KB

Thanks for your contribution.

I am afraid I shall not be able to reply this weekend
as I am currently on the verge of going  out for a
short break to enjoy the Bank Holidays

I shall therefore reply to you next week.

Enjoy your weekend and also good luck to the
organisers of the ALD symposium, please don't let Pabi
Joof and his entourage have an easy ride.

Good Bye

Sanusi



--- Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >
Sanusi, thanks again for your mail. I will try and
> approach your points in
> chronological order. I hope people understand that
> we are not engaged in
> 'chicken counting here before the eggs are hatched'.
> What I hope we are
> trying to do, is give pointers to the teams that are
> going to negotiate on
> behalf of the political parties that are going to
> form the coalition for the
> October election and perhaps the one in January
> 2001.
>
> Transitional Government: I think we agree on the
> fact that the next
> president should not be allowed an unfair advantage.
> How do we ensure that
> he does not get that advantage? This is where we
> differ slightly. I believe
> we can do a combination of things. We can ensure
> that the selection process
> (for the leader) is a very fair and democratic one.
> We can also agree (prior
> to the elections) that upon taking over power, the
> next president will
> embark on a massive overhaul of our laws to ensure
> that there is a level
> playing field for all the political parties in the
> coalition, come following
> elections. I gave some examples of laws that can be
> amended or repealed in
> order to diminish the powers of the next president.
> For instance, I
> suggested that the president will not have the power
> to appoint and fire
> chiefs. Some of the points you mentioned about the
> hiring and firing of
> cabinet ministers can also be subjects of
> negotiations.
>
> I believe if those two items (fair selection and
> level playing field) are
> taken care of, we need not have a short-term
> presidency. I have this belief
> because I think the next government will need a
> longer period of time in
> order to implement certain development projects to
> impact people's lives;
> thus preempting another coup or resurrection of
> APRC. This was the crux of
> my argument yesterday.
>
> However, upon re-reading your piece today, I
> detected that I might have been
> totally off to think that you are advocating for a
> short term presidency and
> the calling of a presidential election in 2003.
> Correct me if I am wrong.
> Now I sense that what you were saying all along was
> that we should have a
> 'coalition government' for 2 years to implement
> (inter alia) the political
> reforms needed to ensure a level playing field.
> Thereafter, you are not
> necessarily saying that we should call for a general
> election after the
> initial 2 years. I hope I am not misunderstanding
> you again.
>
> Well, if this is your position, then I agree with
> you entirely. This again
> goes back to the selection process and the
> negotiations between the parties.
> They can certainly talk about who the prominent
> players are going to be in
> the next government. In other words, the person that
> is going to be chosen
> to be the coalition's presidential candidate, is not
> going to have a free
> hand to form any government he wants. Before the
> coalition is formed, all
> the parties have to agree on who is going to hold
> key government positions
> during the 'transitional period'. For example, in
> the interest of fairness,
> the president and the Attorney General will not come
> from the same party,
> since most of the proposed reforms will have to pass
> through the Attorney
> General before implementation.
>
> According to this scenario, this 'coalition
> government of national unity'
> will be together for 2 years. Thereafter, the
> parties can part their
> different ways and prepare for presidential
> elections in 2006 if they wish.
> If instead what we want is to have another election
> in 2003, then we have to
> come up with a powerful development program that
> will have meaningful impact
> in the next two years. This requires a lot of work.
> These are not APRC
> white-elephant programs that have the only effect of
> rendering our people
> poorer. We need genuine pro-poor policies that will
> bear fruit before the
> next election. Are you confident that the fruits
> will be ripe in 18 or 24
> months? It is certainly doable. But at what cost?
> Are there other means of
> addressing the FAIRNESS issue?
>
> Truth and Restitution Commission: Again, I believe
> in plea bargaining. We
> have to accommodate certain people. I personally
> will not advocate for
> anyone that was directly involved in the massacre of
> our children on April
> 10 and 11, 2000. I frankly think that we do not need
> a commission to get to
> the bottom of the criminal activities of this
> regime. Let us take them to
> regular courts where common criminals are tried
> everyday. If we look at the
> evidence and realize that we need vital testimony
> from certain people in
> order to get to bigger wigs, why not --- let us
> 'bargain' with the less
> culpable small fries in order to get to the bigger
> evil. It is case by case
> for me. I do not believe in blanket amnesties.
>
> AFPRC/APRC Kangaroo Courts: I agree with you on this
> topic that the
> so-called commissions of inquiries were/are a
> mockery to the rule of law.
> This was/is nothing but a ploy to extort money from
> Gambians and victimize
> people that had a different ideology from
> AFPRC/APRC. This was their (AFPRC)
> opportunity to seize the 'fancy cars' they dreamt
> about all their sorry
> lives and seize properties at 'Fajara' they knew
> they can NEVER get earning
> their lieutenant salaries.
>
> Was the process fair and transparent? Absolutely
> not. Were innocent people
> victimized? Certainly yes. Should we review those
> unlawful rulings and fight
> for the victims? I am afraid I have to say NO. In my
> humble opinion, it is
> not the place of the next government to fight a
> battle PPP should have
> fought for itself. There are certain wrongs that
> were committed against the
> PPP people that impact Gambians as a whole. For
> example Decree 89 that
> prevents Gambians from electing PPP people if they
> want to. I can understand
> our next government coming forward and repealing
> that Decree.
>
> But those wrongs are entirely different from wrongs
> committed against
> individuals that were accused of corruption but were
> victimized by a process
> (the Kangaroo Courts). Those people should have
> fought their battle in 1994.
> Some of them absconded from the country. Others just
> folded under pressure.
> Others went to collaborate with the AFPRC/APRC to
> fight against us. Others
> decided to sit on the fence and would not fight
> with/for us. I have no
> sympathy for these people.
>
> Having said that, the next government can certainly
> say that it will not
> recognize the rulings of the bogus commissions as
> the final letter of the
> law. In other words, people that were victimized by
> those rulings can go to
> court and try and overturn the rulings. It would
> create a big mess in the
> country, but the government should not be seen as
> taking sides for people
> that did not fight when they were supposed to.
> Imagine what will happen if
> the courts eventually decide that some properties
> were seized illegally. The
> people that have been living on these properties all
> these years were doing
> so illegally and would now have to compensate the
> original/rightful owner.
> This is a mess we do not want to touch. Let Yaya and
> his cronies battle it
> out with the PPP people that believe that they were
> victimized. We should
> not fight for people that are unwilling to fight
> with
=== message truncated ===


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------