Hi!
    I have not been an active contributor to the L for a while due to personal engagements and the fact that I unsubscribed for a while. Let me first of all thank Momodou Camara for resubscribing me. Momodou, I am still struggling with the backlog of mail and I think I'll just give up. That aside, like some who contributed to this debate, I have also been struggling with myself not to partake in the debate but I think I'll just throw in a few pointers. My piece is not going to be about Chongan's guilt or innocence in relation to the charges levelled against him. It is going to be about the response to it especially from those in the forefront of the struggle against Jammeh and the implications those responses might have on human rights issues in the future. 
    It is of absolute importance that those whose human rights have been violated should be encouraged to come forth and narrate their stories. This should however not only be limited to violations under Jammeh if we are to be fair. A violation is a violation no matter under whose regime. I therefore thank Ebou Colley and Chongan for being brave enough to come forth and offer us an insight into the nightmares they lived through and hope that they would not be deterred from continuing. I also hope that other victims, be they under Jawara's or Jammeh's regimes, come forth so that lessons will be learnt and guidelines drawn for the betterment of our country.
    I want to move this issue beyond Chongan as an individual and try to focus on any other government employee who has been accused of human rights violations. What should our response be? Should it be one of investigation and corroboration or one of denial? Remember that the attitude adopted here by the anti-Jammeh camp is very important in relation to the programs of justice to be adopted should the tables be turned and the credibility of the fairness of future justice is at stake here.    
    The first point I would like to make is what the implication of speaking out should be. Should it be one of condemnation or one of reward? What form should both take? Should they be organised forms mandated under our Constitution in the form of criminal codes or the enactment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where those who speak about the parts they played in human rights violations are pardoned? What should be the level of proof that is required to ascertain guilt? Should narratives from supposed victims be enough? What checks should one put in place to ensure that people do not make false allegations due to personal grudges etc.? Since all these are presently not in place, should volunteering to narrate human rights violations be punished outright by condemnation or should it be rewarded by outright and immediate acceptance irrespective of supposed violations by the narrator himself/herself? 
    The second point is the definition of the degree of severity of a violation in order for it to be considered serious enough. If a soldier within the present setup is claimed to have violated people's rights in non-military settings such as shows, football matches, in the streets etc., should he/she be let off the hook because the violation is not deemed to be as serious as killing someone or dragging someone on concrete floors and "mock-executing" them? Who should make that judgment? The victim, the soldier, some unaffected individual or the soldier's comrades-in-arms? Getting to grips with this qualification is an important ingredient in ensuring fairness in judging supposed violators of human rights. 
    The third point is a definition of the rights deemed worthy of protection and whose violation is deemed serious enough to warrant punishment. Is human rights violation defined only as those rights violated under custody in the form of physical and mental torture or does it go long enough to include beating up people just because they stand in the wrong line or shooting them in the legs just because they fail to stop for the presidential motorcade? The answer to this question is important because it defines our attitude to natural justice.
    The fourth point is the criterion for accepting narration of violations and dispensing of forgiveness. This is important because it tends to bring to the forefront the potential bias of those who are supposed to dispense justice. Should one's past no matter how reprehensible be forgotten just because he/she joins the anti-Jammeh camp? Is this a logical qualification? Will Edward Singhateh, Yankuba Touray or the others mentioned in the torture narratives be automatically forgiven and all they are supposed to have done written off the day they join Gambia-l and start spilling the beans on Jammeh? If not, why? You see, justice has to be uniform and not selective. That is why it is important to have a set of guidelines which will be uniformly applied instead of relying on sentiment and the whims of the moment.
    Another point is the definition of what warrants investigation and defence. If allegations are made against an individual for human rights abuses, should he/she be given the prerogative of defending himself/herself or should the collective take it upon itself to come to his/her defence? Should the collective take it upon itself to trivialise the charges being levelled against the individual? The answer to this is important because potential violators can take comfort in the fact that they can violate people's rights and join the majority where they can be defended based on the club mentality.
    The sixth point is that of carrying out duties. Should diligent execution of duties be a qualification for rendering all previous wrongs null and void? The answer to this question, like the others, is important because of its implications for justice and fairness. Tombong is incessantly castigated on this forum for carrying out his duties as he deems diligent. Will all he is accused of in this forum be written off when Jammeh is no longer president on the basis of his carrying out his duties? If not, why? 
    The seventh point is that of priority. Should justice be concurrently sought or should one focus only on those who presently have the power to inflict human rights violations? If the Jammeh administration is replaced by another that makes his pale in contrast, should those accused of human rights violations under Jammeh not be pursued because the priority is getting rid of the present wielders of power because they are in a position to inflict harm? The answer to this question also has implications for the modus operandi to be adopted in the fight for justice and fairness as one must have a set of consistent and fair rules in order to achieve justice.
    From the above, it can be seen that there are indeed numerous factors to grapple with when it comes to the issue of dispensing justice in human rights issues. The leading anti-Jammeh advocates on this forum need to realise that the justice they propose for the country is being scrutinised through their response to the Chongan affair. One must be consistent, fair and principled in dispensing justice if one is to be taken as a serious alternative to Jammeh. One should not only crave the replacement of Jammeh at any cost. That is dangerous. At least we know who Jammeh is and how he works. One should desire and fight for a replcement that is better or we might jump from the frying pan into the fire. Thanks and have a good weekend.
                                                                                                                                Buharry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------