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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
