the right of a people to a homeland that they
could collectively call their own; a homeland endowed with National
rights to Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and political
Independence and safeguarded by a united, free and indomitable people
or citizenry.
Secondly, it is designed to guarantee the sovereignty of each
citizen and affirm their equal power to determine how their destiny is
to be managed to ensure the fullest realisation and protection of their
civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
Hence as the Nation commemorates 18 February as Independence Day it
is necessary to map out the road which led us to where we are today,
identify the challenges which confront us at this very moment and
indicate where we are to go from here. This is the task imposed on us
by necessity and common sense. We must fulfill it before we could make
any movement forward. This is the only way we could give meaning to the
remembrance of a date like 18th of February.
History is the teacher of all those who wish to learn from the past
in order to be able to shape the future. It is therefore important to
put the record straight before we could draw the right lessons that
could be relevant to our cause to make our right to self determination
a reality. It is often repeated that we have been colonised for 400
years. Some claim that Gambia was reduced from the size of an elephant
to that of a snake. Some claim that a Nation conceived to be improbable
has now proven its viability to the credit of its architects.
History is born out of facts and not fiction. If Gambia was
colonised for 400 years why did Captain Grant sign a treaty with the
King of Kombo in 1816 to establish the settlement of Banjul? Why would
he be compelled to renew the Treaty they signed with the King of Nuimi
to continue to settle at the James Island in the same year? Why would
they seek the permission of the King of Lower Niani to settle in
Maccarthy Island in 1823? Why would they seek authorisation from the
King of Nuimi to settle on a landscape measuring one square mile at
Barra point in 1826? Why would they seek authorisation from the King of
Wuli to settle at Fatatenda in 1826? Why would they seek
authorisation from the King of Lower Niani to occupy the land referred
to as the Ceded Mile in 1844? If the territory of The Gambia was under
British domination for 400 years why were armies under the command of
indigenous rulers or religious leaders in control of many areas in
between 1850 and 1894. In short, how could Maba’s forces impose their
will on the inhabitants of Baddibu, Nuimi and Sine Saloum? How could
Foday Kaba’s forces impose their will on Jarra, Kiang Niamina and
Foni? How could Foday Sillah’s forces change the face of Kombo? How
could Alfa Molloh’s forces impose their will on inhabitants of Jimara,
Tumana and Fulladu? Why would the French sign a treaty with Musa Molloh
as late as 1894 to establish a settlement in Fulladu? Why would the
British sign a treaty with him as late as 1901? It is therefore a
falsification of history to claim that Gambia has been colonised for
400 years.
In fact there was no country or Nation with a territorial integrity
and sovereignty called The Gambia prior to the establishment of the
internal and external boundaries of the country which began in earnest
in 1889 and was finally completed in 1902. Prior to the external
construction of the boundaries now known as The Gambia and its internal
consolidation, there were different sovereign states and communal
societies which struggled for dominance. These wars undermined the
trade of the settlers. In between 1850 and 1890 the war was so intense
that the imports and exports of the settlers dropped respectively from
153,000 pounds and 162,000 pounds in 1839 to 69,000 and 79,000 pounds
in 1886. This is what compelled the British settlers to intensify their
negotiation with the local rulers who were ready to collaborate with
them in exchange for military support when ever they were attacked by
their neighbours. They also intensified their negotiation with the
French to have effective control of the territories relevant to their
trade.
History teaches that movement towards colonial domination could
only be possible when sufficient alliances were made with the weaker
rulers against the stronger ones and when more indigenous people
considered it safe to move into the established British settlements
like Banjul. British settlement in Banjul grew in population as a place
of refuge for those displaced by war and those freed from slavery. As
trade and businesses grew, institutions, laws, administrators and
education grew along with them. Once their settlement in Banjul
became consolidated the British settlers had to define the territory
they wanted to transform into the colony of The Gambia. The settlers
decided to define the external personality or identity of today’s
Gambia on 10 August 1889 by establishing a boundaries commission
comprising French and British Officials. Once the external identity of
the Gambia was drawn the French and British administrations in Gambia
and Senegal combined their forces to combat those who resisted their
attempt to impose their will to transform their settlements into
colonies. Once Faday Kaba was martyred in 1901 and Musa Molloh
contained, the British colonial administration came up with the
Protectorate Ordinance of 1902 to divide the territory, whose
boundaries had been agreed upon by the two colonial powers, into a
colony proper and a protectorate. All the people who resided in the
demarcated territory became British subjects. Hence there is no
historical evidence to give legitimacy to the claim that Gambia was
colonised for 400 years or was reduced in size from that of an elephant
into a snake. The Gambia was externally considered to be under
colonial rule in 1889 but was effectively put under British colonial
domination in 1902. This is the fact of history and is
incontrovertible.
However, the objective is not to live in the past. The objective is
to draw relevant lessons from the past in order to use them as raw
material to construct the future.
Compatriots. the road to self determination and Independence was
fraught with many struggles, challenges, concessions, reforms and
transformations. The book entitled "The Road to Self Determination and
Independence -The Gambia" which is waiting for publication will give
the interested party the details.
The relevant lesson to draw is that colonialism was a fetter to the
affirmation and assertion of the civil, political, social, economic and
cultural rights of our people. At the advent of colonialism our people
were reduced to subjects without a home land. They owed allegiance,
obedience and adherence to a foreign power and state. They were
banished for any sign of disobedience to such power in words or deeds.
They had no right to nationhood, no people’s rights, and no right to
self determination and no human rights.
They had no right to manage the affairs of their country directly or
through chosen representatives. However, they paid taxes, duties,
licenses and fees of diverse nature but did not have right to public
services in equal measure. This alienation of the people gave rise to
disaffection and resistance. The resistance started with the creation
of associations, the convening of sub regional congresses, the
establishment of newspapers to agitate against colonial domination, the
formation of trade unions, rate payers associations and farmer’s
cooperatives. The demands were both economic and political. The
clarion call of the National Congress of British West Africa
reverberated in the Gambia as Edward Francis Small called on the people
to rely on awareness and organisation to build a people’s power base
that could make the colonial administration to concede to popular
democratic demands. ‘No taxation without representation’ was the
clarion call.
Rate payers called for the establishment of local councils to
manage their money. Farmers’ cooperatives called for farmers’
participation in determining producer prices. Workers’ Unions called
for minimum wages which could guarantee existence above the poverty
line. Newspapers tackled injustices and maladministration. Allow me to
mention in passing that after 45 years of Commemoration of 18th
February where are the rate payers associations which demand services
for rates paid? Where are the trade unions which demand for wages above
the poverty line? Where are the farmers’ cooperatives which demand for
fair producer prices?
It did not take long for the colonial administration to yield to
popular demands. It adjusted wages according to periodic demands. It
established local councils and gradually introduced the elective
principle, as demand intensified, until it became the dominant way of
determining representation in the Urban Council.
The demand for political representation went from the local to the
National level by calling for reforms of the advisory bodies, which had
no relevant executive or legislative powers, known as the executive and
legislative councils, through the introduction of the elective
principle. By 1947 the colonialist conceded to the election of one
member of the Legislative Council. Edward Francis Small became such a
member. The demand for the right to have elected representatives to
manage national affairs intensified as political parties emerged after
Small’s victory. This led to multi party contest in the Urban area to
fill seats in the legislative council in 1951.The seats increased to 14
in 1954 and were hotly contested. The separation of urban and rural
areas in both infrastructural development and representation to the
detriment of the rural dwellers gave rise to agitation in the rural
areas. This agitation is what propelled the PPP to the political stage
with the promise to redress the marginalisation of the rural areas.
Again let me ask in passing, after 45 years has the uneven
development between rural and urban area been redressed? Have the
differences in administrative structures which placed the people in the
rural areas at the mercy of unwritten laws and arbitrary justice been
redressed? Despite all the promises of ensuring balanced and
proportionate development of the urban and rural areas all became fairy
tales of by gone years.
The liberation of Ghana gave impetus to the struggle for the
liberation of all British colonies in West Africa. In the Gambia the
Constitutional Conference of 1959 gave rise to the 1960 Constitution
which gave birth to participation of all the people in the Gambia in
determining representation and a house of representatives. This
introduction of universal suffrage was the beginning of the process of
attaining the right to self determination and Independence. The protest
of the leader of the PPP against the decision of the colonial
authorities in selecting the leader of the UP as Chief Minister gave
rise to the 1961 Constitutional conference which gave birth to the 1962
Constitution which introduced a second pillar in the quest for self
determination and Independence .
It created the office of Governor as the Commander-in-Chief of the
Gambia, an executive council comprising the Governor as the President,
a premier and Ministers who were to be appointed from elected members
in the House of Representatives. It created a house of representatives
comprising a Speaker, an Attorney General and 36 elected members and
not more than 2 nominated members. The Constitutional evolution took
place without the people having full understanding of what was taking
place. The Gambia was gradually moving to attain the right to self
determination without the people being enlightened to know what that
meant. There were changes of instruments and institutions without real
change of status. Notwithstanding, Nigeria had been declared
Independent in October 1960 and Sierra Leone in April 1961. Gambia was
the last on the queue among the four British colonies in West Africa to
be declared Independent. Its process towards the declaration of
Independence had to be accelerated. Hence in October 1963 internal self
Government was granted and the position of premier was transformed into
that of Prime Minister. However the Prime Minister was still a
British subject and owed allegiance to the British crown.
The claim that Gambia was seen as an improbable nation which could
not attain Independence is exaggerated. It has no place in law or fact.
In short, since 1902 Gambia had a Governor representing the British
Crown who had effective control of the colony. Secondly, the
Constitutional conferences which led to the gradual attainment of the
right to self determination were demand driven. Thirdly, the OAU had
established that the old colonial borders would serve as the borders of
Independent African States. Gambia was only improbable in the minds of
those who had no knowledge of international law and regional agreements
at the time. The Gambia had to be declared Independent because of the
wind of change which had already blown over three British colonies in
West Africa .
A Constitutional Conference had to be held in 1964 to prepare the
ground for the 1965 Constitution which is referred to as the
Independence Constitution. This is the Constitution which has given
rise to the day the Nation is commemorating today. Allow me to refer to
some of the provisions of the constitution to enable you to have the
mental food to determine for yourself whether we did attain the right
to self determination and Independence in 1965 or not.
Section 29 of the 1965 Constitution creates the office of Governor
General. It states categorically that "There shall be a Governor
General who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office
during her majesty’s pleasure and who shall be her majesty’s
representative in the Gambia."
The oath for the due execution of the office of governor general is
as follows:
"I name……..,do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and
truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second , her heirs and
successors, in the office of Governor General of The Gambia.so help me
God."
This confirms that the Governor General owed allegiance and
obedience to the British Crown. In fact, the 1965 Constitution gave her
Majesty executive power in the Gambia which could be exercised on her
behalf by the Governor General.
Section 62 states that "The Executive authority in the Gambia is
vested in her Majesty."
Section 32 creates a Parliament. It states that, "There shall be a
Parliament which shall consist of Her Majesty and the House of
Representatives."
Section 60 empowers the Governor General to suspend or dissolve
parliament. It states: "The Governor General may at any time prorogue
or dissolve Parliament."
Section 66 defines the role of the Cabinet as follows:
"The function of the Cabinet shall be to advise the Governor
General in the Government of the Gambia and the Cabinet shall be
collectively responsible to parliament for any advice given to the
Governor General by or under the general authority of the cabinet and
for all things done by or under the authority of any Minister in the
execution of his office."
The judges under section 89 were appointed by the Governor General.
Section 70 categorically states that "The Prime Minister shall keep the
Governor General fully informed concerning the general conduct of the
Government of the Gambia and shall furnish the Governor General with
such information as he may request with respect to any particular
matter relating to the Government of the Gambia."
Now I may ask: How Independent and Sovereign were we in 1965? How
could national leaders who owed allegiance, obedience and adherence to
a foreign power be conceived to have brought about the right to self
determination of the Gambian People in 1965. The whole truth is that
1965 was just one more phase in the struggle to attain the right to
self determination and Independence. It was the decisive phase
precisely because the era for colonial domination had passed and it was
left to our own national will and resolution to determine our own pace
for the attainment of our right to self determination and
Independence. The external personality of the country had been
redefined. Gambia was seen as an Independent Nation everywhere around
the globe. Our leaders had the duty to Construct the instruments,
institutions, administrative and Managerial practices to ensure that
the internal personality of the country did conform to the external
personality of Nationhood, especially when it came to our membership of
the OAU. This was the task of Nation building.
This task had six fundamental features, that is, Juridical, civil,
political, social, economic and cultural. It was necessary for the
political leaders, irrespective of party affiliation, to expose the
defects of the 1965 constitution and its inadequacies as the Juridical
instrument of a sovereign Nation and Sovereign people who were expected
to have attained the right to self determination.
In short, political leaders should be able to distinguish party
interest from National interest. A law provided for the holding of a
referendum to decide whether the country would continue to be a
constitutional monarchy under the British Crown in accordance with the
1965 Constitution or become a Republic under a Republican Constitution.
Hence, regardless of their political differences all political leaders
should have made it their role to explain the content of the 1965
constitution to the people, clarify why Governor John Paul was still in
The Gambia as Governor General after Independence was supposedly
attained on 18 February 1965 and indicate why the Constitution handed
over to them in 1965, fell short of a genuine Independence
Constitution. They should have enlightened the people to know that
genuine Independence would require sovereignty to reside in the People;
that authority to govern should be derived from them and them alone and
should be exercised with transparency and accountability to promote
their liberty and prosperity. The lesson is now as clear as noon day.
The making of a modern Nation starts with the making of its
Juridical instrument, its Constitution. It constitutes the
architectural sketch plan for building the nation. Contrary to the
views of elites, that these are not matters for illiterates, historical
science has taught that people could only take full ownership of a
country if they take part in its making and the first civil act a
people could take part in nation building is the building of its
juridical instrument or constitution. This is why a referendum is held
to approve Constitutions.
In 1965 a referendum was held to determine whether the Gambia
should remain a constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic without
putting the two Constitutional Instruments before the people to
compare. The referendum should have been about accepting or rejecting a
Republican Constitution which would repeal the 1965 Constitution once
approved and put into force. In short, if the political leaders in the
Gambia had made it their duty to explain what self determination and
Independence meant in 1965, exposed the content of the Constitution to
the people and then projected what a Constitution that reflects their
right to self determination and Independence entailed they would have
seen the need to transform the country from a Constitutional Monarchy
under the British Crown into a Republic with a Republican Constitution
which makes them sovereign. If they voted for the new Constitution to
create the Republic we could have genuinely commemorated that day as
our Independence day.
In 1965, reason was drowned in a sea of euphoria. Myth was
substituted for reality. Party loyalty ruled over National interest.
Consequently, even though we were the last British colony in West
Africa to be granted the right to determine our own destiny at our own
pace, the political leaders kept the people ignorant and as a result
they chose the slowest pace to attain self determination and
Independence. The referendum which was held in 1965 was designed for
Gambians to decide whether they wanted to remain under the executive
authority of the British Crown or move to a Republic managed by their
elected representatives. The people did not know what was written in
the 1965 Constitution. They did not know the content of the proposed
Constitution which would bring about the Republic. The referendum
therefore failed to succeed and the Gambia remained a Constitutional
Monarchy for five years before it became a Republic on 24th April 1970.
This is the price we had to pay for declaring a country Independent
without raising the awareness of her people. We cannot have an
Independent Nation without an awakened people.
It is important to mention, in passing, that since the people did not
take part in the making of the 1970 Constitution they remained largely
ignorant of its content until its demise in 1994 and its ousting in
1997. Suffice it to say that the attempts made to involve the people in
the making of the Constitution of the Second Republic in 1995 and 1996
were, at best, cosmetic. The people did not enjoy freedom of expression
and association under an Armed Forces Ruling Council which abrogated
all political rights. In the same vein, the Council had authority to
overrule the wishes of the people. Hence the 1997 Constitution could
only be said to be the best constitution which could be made under a
military regime but falls short of the best Constitution a sovereign
people could make, if there is no fetter to their freedom of expression
and association, in order to safeguard their right to self
determination and Independence. This is why this 45th anniversary is so
significant. It must be taken as an opportunity to emphasise that the
Genuine Juridical Instrument, which should affirm sovereignty of the
people and ensure the attainment of our right to self determination and
Independence, is yet to be made 45 years after Independence was
declared. It is therefore our duty to make a resolution to make it in
2011. In order to create a spring board for such a mission I will
launch two books on the 24 April 2010, the "The Road to Self
Determination and Independence, The Gambia" and "The Juridical
Foundation of the Third Republic" to serve as resource material for
Nationwide debate on the nature of the Constitutional instrument we
need to assert and safeguard our right to self determination and
Independence.
The building of a Republic is a non partisan Affair. This is why I
continue to emphasise the need to have a transitional arrangement in
2011 so that we could involve every one in the construction of the
Nation we have never been able to construct for 45 years.
Many countries like Kenya, South Africa, etc have had the
opportunity to make a new start but have not exploited it to the
maximum. A transitional arrangement is always necessary which would
leave no one behind in making a new start. This requires a provisional
government structure which would be inclusive, consensual and temporal
and whose members would not be part of the next following Government
arrangement. This is important for every one who relies on some form of
alliance or unconstitutional means to put a government in office. This
is the new start which had not occurred in countries emerging from war
like Liberia and Sierra Leone, DRC and Cote d’Ivoire. This is the new
start that is needed in Sudan, Somalia, Guinea, Niger or even outside
of Africa like Afghanistan .There is no doubt in my mind that many
countries could have a new start as model Nations if the purpose of a
provisional government is well defined and its mandate restricted to
just one term so that it could bring every one on board in the form of
National Convention at the Local and national level to debate on and
construct the constitution, involve everyone in its review and
adoption, work together to build institutions to safeguard the rights
and general welfare of the people and prepare the ground for free and
fair election which excludes the members of a transitional Government.
This is a way forward for most African Countries. It is my conviction
that it is way forward for the Gambia in 2011.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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 interfaceat: 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-lTo 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 interfaceat: 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-lTo 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
