Yanks, can't stop laughing over here. I think it would have been nice if
your opponent had little bit of substance in his head.
anyway, i better leave you to it before I will be targeted as a scapegoat
once again.
Regards
Daffeh
On 8 August 2010 16:33, yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The ramblings of Baura-mad-man!
>
> I guess Mr Samba has taken up the challenge to create the havo and mess
> that he bragged he could
> do to the UDP within two weeks. We shall review his efforts in two weeks to
> see how best he has done
> to achieve his goal.
>
> However, from reading his posting below, it seems that this so called
> "professor" of ours is excellent at
> empty rambling than creating the havo or mess he seeks to achieve.
>
> I hope to respond to his ramblings fully later, but for now i wish to
> correct him on one issue, which is
> his supposition that somehow the PDOIS advocated constitution of the APRC
> had saved Lawyer Darboe
> from going to prison in the murder case of Alieu Njie.
>
> It seems this foolish Professor had failed to reason that Mr Darboe had
> been prosecuted under that same
> constitution, which he claimed to have saved him. If the constitution had
> saved him, he would not have been
> prosecuted in the first place.
>
> It is therefore donkey reasoning to reason that it was the constitution
> rather than that the fact Mr Darboe
> had not committed the crime he had been charged with, which had saved him
> from going to prison. Mr
> Darboe was saved by his conduct, which is that he was not guilty of the
> crime that were peddled against
> him.
>
> Even a kangaroo court was able to establish that fact. However,
> unsurprisingly to my intellect, this retarded
> head, Professor Banura could not reason that fact.
>
> Besides if that constitution could save anything how come it had failed to
> save Halifa from losing his
> most coveted job of being the National Assembly member for Serrekunda,
> when the issue of NADD being
> a political party was brought to the same Kangaroo courts.
>
> Think before you write Mr Samba.
>
> Got to go for now, but will come back to the rest of your donkey reasoning!
>
> Nemesis Yanks
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 17:14:09 -0700
>
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Political maturity, discipline and principle cannot be possessed out of
> contention .This is why is equally important for party members to make a
> responsible and convincing press release to the people. This is why there is
> also a need for political parties to make alternatives with remedies in
> order to make a damage control system in place. IN that note there must be a
> committee that will handle and review issues before immediate and hasty
> decisions are made by individuals, family members or “Tereh Kaffoo”.
> However, this cannot be done by venting anger, insult or personal attackagainst those who do not ascribed to their individual or collective thoughts
> and beliefs. This type of political masquerading has become a common place
> for us since lifting the ban on political parties in 1996. There is no place
> for malarkey in Gambian politic comes 2011. The Parties will tell Gambians
> what changes they will effect when they are elected but the changes that we
> may believe in.
>
> The reason why I made a swift response to the UDP/UK's press release is
> because it is taking us in retrospect and will hindered the efforts of
> genuine Gambians who are working ostensibly to make our home land bacon of
> democracy. This will also exacerbate the division amongst the opposition
> parties. By and large, UPD in particular have better things to take care
> of than this frivolous attacks which have no place in this 21 Century . More
> so the signing of the MOU of NADD was an “error in the making” committed by UDP.
> So they cannot hold Halifa or any body accountable for that. It is time to
> tell and present fact with evidences. If one does not state the fact; and
> you ignore it, double standard and hypocrisy will obviously take a center
> stage. Thereby the dramatist or political bickering will grow out of
> proportion. These are the devices paid by the vice to the virtue through the
> works of internecine characters----- UDP is entirely responsible for
> anything that happened in NADD, in 2006 period. I can say without any
> wobbling, UDP holy agreed and append their signature without any persuasion
> or coerce.
>
> I will give an eerie account of the inexcusable errors made by UDP in
> numerous occasions since the hay days of 1996. These would have been
> corrected before actions are taking and appending their signature on it.
> This leaves one with a question that does UDP really has an organized
> structure and principles to follow? I vehemently believed that the UDP/ UK
> are Johnny just come into the platform, you welcome on board. The catharsis
> that faced and still facing UDP as a party since its inception is that they
> act on individual advice that trickles down to family members. This has
> caused and still causing a prosaic effect to dissuade true and sincere UDP
> members who foresee the interest of the Gambia. This type of political
> meandering has shrunk the image; and popularity of the party and above all
> left the party in a casket .It has caused an irreparable damage to the
> image of the party as a whole. The proponents of UDP/UK must understand that
> there were many like them but where are they? You hardly hear from them
> today, why?
> The following are the typical examples where, a prominent party like UDP has
> failed Gambians woefully, through errors that they do not want to admit
> instead shifting blames:
>
>
>
> 1.) In 1995 REFERENDUM, PDOIS told Gambians is better to vote and have a
> constitution than a military decree but other oppositions in their campaign
> told voters PDOIS support and promotes APRC’s ideas. They were proven dead
> wrong because this is why today one can go to court and defend himself despite
> the kangaroo courts. To resonate this in conjunctions to the 1997
> constitution, Lawyer Dorboe was saved by the same constitution from going to
> prison when there was a class between UDP and APRC in Basse .Where Mr. Njie
> , APRC driver was killed. Imagine if told there was no constitution in
> place. There will be a macabre, where Daniel will come to Judgement.
> 2. Darboe said he regrets boycotting 2002 National election .Members will
> bear me witness that the idea of boycotting came from Wajuwara. You see how
> misleading an individual decisions and advice can be resulted to. PDOIS was
> also blamed for their participation in that election.
> 3.) In 2006 Darboe appends his signature on the MOU of NADD and pull out
> with reason that he was persuaded to sign it. Who persuaded him to sign it?
> Before it was some UDP branch members in the US who were attacking Halifa
> and now new faces of political protagonists from UDP/UK squarely apportioned
> the blamed on PDOIS / Halifa .The truth will always prevail and politicians
> will come and go but the fact of records will be indelibly mark on the walls
> of history for the purpose of posterity. Rhetorically, where are the
> proactive groups like UDP/ US branch? Are they functional or dead? This
> UDP/US branch was so powerful that it has an endemic effect that scared
> president Jammeh to dead. Why Darboe should allow such political
> fragmentation? Is he aware of what is going on and the colossal effects it
> is going to have on the party?
> 4) We have also witnessed here the verbatim of a UN document by UDP and
> their alliance with NRP/GPDP in 2006. They used the said document as a
> party manifesto. This was a treasonable offense, plagiarism, especially in
> this academic world.
>
> I hereby attach a copy of the result of two previous elections so that we
> can be a better judge if UDP can shade the tears of Gambians in this
> difficult period of our time.Do we also expect them to bring a change that
> will be better than PPP and APRC? (Source IRIN NEWS)
>
>
>
> The *United Democratic Party* is a conservative<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism> political
> party <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party> in The Gambia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambia>,
> affiliated to the International Democratic Union<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democratic_Union>,
> founded in 1996 by the human rights<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights>
> lawyer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer> Ousainou Darboe<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousainou_Darboe>.
> As a candidate in the presidential election<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambian_presidential_election,_2001>of 18 October 2001, he came second with 32.6% of the popular vote; he took
> second place again in the 22 September 2006 presidential election<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambian_presidential_election,_2006>with 26.7% of the vote. The 17 January 2002 parliamentary
> election<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambian_parliamentary_election,_2002>was boycotted by the party. In the 25 January 2007 parliamentary
> election<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambia_parliamentary_election,_2007>,
> the party won four out of 48 seats.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Democratic_Party_%28The_Gambia%29#cite_note-DB-0>
>
> In 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005> UDP joined the opposition National
> Alliance for Democracy and Development<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_for_Democracy_and_Development>which only lasted for a short term due to differences in opinion among the
> various leaders of the opposition. The UDP is the most popular opposition
> party in the Gambia, polling nearly 35% and 27 % of the votes in the 2001
> and 2006 Gambian presidential elections respectively (BBC News). However,
> due to suspicion of unfair voting practices the leader of UDP has declared
> openly that he is not willing to accept the results of the 2006 presidential
> election.
>
> The motto of the United Democratic Party (The Gambia) is Justice, Peace and
> Progress and the party flag is bright yellow in color with a unity handshake
> depicted in the center (UDP Manifesto). The party practices two methods of
> memberships: a) individual and b) affiliate consisting of farmers' groups, trade
> unions, culture groups and youth groups etc.
>
> The executive members of UDP include - Yaya Jallow, Ebraima Manneh, Amadou
> Taal, Lawyer Mariam Denton and Momodou N Shyngle Nyassi etc among others.
>
> There has widespread reports in the Gambia of torture and arrests of UDP
> stalwarts who claim to fight against an authoritarian government led by
> President Yahya Jammeh <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Jammeh> of the
> ruling APRC<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Patriotic_Reorientation_and_Construction>party
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Thu, August 5, 2010 5:04:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
>
> "I will continue educating these folks who needs to go back to school and
> beg their degrees once more if told there is one already or not". Banura
> Samba
>
> Mr Samba, indeed you are one egoistic fool of this forum. Less you failed
> to notice,
> no one is in need of grammar class than yourself, Professor.
>
> So teach yourself to write better than your prospective students and save
> us your
> empty bravado.
>
> Nemesis Yanks
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:12:59 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Nyang, not all who go to school and graduate with a degree in law or other
> areas can think out of the box. This is the most frustrating and pathetic
> sides of Gambians. Those whom you considered to know better are the ones
> blundering and pretending to outwit the masses. In this forum should be
> meant to enlighten but not to cow tow or succumb to the ill conceived and
> perception of others. I will continue educating these folks who needs to go
> back to school and beg their degrees once more if told there is one already
> or not.
>
> Thanks ,
> Badou
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Thu, August 5, 2010 4:30:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
>
> Badou, good that you know the caliber of people you are trying to put
> some "water into their heads". They will never deal with the pertinent
> points and issues but to engage in fault finding ;missions to rely on to for
> blames on others. Why there good laywyer went on to append his signature on
> the document that a certain Daffeh is strugggling to PR upon.
>
> Make no mistake you are being delivered a official position of the UDP by
> these people. LJD never mind, i call them these people. Still better than
> Suntou who insults people.
>
> Nyang
>
> --- On *Wed, 8/4/10, Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 2:29 PM
>
> 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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> *To:* [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
