This is the continuation of the last forwarded message that was truncated.
The list cuts the message or rejects it if there is more than 500 lines:-(
Momodou
-------------------------------------
Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 59/2004, 26-28 July, 2004
(Continued)
AT THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
The Debate on the Amendment of the Local Government Act
The following is Halifa Sallah’s contribution to the debate on the
amendment of the Local Government Act during the last meeting of the
National Assembly in March this year which was not published. The hourly
and daily occurrences in local government areas and the attitude of central
government echoes the relevance of the contribution. In his contribution,
Halifa argued that the amendment was intended to give absolute power to the
secretary of state for local government to muzzle the councils. Read on.
Halifa, in his contribution noted that the confusion of role that the
secretary of state referred to is the refusal of government to acknowledge
that the Chairpersons of local government authorities are the political
heads of the local government areas, pointing out that the attempt to
nullify it in practice is what has led to the total confusion. He argued
that instead of handling the problem administratively, they are now using
the legal instrument to legitimize the illegitimate, that is, to give the
impression that these Mayors and Chairpersons are civil servants under the
Secretary of State and the President, who can be toyed with and thrown
about at anytime.
At this point, Halifa Sallah stated that the Local Government Act,
irrespective of its inad
equacy, created a clear line of demarcation between
the powers of the Councils as local government authorities and the powers
of central government. That is why section 20 of the original Act is
fundamentally different from section 151. The intentions were different, he
emphasised. He argued that the objective of this amendment is to integrate
the two and give the Secretary of State absolute power to muzzle the
Councils. “That’s the objective!” he stressed. “And the experiment was very
clear with Brikama Area Council. The very thing we criticized here is what
is being put in an Act now, that is, the Secretary of State having power to
close offices, to suspend Chairpersons and then these people have to bow
their heads and put their hands around their backs to go to a president to
appeal within 30 days. That is the intention! It was established in
practice illegally and now it is being legitimized.”
At th
is stage, Halifa now dealt with the section 20 of the original Act. He
noted that section 20 subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the original Act
creates a mechanism of internal self-control of Councils. He stated that
where specifically, members of the Council accuse the Chairperson of any
misdeed, they have to stipulate it in a notice and if two-thirds of them
accept, they would also have to provide the evidence. He then indicated
that this is how a Council should act; that an autonomous Council, seeing
that their Chairperson is corrupt or whatever, will take this specific
action.
He cited subsection (2) of section 20 of the original Act which states that
for the purpose of removing the Chairperson for abuse of office,
corruption, misconduct or such mental or physical incapacity as would
render him or her incapable of discharging the duties of the office, a
notice in writing shall
be signed by not less than two-thirds of all
members of the Council and shall be submitted to the Deputy Chairperson.
The notice shall state that they intend to pass a resolution to remove the
Chairperson on any of the grounds set out above e.g., corruption,
misconduct, etc. It shall also set out, except in the case of physical and
mental incapacity, the particulars of the charge, supported by necessary
documents, where applicable, on which it is claimed that the conduct of the
Chairperson be investigated for the purpose of removal.
Halifa Sallah now proceeded to the next step stipulated under subsection
(3) which was part of the amendment. He quoted this subsection as saying
that
“the Deputy Chairperson shall within twenty-four hours after receipt of the
notice referred to him / her under subsection (2), cause a copy to be
submitted to the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and Secretary of S
tate.”
He emphasized that it is very clear that the notice will be communicated to
the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and the Secretary of State.
He now went on to the next step, as provided by subsection (4). It states
that, “the Chief Justice shall, within seven days after receipt of the
notice under subsection (3), constitute a tribunal comprising such number
of judges of the High Court as the Chief Justice determines to -
(a) investigate the allegation contained in the notice; and
(b) report its findings to the Council, stating whether or not there is a
case for the removal of the Chairperson.”
Halifa Sallah at this point indicated that the mayor is somebody elected by
thousands of people and you therefore, you cannot remove such person in a
very ordinary manner; by a Secretary of State who is not even elected but
simply appointed and can be removed by the scr
atch of a pen. He emphasized
that somebody having a popular mandate cannot be removed for frivolous
reasons, noting that this is why the Chief Justice shall constitute a
tribunal to look into the charges. If they found the person guilty, then
the removal can take place. “This is an in-built mechanism of autonomous
organisations to be responsible of reprimanding wrongdoing. That is what
autonomy is all about,” Halifa Sallah added.
Halifa Sallah also pointed out that under section 151, the Act establishes
another provision, which one can question, but he noted that this is the
law at the moment. He then quoted section 151 of the original Act:
“Where on receipt of a report on a Council, the Secretary of State is
satisfied that a duty or power of a Council is being performed or exercised
in an improper, unlawful or inefficient manner the Secretary of State may
in respect of that duty or power, cause
a meeting of the Council to be
called and point out the irregularities found and give the Council any
guidance necessary.”
Halifa stressed that this is talking about the deficiency of the whole
Council, not an individual. He added that if it is found that the whole
Council is completely defective, the secretary of state will rely on
subsection (2) of section 151 which states:
“ Where the Secretary of State considers that the matter is of a grave
nature, the Secretary of State may institute a commission of inquiry to
look into the matter.”
Halifa Sallah pointed out that this is entirely a different thing!
He went on to note that subsection (3) of the same section 151 states:
“Where the findings of a commission of inquiry under this section disclose
that an offence may have been committed, the Secretary of State shall refer
the matter to the president for appropriate a
ction.”
Halifa Sallah was quick to point out that it is clear why this is the case
because the president has authority under the constitution to establish a
commission of enquiry. “So this is really the essence here. And since that
is the case, the president has certain powers. That is understandable.”
Focus On CEDAW
The Initial, Second And Third Reports Of The Gambia
Article 3
Basic Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and an Equal Basis with Men
This article calls for the guarantee of basis Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedom on an equal basis with men.
This of course will include protection from discriminatory practice. The
articles provide thus:
“State Parties shall take in all fields, in particular in the
political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures,
including legislation, to ensure the full develop
ment and advancement of
women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and engagement of
human rights and fundamental freedom on a basis of equality with men.”
The article underlines the fact that equality between men and women is a
pre-condition for women’s full engagement of fundamental human rights and
freedoms. Both the 1970 Republican Constitution and the 1997 Second
Republican Constitution contain chapters on protection of fundamental
Rights and Freedoms. However the 1997 Constitution has several innovative
provisions, which were not provided for in the 1970 Constitution. Apart
from the protection from discrimination based on gender (discussed under
Article 1) Section 27 and 28 contain two Rights, which are of utmost and
fundamental relevance to the present article under discussion. They
provide thus:
Right Constitutional
Provision
“Right to Marry” 27. (1) Men and Women of full age and capacity
shall have the right to marry and found a family.
(2) Marriage
shall be based on the freed and full consent of the intended parties.
“Right of Women to Equality
With Men 28. (1) Women shall be
accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men.
(2) Women shall
have the right to equal treatment with men, including equal opportunities
in political, economic and social activities.
It is however, interesting to note that despite all these constitutional
guarantees and protection, the practical realization of these is restrained
by several factors. In the first place the same constitution and othe
r
relevant laws of The Gambia recognizes the applicability of customary laws
relating to marriage under the customary law of The Gambia it is not
unusual for a woman to be forced in marriage.
Secondly, even though women are accorded full and equal rights with men
under the 1997 constitution; in practice women do experience discrimination
and inequality. This is largely due to the social set up of The Gambia.
In Gambian society, the traditional roles of women are still recognised and
inequality in the society is taken as given, having been reinforced by
patriarchal nature of our society and the effect of colonialism, which
ensured male domination in decision-making positions. Most women are
dependent as their domain is seen as the home, children and male partners.
There is a general lack of awareness of their self-worth on the part of
many women due to structural constraints reinforcement by mass
ive
illiteracy and ignorance.
However despite these limitations, the provision of these rights in the
constitution should be viewed in a positive light. It is hoped that once
the required level of awareness and empowerment has been attained, women
would be in a position to enforce these rights putting aside all non-legal
social barriers.
Legal Aid and Access to due Process of Law
There is no provision for legal aid in The Gambia. The Gambia Chapter of
the African Society for International and Comparative Law (an NGO) does
offer legal advice and counselling service, but this service does not
specifically address women’s issues.
Women being the poorest in the country cannot afford the payment of legal
fees to enforce their rights. Tremendous assistance is therefore needed to
facilitate their access to redress.
Article 4
Temporary Meas
ures to Achieve Equality
This article recognizes that for women to achieve genuine de facto
equality, it is necessary not only to remove discriminatory barriers, but
also to promote equality by positive action. The Article provides thus:
1. “Adopting by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at
accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be
considered discrimination as defined in the present convention, but shall
in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate
standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objective of
equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved.
2. Adoption by state parties of special measures including those
measures contained in the present convention aimed at protecting maturity
shall not be considered discriminatory.”
To be continued.
Gamb
ians Abroad Donate Used Hospital Equipment
Below is a statement issued by the President of the Seattle Gambia
Association:
The Seattle Gambia Association a non-profit organization based in Seattle
Washington is sending a 40” foot container full of donated hospital
equipment and medical supplies to Royal Victoria Hospital in Banjul and
Bansang Hospital in Central River Division.
The shipment is in line with our efforts as non-profit organization to
reach out to the poor and help local communities in the Gambia improve
their standard of living by sending donated items to hospitals from
generous organisations in the United States.
These donations are among a series of projects that the Seattle Gambia
Association committed itself in reaching out to the poor communities in The
Gambia. Among the projects embarked upon includes:
1. A continuous Scholarship scheme for Middle School Students
str
aight through high school (now running for over four years with 14
students sponsored across the country, with subsequent addition of at least
four students annually)
2. Collection of used hospital equipment from local corporations
to be shipped to the Gambia (First shipment left Seattle May 7, 2004 for
RVH and Bansang Hospital, additional shipments are to follow upon
collection of donated equipment)
3. Monetary donation to the National Aids Secretariat in the
Gambia to help with the Education, Prevention and the Spread of the Deadly
HIV/AIDS Virus.
4. Donate Wheel Chairs to the Gambia Red Cross in their efforts to
help the local communities and displaced refugees in the sub-region.
It is significant to note that the Seattle Gambia Association is finance
exclusively from the sacrifice contribution of our members and other fund
raising events conducted by mem
bers. The generous contributions of our
members have had an impact in the lives of others, including girls from
poor families in the Gambia who would have otherwise gone without
education. We truly appreciate every effort from all our donors for their
continuous support of this incredible journey to reaching out to others.
According to the President, the Seattle Gambia association is formed by
Gambians in Seattle in 1997and has a membership of over 150 people.
Our mission is to reach out to help relief poverty and improve the standard
of living of our people in the Gambia. We consider ourselves furniture to
be able to give back to our beloved country.
He noted that their goal is to encourage all Gambians in Seattle and the
diaspora to step in and help out in whatever means to alleviate poverty and
suffering on our people. It is time all Gambians ask what they can do for
their people instead of compla
ining about what government did not do.
“We have pass the era of solely relying on government for everything.
Ordinary citizens and the private sector can immensely contribute to the
socio-economic development of a nation.
I wish to extend my profound gratitude for all Gambians who in one way or
the other contributed towards shipping this container. We look forward to
shipping more containers to the Gambia.
I finally, want to issue a challenge to all Gambians in the diaspora to
sacrifice and help our fellow citizens. The materials or monetary donation
you sent to the Gambia may be helping your own family. Our families may be
okay,
but how about those next door neighbors who don’t have the same
opportunity?, how about those little boys and girls whose parents cannot
afford to pay for education? How about those Aids/HIV victims who have no
hope in life whatsoever?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.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://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
