Musa,  you bit.  I think your displeasure about his plea to the IEC was
clear the first time you made your opinion on his piece known and that was
enough.  Why couldn't LJD share his own personal emails if he wanted to but
harped on you to do so?  I do not know about the lawyers that will offer
you free advice in the future but if I was one, I will be very careful.
 Sometimes we act on emotions and ego and are have a myopic view of the
task ahead.  You, LJD and Nyang are not the issue here, and when Jammeh is
announced as winner on friday, we shall all go back to the drawing board
and these non-sense issues that will not do anything but add doubts in our
minds about the people we are suppose to work with is counter-productive.

Anyway, that's my opinion of the whole fiasco.  I respect yours and if that
is how you want to settle scores with LJD, go ahead.  I still think he is a
valuable member in this fight to rid ourselves of the kanilai monster and
trying to continue to discredit him solely based on an opinion piece which
has not been heeded to by the IEC in the first place is counterproductive
in our collective efforts to find a solution to the Jammeh problem.

Thanks,
Paco

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Paco:
>
>
>
> Again, I only sent his personal email per his request. Also, my issue is
> not about flip- flopping but his action of sending a plea to the IEC to
> prevent an opposition candidate from running, and I am only questioning his
> motivation whetrher  is it  driven by the law or his political
> leanings..Period
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Paco Faal" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *[log in to unmask]
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:57:54 AM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
> the presidency as an independent candidate
>
> Musa,
>
>   After reading your PERSONAL email exchanges with LJD, I do not see any
> flip-flopping on his part hence why LJD asked you to share his private
> email exchanges between you two on the list.  Now,  one would think decency
> will rise above this nonsense political bickering and that your
> Confidential emails with your legal adviser remain confidential/private.
>  My point is, what point hae you proven?  LJD and you have different
> interpretation of what the constitution says and being that you are
> fighting the same struggle, what good does it do for you to drag the name
> of another soldier fighting the same struggle as you into the mud.  You now
> wonder why many lawyers decide to go into private practice, and then we
> turn around and blame them for being Jammeh's sycophants?  What use is it
> to fight for people that are willing to do anything in their power to undo
> any good you've done for them.  The more this issue drags on, the more I'm
> seeing the point Modou Mboge was making about taking care of his family and
> fighting his battles alone.  It is pathetic and you as a representative of
> the respected STGDP should rise above these nonsense bickering that most
> associate with partisan politicians like Coach and co.
>
> Have a good day.
>
> Paco
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  Paco:
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not join any mob, and my issue has nothing to do with in support of
>> Hamat Bah. He is not the leader that I Musa Jeng can support, but
>> consistency when it comes to the unfairness from the APRC regime has to be
>> respected at least from our side.
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Paco Faal" <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:03:14 AM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>
>> Exactly Suntou, anything to discredit a man that offered them pro-bono
>> advice.  Musa has also joined the lynch mob.
>>
>>   On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> My English teacher in High School Patrick Lavelle used to say:
>>>
>>> Darbo, the most dangerous native is the semi-literate. Coach, you are
>>> not well.
>>>
>>> Haruna.
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Pasamba Jow <[log in to unmask]>
>>>  To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Tue, Nov 22, 2011 12:05 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
>>> presidency as an independent candidate
>>>
>>>
>>> Musa,
>>> Thank you so very much for heeding to the call by LJ Darboe to reproduce
>>> this email. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Please read
>>> below what Mr. Darboe said in July 2011.
>>> Pasamba Jow-PDOIS
>>> *"For the purposes of your question, sections 47, 62, and 89 are
>>> non-controversial and raise no issues of significance. Any independent
>>> candidate for NADD-UDP/NRP would easily satisfy the requirements of those
>>> sections*
>>> * *
>>> *There is no question that Section 49 permits an independent to contest
>>> the presidency:" LJ DARBOE*
>>>
>>>
>>>  "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence
>>> of justice." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:48:57 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
>>> presidency as an independent candidate
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>  LJD:
>>> Like most of us in the struggle, committed and wishing to see a better
>>> Gambia in terms of governance and the rule of law, your role as far as the
>>> law/constitution, fairly or unfairly is always seen as the kind of
>>> potential our country has in building the institutions of the law which
>>> gives us hope to the kind of Gambia we can be. Granted this is not the role
>>> you sought, but you have established the reputation, as Alhaji Mustapha
>>> will quip: giving us the ALIKALAGI as far the the legal aspect  to all
>>> issues are concern.
>>> STGDP started out very early trying to see how we can find a common
>>> ground as far as bringing all parties under a united front. Of course, our
>>> experience in 2006 was really to start early and try to think outside of
>>> the box and deal with some of the political realities. When the idea of
>>> having a potential flag bearer run under an Independent ticket was
>>> discussed, most of the members said this should really be looked into as a
>>> compromise. The PDOIS partisans who always hold the constitution in their
>>> left hand, and always weight it into their arguments, argued that it can be
>>> done as far as the constitution is concern. Some of us wanted an
>>> independent advice from someone who is not a partisan, knows the law and
>>> fully understands the need of a coalition to bring an end to our nightmare.
>>> When I suggested your name some argued then that you have morphed to being
>>> a partisan, the Joe Sambou’s and myself responded that when it comes to the
>>> law and the reading of the constitution you have been consistent and
>>> without a doubt your advice can be trusted. Below is the advice you sent,
>>> and I was not disappointed in the delivery and the cautions couched into
>>> the political situation we were confronted with:
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:21:09 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Fwd: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>  *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:41:27 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket
>>>
>>> *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:41:27 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket
>>>     Musa
>>>
>>> Please refer to an earlier response on this same question, especially
>>> the portion I highlighted.
>>>
>>> I regret to say your intended proposal wont fly, and unless you can
>>> somehow convince the pertinent players, a party-led front is the only
>>> realistic option for November 24
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lamin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: constitutional question
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Thursday, 17 August, 2006, 9:38
>>> Mr Jeng:
>>>
>>> Sorry didn't see your mail until last night.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking time to consult on the issue of constitutional
>>> permission for an independent to contest the Gambian presidency
>>>
>>> The pertinent conditions for contesting the presidency are to be found
>>> in the following sections of The 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The
>>> Gambia
>>>
>>> Section 62: Qualifications for Election of President
>>> Section 89: Qualifications for Membership of National Assembly
>>> Section 60: Political Parties
>>> Section 47: Nomination of Candidates
>>> Section 49: Challenge to Election of President
>>> Section 230: Interpretation
>>>
>>> In so far as legal supremacy goes, any IEC rules at variance with the
>>> express mandate of the Constitution are invalid to the extent of the
>>> inconsistency
>>>
>>> For the purposes of your question, sections 47, 62, and 89 are
>>> non-controversial and raise no issues of significance. Any independent
>>> candidate for NADD-UDP/NRP would easily satisfy the requirements of those
>>> sections
>>>
>>> There is no question that Section 49 permits an independent to contest
>>> the presidency:
>>>
>>> *“Any registered political party which has participated in the
>>> Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated in
>>> such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the validity
>>> of the election of a President by filing a petition within ten days of the
>>> declaration of the result of an election”.*
>>>
>>> It is instructive to highlight that Section 49 directly conflicts with
>>> Section 60(1), an amendment inserted in 2001: *“No association, other
>>> than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the
>>> National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public elections”**.*
>>>
>>> Under Interpretation at Section 230, *“public elections”* is defined as
>>> *“the election for a President, National Assembly and a local
>>> government authority”. *
>>>
>>> Clearly, the case of the Banjul Mayor offers a compelling precedent in
>>> support of your thinking, having contested and won as an independent in a
>>> public election, and this after the 2001 amendment. His legal troubles
>>> notwithstanding, I am not aware of any effort to vacate his election on the
>>> grounds he was not sponsored by a registered political party. It cannot be
>>> overemphasised that an independent presidential candidate implicates the
>>> incumbent President’s own survival, and I’m sure you can appreciate the
>>> stakes involved in that scenario.
>>>
>>> There is an excellent arguable constitutional point for an independent
>>> presidential candidate, but this close to September 22, I’m unsure as to
>>> the merit of engaging such an explosive legal issue. If a legal challenge
>>> is mounted by the President against the nomination of an independent
>>> through the invocation of Section 60(1), it is likely the Supreme Court as
>>> final arbiter of any such dispute will decide for him.
>>>
>>> Considering the *modus operandi* of the National Assembly, there won’t
>>> be any legislative history offering a window into the rationale underlying
>>> Section 60(1), the most troublesome constitutional section touching on your
>>> question. The section is a classic demonstration of the general tendency of
>>> The 1997 Constitution to subvert institutionalism and the rule of law in
>>> Gambian public life. In so far as it anticipates surprises and moves to
>>> preempt them for the benefit of the incumbent, the game plan was for all
>>> potential opponents to reveal themselves and be *accounted for* in
>>> advance of the actual contest.
>>>
>>> * *
>>> *CONCLUSION:*
>>>
>>> With the Banjul mayoral precedent, there is an excellent legal case for
>>> an independent presidential candidate but any such move will be challenged
>>> pursuant to 60(1). The Supreme Court is likely to side with the President
>>> under the “later in time principle”, notwithstanding that mode of
>>> interpretation constitutes an improper standard for amending an express
>>> provision in a vital document like a national constitution.
>>>
>>> * *
>>> *RECOMMENDATION:*
>>>
>>> Actively and radically explore NADD as a vehicle for an independent
>>> candidate. It offers as excellent a mechanism as pursuing our ambitions
>>> through the independent candidate route without having to deal with the
>>> legal challenges
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LJDarbo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NB:
>>>
>>> I commend STGDP for its patriotism, and encourage you, as individuals,
>>> and as a group, to redouble your efforts in the search for a unified front
>>> in light of the astronomical stakes
>>>
>>>
>>> End
>>>
>>> Note: This was the lawyer giving us a legal advice, but also very much
>>> aware of the political realities in what we were trying to do. The appeal
>>> sent to the IEC, using the same information was driven by some other
>>> motivation; yes still the lawyer but more of an advocate.
>>>
>>> As for Mr. Gomez, I really do not know the Man but any Gambian who calls
>>> himself a Justice Minister and oversees the injustice that is happening in
>>> our country, and to willingly support it and defend it cannot be seen as an
>>> honest Man in my neighborhood. It is rather convenient to easily put some
>>> of these things on the door step of the Professor; all of us should start
>>> taking responsibilities for our participation in these trying times.
>>> As for me working for the Professor, if it ever gets to that, calling me
>>> dishonest would be an understatement.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Musa Jeng
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent: *Monday, November 21, 2011 7:53:29 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>>
>>>  Musa
>>>
>>> Notwithstanding our occasional differences in perspective on aspects of
>>> the way forward for opposition Gambian, I always regard you as a reliable
>>> partner in this difficult and complex struggle. Your strong views about my
>>> integrity are therefore quite regrettable. I nevertheless accept those are
>>> your views, and God willing, you shall not be receiving any emissariesfrom
>>> LJDarbo asking for your reconsideration.
>>>
>>> For the benefit of transparency, I urge that you publish the advise I
>>> gave you on the issue of an independent presidential candidate. As you
>>> never came back for amplification, and, or, clarification of any sort, I
>>> took it that you recognised the nuances built into my view. If I intend
>>> to disown my assessment, I would have insisted on a verbal conversation,
>>> and that way it is your word against mine. For the record, I stand by my
>>> advise assured in the belief it is not inconsistent with my current
>>> position on independent candidates in public elections, including the
>>> presidency.
>>>
>>> On your reference to Gomez, I know him to be an honest and humble
>>> Gambian. If, like him, Musa Jeng accepts an executive arm position fromProfessor
>>> Jammeh, we may not be able to tell you were the same person we dealt
>>> with as part of the vital and illustrious STGDP. In my view, the trick
>>> is to stay away from policy level executive positions in the Professor's
>>> government. Mr Edward Gomez did not do that and his reputation continues
>>> to take quite a battering as a result. Although I question his judgement in
>>> accepting a Cabinet position from the Professor, I wouldn't even passingly
>>> refer to him as a dishonest person.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LJDarbo
>>>
>>>  *From:* Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 10 November 2011, 20:40
>>> *Subject:* Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>>
>>>   Abdou:
>>>
>>> I do not have a problem with his analysis, and frankly I am sure it is
>>> based on the law. But when we contacted him, and I even when back to him
>>> for the second time months later, a clear indication of my respect to his
>>> legal grounding. He indicated that independent candidacy is supported in
>>> some part of the constitution, but knowing the kind of Gambia we live in
>>> and Jammeh's control of the judiciary, it will be risky to give Jammehthe opportunity to tie our hands legally. He concluded by saying that it is
>>> less riskier to go with the party-led and stay away from the potential land
>>> mines for pursuing the independent route, Now, after seeing his letter to
>>> the IEC, the question is,  was his advice based on the law or someone
>>> who had a dog in the fight.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> Musa Jeng
>>>
>>>  *From: *"abdoukarim sanneh" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:12:58 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>>
>>> Musa Jeng
>>> Lamin's analysis is the letter of the constitution. You have not see
>>> Halifa's maneuvering and the campaign for the public to endorse the
>>> 1996 constitution and their show case display of dishonesty when PPPwas disqualified.
>>> Lamin's write up was about the correct principles of law as stipulated
>>> in the constitution. It is the judgement of law that form the basis for a
>>> democratic society.
>>>  Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:16:23 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>  It is sad that LJD has become a political hag, and is willing to
>>> explore legal justification to buttress his political leaning. LJD was
>>> someone that STGDP contacted to get his legal advice as far as
>>> exploring the possibility of an independent candidacy as a compromise for a
>>> united front, and his honest and objective legal advice was very important
>>> and relevant to some of the things we were looking at. The latest move from
>>> LJD launching an appeal to the IEC to prevent the running of the united
>>> front has really changed my view of him, and his dishonesty is as clear as
>>> day. It is very apparent that we have a lot of Justice Gomez among us, and
>>> it is just a question of whether they have the opportunity to use legal
>>> maneuvering to justify the wrongs
>>> Musa Jeng
>>>
>>> *From: *"Pasamba Jow" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:23:37 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
>>> the presidency as an independent candidate
>>>
>>>
>>>  L.J.Dardoe, please refer to section 49 of the 1997 Gambian
>>> constitution.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> "Challenge to 49.
>>> *Any registered political party which has participated in the*
>>> *election of a President  Presidential election or an independent
>>> candidate who has *
>>> *participated in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to  *
>>> *determine the validity of the election of a President by filling a *
>>> *petition within ten days of the declaration of the result of the *
>>> *election."*
>>>
>>> "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of
>>> justice." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:49:03 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
>>> presidency as an independent candidate
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> CC: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>  * *
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> *London*
>>> * *
>>> *The United Kingdom*
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> *09 November 2011*
>>> * *
>>> *The Chairman*
>>> *Independent Electoral Commission*
>>> *Election House*
>>> *PO Box 793*
>>> *Banjul*
>>> *The Gambia*
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> *Dear Sir*
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> *Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency as an
>>> independent candidate
>>>
>>> *
>>> * *
>>> *“No association, other than a political party registered under or
>>> pursuant to an *
>>> *    Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
>>> elections”*
>>>
>>> *s. 60(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia***
>>>
>>> With less than a day from candidate nomination for the 24 November
>>> presidential contest, there are strong indications the so-called “united
>>> front” of NRP, PDOIS, and GPDP will attempt to field Hamat N K Bah,
>>> erstwhile leader of the NRP, as presidential candidate outside any
>>> specific party colours. As the body entrusted with the legal responsibility
>>> for managing the public election process in The Gambia, the Independent
>>> Electoral Commission (IEC) must remain alive to its obligation in
>>> ensuring requisite fidelity to the letter of the law.
>>> Ala section 49 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia
>>> (the Constitution), *“Any registered political party which has
>>> participated in the Presidential election or an independent candidate who
>>> has participated in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to
>>> determine the validity of the election of a President by filing a petition
>>> within ten days of the declaration of the result of an election”.*
>>> Although I am yet to come across anyone placing express reliance on
>>> section 49 of the Constitution for the proposition that an independent
>>> candidate is legally able to contest the presidency, there are those, like
>>> *Foroyaa’s* publisher, who take the view that section 104 of the
>>> Election Act supports a non-party sponsored candidate for presidential
>>> elections. Unquestionably, this perspective is erroneous in so far as it
>>> placed exclusive reliance on the Election Act, a 2001 legislation
>>> backdated to a January 1996 commencement date. This particular Act started
>>> life as (Decree No. 78 of 1996, amended by Decree No.91 of 1996, Decree No.
>>> 93 of 1996, and Act No. 7 of 2001). As inferior legislation, it has no
>>> capacity to control an express constitutional provision like section 60(1)
>>> of the Constitution.
>>> Pertinently, section 104 (1) states that “The conduct of elections to
>>> an elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall
>>> be based on party politics” In so far as this particular section conforms
>>> to the Constitutional edict on the point of party-sponsored candidates as
>>> the cornerstone of our public election system, there is no question about
>>> its validity. However, section 104 (2), in contravention of a specific
>>> Constitution stipulation on public elections, states that “*Notwithstanding
>>> subsection (1), a person who is qualified to be registered as a voter under
>>> the Constitution and this Act may contest as an independent candidate in
>>> any election*”. This utterly pretentious posture of section 104 (2) of
>>> the Election Act collides with an explicit Constitutional provision on
>>> public elections, and must be regarded as of no consequence whatsoever, and
>>> therefore void under the supremacy clause of the Constitution
>>> Although section 49 implies a candidate may contest the presidency as an
>>> independent, it is an extremely weak provision when juxtaposed against the
>>> express statement of section 60(1) which categorically states that *“No
>>> association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to
>>> an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
>>> elections”**. *Under *Interpretation* at section 230 of the
>>> Constitution, *“public elections”* is defined as *“*the election for a
>>> President, National Assembly and a local government authority*”. *
>>> It is noteworthy that section 60(1) was an amendment inserted in 2001,
>>> and must therefore be seen as intended to be a definitive declaration of
>>> who can sponsor a presidential candidate in public elections. The statement
>>> that only a registered political party can sponsor “candidates for public
>>> elections” is too categoric a pronouncement to admit of any uncertainty.
>>> To avoid invalidation, inferior statutory law on public elections, in
>>> this case the presidency, must comply with the Constitutional edict on who
>>> can contest presidential elections, or be voided to the extent of any
>>> inconsistency. In the accepted doctrinal words of Federalist No. 78, “*a
>>> ** constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
>>> fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as
>>> well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
>>> body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between
>>> the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of
>>> course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be
>>> preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention
>>> of their agents*”.
>>>
>>> Should legal and political doctrine not be good enough for the IEC *vis
>>> -à-vis* an independent candidate contesting a presidential election, I
>>> revert to the supreme authority of our Constitution. At section 4, and with
>>> absolute clarity, the Constitution states that it is “*the supreme law
>>> of The Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision
>>> of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void*”.
>>>  Clearly, section 104 (2) of the Election Act is wholly void and of no
>>> consequence in so far as it frontally collides with the express declaration
>>> of section 60(1) of the Constitution on who can sponsor a candidate in
>>> presidential elections. It is imperative that the IEC perform its
>>> mandated duty and bar Hamat N K Bah from contesting on 24 November as
>>> an independent.
>>> Notwithstanding section 49 of the Constitution, supported as it
>>> ostensibly is by sections 104 (2) of the Election Act, *Cap 1:01,
>>> Volume I, Laws of The Gambia 2009,* there is no question regarding the
>>> purpose of section 60(1), a 2001 amendment to the text of our supreme law.
>>> Undoubtedly, section 60(1) explicitly bans an independent presidential
>>> candidate, and inferior law in the Election Act cannot control a
>>> Constitutional provision on the same point. In so far as legal
>>> supremacy goes, inferior legislation, including electoral laws in the
>>> Election Act, and, or, IEC rules, at variance with the express mandate
>>> of the Constitution, are invalid to the extent of any inconsistency.
>>> Accepting that independent candidates contested and won in public
>>> elections, this is nevertheless not an argument that passes Constitutional
>>> scrutiny. The fact that law failed to be enforced by competent authority
>>> does not mean a particular conduct is legally permissible. Although I am
>>> personally inclined against the illiberal tendency of 60(1), the fact
>>> remains it is a *bona fide* constituent element of the supreme law of
>>> the land, and must be enforced.
>>> Hamat N K Bah must not be permitted to contest the November
>>> presidential elections as an independent candidate. To avoid unlawful
>>> conduct, the IEC must reject his nomination in line with the clear
>>> mandate of section 60(1) of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Lamin J Darbo
>>>
>>> Cc:
>>> *Daily News Gambia*
>>> *Freedom Newspaper*
>>> *Gainako Newspaper Online*
>>> *Gambia Echo*
>>> *Gambia L*
>>> *Gambia Post*
>>> *Hello Gambia*
>>> *Jollof News*
>>> *Maafanta.com*
>>> *Senegambia Newspaper*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤