Let me give you some ideas Mr. Nemesis Yanks, (retributive justice) it seems you
are just a Johnny Just come into Gambian affairs who is also lost in regard to
what I have written. You got to know that the late Mr. Alieu Njies murder case
was just an example that speaks volumes of the smart move to establish the
constitution than a military decree. In fact , because of that constitution that
even allowed and paved the way for Darboe to become an opposition leader. Can
you tell this forum what would have happened if there was no constitution? Do
you (Nemesis, retributive justice) prefer Military decree to the constitution we
have now? Darboe been prosecuted or not prosecuted is irrelevant to me but what
I was insinuating is the wild accusation against Halifa / PDOIS for their smart
move. Modern politics is all about dispensation of strategies; and principles
but not anger, insult and blame games.So do not even go there,by associating me
of in support of the Kangaroo courts of Jammeh. I already mentioned that. So
say something else .........
You should read and understand well before throw out your invectives which is
totally irrelevant.
________________________________
From: yanks dabo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, August 8, 2010 10:33:56 AM
Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
Statements
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 reasonthat 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 attack against 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 political party in The Gambia,
affiliated to the International Democratic Union, founded in 1996 by the human
rights lawyer Ousainou Darboe. As a candidate in the presidential election 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 with 26.7% of the
vote. The 17 January 2002 parliamentary election was boycotted by the party. In
the 25 January 2007 parliamentary election, the party won four out of 48
seats.[1]
In 2005 UDP joined the opposition 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 of the ruling APRC 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]> wrote:
>
>Maybe you need to read the release again.
>>
>>Kind regards
>>
>>Daffeh
>>
>>
>>On 4 August 2010 07:25, Banura Samba <[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]>
>>>To: [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]
>>>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>>
>>>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
