Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue

Issue No. 59/2004, 26-28 July, 2004



EDITORIAL

45 Million + 260 Million Out of Social Security Funds for a Hotel

The President Justifies the Expenditure

The Private and Public Sector have capacity to invest.  There is no
objection for the Public Sector to invest where maximum gain can be made.
Infact, if Public Corporations can make huge gains they should be able to
pay more dividends to government for public services.

The experience of the government with Senegambia Beach Hotel is the failure
to earn dividends.  How long will it take to recover 305 Million Dalasis
investment?  What is government’s priority?  The groundnut industry has
been a problem all these years.  Suffice it to sa
y 305 Million Dalasis
could have enabled the federation of cooperative societies to purchase all
the nuts, sell them at one go and recover the sum invested with interest
for Social Security.  In our view, the government has misplaced its
priorities.  There are no skeptics as the President claims.  There are
objective critics whose views the President refuses to acknowledge because
of the misplacement of its priorities.

Public Corporations should be linked to the goals of food self sufficiency,
input substitution and general welfare.  Financing the groundnut crop is a
greater priority.  We are therefore right to accuse the government of not
managing the country on the basis of mature policy making which has to
speak the language of priorities.  Gambians do not even have to wait to see
whether the Ocean Bay Hotel will yield profit for Social Security or not.
We are hundred percent sure that it will not repay the 305 Millio
n Dalasis
investment in a year while the buying and selling of groundnuts can yield
such huge sums of money in a year.  If the government disagrees with this
it can write to FOROYAA to explain its position and we will publish it.  If
they fail to do so then one should know that the President is simply
calling genuine critics, detractors because of the lack of sincerity to
acknowledge truth when he sees it.



Halifa Still on the July 22nd Commemoration

FOROYAA: The President’s speech during the celebration at the  Stadium did
not have any castigation of the opposition but during his address to the
Women, he indicated that the Opposition never mentions the good things that
the government is doing, What do you have to say to this?

Halifa:  Of course he vacillates between maturity and mediocrity.  A head
of state who is cultured in democratic values would constantly bear in mind
that he/sh
e is a caretaker, a public trustee.  He/she would see the office
of President to be a public property.  One would realise that he/she is
just one of those who may be selected by the people to occupy the seat.
He/she would accept that any person with the qualification has equal right
and duty to seek the mandate of the people if they so desire.  Such a
person would simply do his/her best and would be ready to engage in a
debate with those who claim that his/her best is not good enough for the
people.  A mature leader would not castigate such people as jealous,
envious or as detractors.  Hence when the President says that everyone,
irrespective of their political view, have a duty to contribute to the
development of the country he could be considered to be displaying
political maturity.  If he accuses those who scrutinize, criticize and
restrain his government as detractor and jealous people he should be seen
to b
e displaying political immaturity.  I continue to emphasize that people
should not be angered by what the President says.  They should rely on it
to judge whether he is fit to occupy the highest position of public trust
on the land.  I am more concerned about the maturity of those who seek to
be alternatives to the government.  I am confident that if an alternative
emerges that displays the highest level of political maturity the President
would be isolated if he displays any political immaturity.  This is the way
forward for the country.

FOROYAA: He claims that he can provide better husbands to women who are
divorced by the husbands for their support of the APRC?

Halifa: This was a meeting organized by women.  The President should have
been telling them what empowerment of women means; that they had
citizenship power and an equal voice to say who will be President, National
Assembly Member, Councillor; that
they should not accept dictation from any
one but should exercise their freedom of choice with maturity.  He should
have told them to have the maturity that would enable them to inspire their
husbands, children and peers to serve the interest of the Nation and
elevate the status of women to occupy their rightful places as equal
partners in sovereign existence and development with men.  Of course, the
President is simply interested in transforming women into his political
tools rather than liberate them.  This is why he would focus on such
irrelevant issues on such an important occasion, which took so much money
and energy to put together.  I am sure all the women had a healthy laugh.
In actual fact the words should make them to ask themselves whether the
time, money and energy they mustered to the occasion was meant to promote
the interest of women or the image of the President.  In my view the
marriage did not have any io
ta of the type of information that could help
women to understand themselves, their country and the world so that that
can earn the type of confidence that they need to be equal partners in
nation building.  It is still the political patronage all the way.

FOROYAA: How do you see the participation of the people?

Halifa: Information is still being received regarding the expenditure and
the method of mobilization.  I still comment on this to pass judgment on
whether there was more popular involvement than inducement and intimidation
in the whole exercise of mobilizing the masses.  The facts being gathered
are interesting.

JUDGEMENT ON DUMO SAHO & CO TREASON TRIAL

Reports reaching this paper have it that Justice Ahmed Belgore will deliver
judgment on the treason trial involving Ebrima Barrow, Modou Dumo Saho and
Ebrima Yarbo of GAMTEL, this week.

The Trio who where charged alongside Lt. Oma
r Darboe, Lt. Lalo Jaiteh and
Momodou Marenah have been languishing at the Remand Wing of the Mile II
Central Prison since June 2000.  They were charge of six counts of treason
and arraigned before Justice Wallace Grante, and subsequently arraigned
before Justice Ahmed Belgore.

Lawyer Ousman Sillah was counsel for Lt. Darboe, Lt. Jaiteh and Ebrima
Yarbo.  Momodou Marenah was represented by Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, whilst
Ba Tambedou and Darboe represented Dumo Saho.  Lawyer Mai Fatty later
represented Ebrima Barrow who was earlier on represented by Ousman Sillah.

The Two Lieutenants were acquitted and discharged by the court after the
defence made its address.   Momodou Marenah was acquitted and discharged
after the defence made a No Case Submission.  The court ruled that a prima
facie case was established by the prosecution and the accused persons were
ordered to put up their defence.  The defence later thought it
prudent to
look at the totality of the evidence before the court.  Judgment was
scheduled for February 2004.  However it was later adjourned indefinitely.



AT THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
pThe Debate on the Amendment of the Local Government Act

The following is Halifa Sallah’s contribution to the debate on the
amendment of the Local Government Act during the last meeting of the
National Assembly in March this year which was not published. The hourly
and daily occurrences in local government areas and the attitude of central
government echoes the relevance of the contribution. In his contribution,
Halifa argued that the amendment was intended to give absolute power to the
secretary of state for local government to muzzle the councils. Read on.

 Halifa, in his contribution noted that the confusion of role that the
secretary of state referred to is  the refusal of government to acknowledge
that the Chairp
ersons of local government authorities are the political
heads of the local government areas, pointing out that the attempt to
nullify it in practice is what has led to the total confusion. He argued
that instead of handling the problem administratively, they are now using
the legal instrument to legitimize the illegitimate, that is, to give the
impression that these Mayors and Chairpersons are civil servants under the
Secretary of State and the President, who can be toyed with and thrown
about at anytime.

At this point, Halifa Sallah stated that the Local Government Act,
irrespective of its inadequacy, created a clear line of demarcation between
the powers of the Councils as local government authorities and the powers
of central government. That is why section 20 of the original Act is
fundamentally different from section 151. The intentions were different, he
emphasised. He argued that the objective of this
amendment is to integrate
the two and give the Secretary of State absolute power to muzzle the
Councils. “That’s the objective!” he stressed. “And the experiment was very
clear with Brikama Area Council. The very thing we criticized here is what
is being put in an Act now, that is, the Secretary of State having power to
close offices, to suspend Chairpersons and then these people have to bow
their heads and put their hands around their backs to go to a president to
appeal within 30 days. That is the intention! It was established in
practice illegally and now it is being legitimized.”

At this stage, Halifa now dealt with the section 20 of the original Act. He
noted that section 20 subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the original Act
creates a mechanism of internal self-control of Councils. He stated that
where specifically, members of the Council accuse the Chairperson of any
misdeed
, they have to stipulate it in a notice and if two-thirds of them
accept, they would also have to provide the evidence. He then indicated
that this is how a Council should act; that an autonomous Council, seeing
that their Chairperson is corrupt or whatever, will take this specific
action.

He cited subsection (2) of section 20 of the original Act which states that
for the purpose of removing the Chairperson for abuse of office,
corruption, misconduct or such mental or physical incapacity as would
render him or her incapable of discharging the duties of the office, a
notice in writing shall be signed by not less than two-thirds of all
members of the Council and shall be submitted to the Deputy Chairperson.
The notice shall state that they intend to pass a resolution to remove the
Chairperson on any of the grounds set out above e.g., corruption,
misconduct, etc. It shall also set out, except in the ca
se of physical and
mental incapacity, the particulars of the charge, supported by necessary
documents, where applicable, on which it is claimed that the conduct of the
Chairperson be investigated for the purpose of removal.

Halifa Sallah now proceeded to the next step stipulated under subsection
(3) which was part of the amendment. He quoted this subsection as saying
that

“the Deputy Chairperson shall within twenty-four hours after receipt of the
notice referred to him / her under subsection (2), cause a copy to be
submitted to the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and Secretary of State.”

He emphasized that it is very clear that the notice will be communicated to
the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and the Secretary of State.

He now went on to the next step, as provided by subsection (4). It states
that, “the Chief Justice shall, within seven days after receipt of the

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.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://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~