Comrades:

      I have read with dismay, our constant fights.  Is this good for the opposition?  No.  
What will happen if we cannot unite?  Jammeh will win?  Can we then call Jammeh 
a dictator?  Absolutely not?  Why?  Because our inability to unite will ensure 
Jammeh's re-election as president.

     I hope some of us who are so confused, can come together and 
start mediating.  My personal political ambition has no relevance when the interest of 
The Gambia is at stake.  We should refrain from the blame game.  Our objective is 
to unite our fragile opposition.

     While both Darboe and Halifa have the right to contest the presidential election, their 
candidacy is evident of Jammeh's victory.  Make no mistake about it.  Without uniting, 
a vote for Darboe or Halifa is a vote for Jammeh.

     We had been struggling since July 22, 1994.  We fought and shed tears until we could
not longer fight and cry.  Why then are we denying ourselves our ultimate objective?

     If we believe that Jammeh is the worst thing that had ever happened to The Gambia, 
then why are we fighting?  Tribal politics should have no bearing in our quest 
for a yahya-less Gambia.

     Regardless of whether we have been discriminated, there is not a single day that 
an immigrant is not discriminated in the U.S.  While driving, you may have been 
profiled?  When you applied for that job, you may have been discriminated because
of your ethnicity or religion.  When you entered a store, you may have been 
followed by a store clerk.  Why then do we discriminate against each other?  Tribal
politics is an abomination.

     Tribalism is the worst form of discrimination.  Why do we inject tribal sentiments.  
I stand here today to state that I cannot support a candidate who dislikes a specific
tribe.  

     If we cannot come together as a united force, Jammeh will be re-elected in
October.

Naphiyo,
Comrade Jassey-Conteh



-----Original Message-----
>From: Lamin Mboge <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Mar 21, 2006 9:51 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: NADD'S FLAG BEARER SELECTION
>
>I will send Daffeh's or any newspapers article i see
>on the net, if any body do not want to read it delete
>it. If Kebba Foon a tribalist can insult all Mandinkas
>and got backed by people, we will see how an
>intellectual argument cannot be accepted here. We have
>seen false names like Birago.
>
>If Mr mballow think that respect will work here, i
>will tell you it will not work here.
>
>LL Mboge
>
>
>
>
>
>      NADD&#146;s Flag bearer selection- An Appalling
>Cherry Picking Fiasco
>
>
>Mr Editor
>
>On the 2nd of March 2006, Jabou Joh, in an internet
>based Gambia-L discussion wrote: &#145;What has transpired
>is that some of those who had subscribed to this
>magnificent ideal have decided that they did not like
>what the results of a democratic process to select the
>representative or flag bearer may bring, that this
>process may not result in things going the way they
>want it, and so they decided to break their word and
>abandon an agreement that they had made to the Gambian
>people in order to have their way.&#146;
>
>I consider this as a desperate attempt to sewage
>attentions from my previous article. Nevertheless, I
>would like to commend her for expressing her sincerely
>held opinion. However, I have no doubt that she has
>erred. She does not seem to understand the term
>&#145;democracy&#146;. I wonder whether she is alone in this.
>Democracy is not simply about majority vote. Democracy
>operates on two scared principles. That is respect for
>the rule of law and for minority rights. These
>principles are so scared that they cannot be
>overridden by even a majority decision. That is why
>most democracies do have them entrenched in their
>constitutions. Even in the United Kingdom where there
>is no written constitution, a position has been
>adopted since the thirteenth century that a residuum
>of justice resides in the Crown. This has long since
>been recognised by both Equity and the common law
>jurisprudence. The Lord Chancellor was accordingly
>referred to as &#145;the keeper of the King&#146;s Conscience.&#146;
>If the US for example, passes a law that bans the
>practicing of Islam simply because that great country
>was founded on Christian values or because majority of
>her citizen are Christians, she will loose her
>credibility of being a democracy notwithstanding the
>fact that such a law would transgress on the rights of
>only a tiny minority. What this shows is that an
>arbitrary exercise of majority power cannot be
>described as democratic. It has to take cognisance of
>certain inalienable rights and principles. Otherwise
>it is not democratic.
>
> The so-called democratic process referred to in
>Jabou&#146;s article was meant to produce a sellable flag
>bearer. The scared word here is &#145;sellable&#146; and as far
>as the MOU is concern, this was well embedded and
>entrenched. No matter how the selection process is/was
>dealt with, it would be flawed if it does not produce
>a sellable candidate even if supported by a majority. 
>
>NADD was confronted with the task of selecting a flag
>bearer.  Since there were several aspirants, this task
>ultimately requires them to determine the electibility
>of the different contenders so as to enable them to
>select the most sellable. The MOU postulates that this
>must be achieved by way of unanimity at least at the
>executive level. Since this was the case, one would
>have thought a rigorous scrutiny exercise would have
>been conducted to that effect. That would have enable
>NADD to easily achieve the mutual consensus referred
>to in the MOU thereby aborting the ugly impasse that
>later ensured. People would have understood why
>Candidate &#145;A&#146; is chosen and not Candidate &#145;B&#146;. That
>would have also made easier for different factions
>within the camp to easily reconcile their differences
>and together, we could have chanted the slogan,
>&#145;Jammeh Jeepo&#146; in the spirit of unity and for our
>common aspiration. The absence of this was a cartre
>blanc for the sword wielders who eventually hijacked
>the process in furtherance of their vicious personal
>hidden agendas against the personality of Lawyer
>Ousainu Darboe. As a result, constructive debate was
>relegated in favour of their individual likes and
>dislikes of each other. The whole selection process
>became heavily vitiated with malice and flirty
>conspiracy. That is certainly not democratic. Is it?
>It was an appalling cherry picking fiasco.  Contrary
>to Ya-jabou&#146;s assertions, the selection process was in
>fact fettered and therefore a transgression on its
>originating authority, the MOU. That is what makes it
>flawed and that is what makes it undemocratic.
>
> NADD having realised that the first selection process
>had alienate the electibility requirement, an abuse
>they know the UDP would never accept, decided to set
>up a committee that was to draw certain criteria to
>guide the process. In my view, this was actually good
>because it provides NADD with an opportunity once
>again, to debate the electoral strengths of the
>different contenders, something they had persistently
>and deliberately refused to do. However, the condition
>precedent attached to the process, which is a
>declaration that one would accept any outcome that may
>emerge from the process, was unacceptable because it
>effectively thwarted the possibility of invoking the
>primary election provision of the MOU in the event of
>a continuing impasse. That was certainly a usurpation
>of the sovereign authority conferred on NADD&#146;s grass
>root membership by the MOU. That can&#146;t be right. Can
>it? PART 111 [8] of the MOU states:
>
> 'The selection of a candidate of the alliance for the
>presidential, National Assembly and Council elections
>shall be done by consensus; provided that in the event
>of impasse selection 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.&#146;
>
>What is clear from the above, particularly in relation
>to the attached condition precedent is that the later
>have rendered the spirit of the MOU completely
>obsolete. That is a serious travesty and should not
>have been condoned. Even if the UDP had subscribed to
>this dodgy deal, there is no guarantee that other
>parties would have acted bona fide. Nothing will stop
>the rogue elements from going back to their dirty game
>knowing fully well that UDP would be left with no
>option but to accept any outcome even if it is
>perverse on the MOU because they [UDP] would have made
>a declaration to that effect. That was the
>blackmailing tactics NADD was playing and it is a
>complete grotesque. Mr Darboe brilliantly spotted this
>grotesque behaviour and decided to honourably resign
>in order to save his well-cherished integrity.
>Therefore and contrary to Ya- jabou&#146;s postulation,
>this process was completely flawed. It has despicably
>fallen short of democratic standards. That is why the
>UDP decided to opt out. Therefore, any suggestion that
>they [UDP] had abandoned the process because thing
>were not going their way is not only malicious but
>also a complete utter nonsense. More so, any
>suggestion that decisions supported by the majority of
>NADD&#146;s Executive should suffice and adhered to by all
>parties is indeed fallacious, completely deceitful,
>absurd and disingenuous. 
>
>&#145;Let justice guide our actions towards the common
>good&#146;
>
>
>SS Daffeh
>
>Bottom
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤