My brief views on some of Halifa's response.
“Under the 1970 constitution, the President could not be taken to court forany reason, civil or criminal; under the 1997 constitution, the Presidentcan be taken to court for violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.” Halifa to Saul and Hamjata.
I am not aware of the questions that were put to Halifa, so the responses
here are based on one sided information. It seems to me Uncle Halifa was acting in good faith at the time as he later put it, to do a “damage limitation”. Legal luminaries can clarify this section if they so wish, but who in his right mind in the Gambia will attempt to file a law suit against Yahya in his den? Who? The constitution is put forward ideas that are based on the perfect environment. The changes that Halifa fondly commented about is not bearing any fruition since Yahya is ruling as he wish.
“In fact, the very reason why the regime is finding it difficult to come up with an Act of the National Assembly to prescribe the Local Government structures is because of the provisions in the constitution calling for the complete autonomy of local councils with elected chairpersons, unlike the Local Government under the 1970 constitution which made commissioners to be the chairpersons of councils and the councils to depend entirely on the Minister for Local Government and Lands for all decisions.” Halifa
I am sure the brother or sister who brought Halifa’s response is aware of the powers that Yahya has in interfering in the Gambia’s local governments any how he so wishes. A year or so ago, we all read how the parliament gave him powers to do as he like with the local government. So the constitution again is a lame duck. Autonomy, what autonomy?
“Suffice it to say, the independence of the Auditor General which isguaranteed under the 1997 Constitution which goes as far as to require theAuditor General to publish his or her findings for the notice of the generalpublic should the report submitted to the National Assembly be leftcollecting dust without discussion, clearly confirms that to have the 1997constitution was better than having no constitution at all, as Saul issuggesting or the 1970 constitution, as some were suggesting or be entirelyblank, as Hamjatta has chosen to be on the matter.” Halifa
Well, again did the president not refuse access to the orders of the then auditor general to audit the state house? The powers given to the auditor general have its limitations. She was smeared and later sacked in a very dishonourable manner. Which replacement will now attempt to audit sensitive government sectors? Finally, For the constitution to be credible and effective, the stipulation of term limit shouldn’t have been removed. Halifa and PDOIS are veterans in Gambian politics, they have put so much trust on the young Juntas. PDOIS should have differentiated themselves and boycott the subsequent elections and ask other parties to do the same, whilst pursuing an agenda for redress on the tampered constitution. PDOIS should have also printed leaflets and make efforts in informing Gambians about the deformed nature of the constitution. Banking on a united opposition is a high hope that only sincere efforts and prayer can resolve. Even that may not be
enough to remove yahya.
“No political figure raised an army to overthrow them. Hence, the otheroption had to be pursued. Needless to say, those who took a country by forceof arms did not hesitate to use all the means at their disposal to retainpower. This is why our position is that the 1996/97 elections were a crisismanagement strategy so that an environment can be created under which allthe institutions can be built to ensure free and fair election under theSecond Republic. This has been our position.”. Halifa
Nothing has change in the front of using arms to chase the opponents of Yahya. History keep repeating itself. Halifa may now have new answers to some of his responses to Saul and Hamjatta. As i said, i did not read the questions pose to Halifa, so i cannot comment beyond this point.
suntou.
--- On Tue, 20/1/09, Edi Jah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Edi Jah <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Halifa's Clarification(1996/1997 Constitution)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, 20 January, 2009, 6:12 PM
Hi All,
Please find below a piece Halifa sent here back in 2000 to clarify the role they played in the whole imbroglio.
Cheers,
Edi Jah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
To Hamjatta and Saul
From:
foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:08:18 -0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (219 lines)
Hamjatta and Saul,
It seems that we are getting very close to the truth. I am glad that Saul
has answered the question I posed for you to address. I am not sure whether
you concur. It would have been best to answer the question to help me to
clarify my position since what you want from me is a very clear position.
I asked the question: would you have voted 'yes' or 'no' for the 1997
Constitution? You prefer not to dwell on this question. Saul, however,
decided to indicate that it did not have to be an either-or situation. I
hope what I will now say to him will be relevant to you.
If we rejected the 1997 Constitution in August 1996, an election would
still have been held under the Elections Decree. In fact, the 1997
constitution did not come into force until 17 January 1997. The Presidential
and National Assembly elections were in fact held before the constitution
came into force. The essence of the 1997 constitution was to make the manner
of government of the country predictable prior to the elections by assuring
that once a president and members of the National Assembly are elected and
the president assumes office, the constitution would automatically guide the
affairs of the nation. With a constitutional instrument, what would have
indicated how the National Assembly or the executive are to carry out their
work order than a decree promulgated by the APRC.
Now that we know what the outcome of the elections are, what type of
constitution do you think the victors of the 1996/97 Presidential and
National Assembly elections would have promulgated?
Under the 1970 Constitution, the President had power to suspend or dissolve
the House of Representatives under section 85. The 1997 constitution does
not give the President such a power.
Under the 1970 Constitution, one could 'cross carpet'. Under the 1997
constitution, one has to vacate one's seat and a bye-election be held if one
wants to move to another party.
Under the 1970 constitution, there was no safeguard to bar the establishment
of a one-party state. The 1997 constitution establishes such a safeguard at
a time when the supporters of those in power were campaigning for such a
state.
Under the 1970 constitution, the permanent secretary, Ministry for Local
Government and Lands was the Supervisor of Elections and the Commissioners
were the registering and returning officers. Under the 1997 Constitution,
there is an Independent Electoral Commission with an independent budget and
its own staff. Under the 1970 constitution, the staff of the Electoral
Office were under the Ministry of Local Government and Lands.
Under the 1970 constitution, one could be a minister and a member of the
House of Representatives at the same time; under the 1997 Constitution, the
two are separate.
Under the 1970 constitution, there was no guarantee of political rights.
Under the 1997 constitution, section 26 makes political rights an entrenched
clause.
Under the 1970 constitution, the President could not be taken to court for
any reason, civil or criminal; under the 1997 constitution, the President
can be taken to court for violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Under the 1970 constitution, once you elect a representative, he or she
would continue to be there for five years unless the President dissolved the
House of Representatives; under the 1997 constitution, a provision is made
for citizens to be able to recall their representatives even before the end
of the five years.
Under the 1970 constitution, the House of Representatives had no authority
to remove any minister appointed by the President from office; now the
National Assembly has power to cast a vote of censure against any secretary
of state or the vice president and remove them from office independent of
the will of the President.
I can go on and on, but I don't want you to accuse me of deviating from the
issue.
The point, therefore, is that if we rejected the constitution, then the APRC
would have continued to rule by decree and would have had the opportunity to
formulate a new draft constitution for The Gambia. If they decided to make
it worse than what would have obtained, we would have rejected it again
based on Saul's premise. What then would the National Assembly have relied
on to exercise its power? What would have safeguarded the independence of
the judiciary? What would anyone relied on to pursue any claim in court? How
would all those who were unlawfully detained be released through court
action? What would have safeguarded political parties from being banned
after the elections?
Clearly, no rational Gambian would accept that it was best to prolong the
absolute rule of the AFPRC without any constitutional safeguard.
In fact, the very reason why the regime is finding it difficult to come up
with an Act of the National Assembly to prescribe the Local Government
structures is because of the provisions in the constitution calling for the
complete autonomy of local councils with elected chairpersons, unlike the
Local Government under the 1970 constitution which made commissioners to be
the chairpersons of councils and the councils to depend entirely on the
Minister for Local Government and Lands for all decisions.
Furthermore, chiefs and alkalo elections are now to proceed with the
participation of all voters instead of mere compound owners.
Suffice it to say, the independence of the Auditor General which is
guaranteed under the 1997 Constitution which goes as far as to require the
Auditor General to publish his or her findings for the notice of the general
public should the report submitted to the National Assembly be left
collecting dust without discussion, clearly confirms that to have the 1997
constitution was better than having no constitution at all, as Saul is
suggesting or the 1970 constitution, as some were suggesting or be entirely
blank, as Hamjatta has chosen to be on the matter.
As a citizen of The Gambia, I considered it wise, right and proper to
support the existence of a constitution to guide the country regardless of
who came to power with the hope that if the people put the right people in
power they would have been able to eradicate all the provisions which were
flawed. On the other hand, if the members of the AFPRC succeeded in
maintaining their hold on power, the constitutional provisions could be
utilised to check their rule and expand the democratic space. This is the
position that was explained to the Gambian people without anyone being told
to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the constitution. It has always been our policy to
explain matters to the people and not dictate to them. My duty was to
explain the provisions and answered questions as they were posed.
Radio 1FM, which initially hosted Reverend Pratt, Saim Kinteh and myself to
conduct civic education did so on an impartial ground. Eventually, the two
dropped out and I was joined by the historian sister Patience Sonko-Godwin
with the workers of Radio 1FM - two men and two women, most of whom were 6th
form students. The programme was a phone-in programme and all Gambians were
invited to participate. In fact, during every programme, I never hesitated
to call on any Gambian who considered himself or herself to be in a position
to explain the provisions of the draft constitution better than we were
doing to come along and take over the programme from us.
This was a very transparent programme and as far as I know many people used
to call to demand for the programme to be relayed by Radio Gambia. However,
the State had never conceded to such a proposal.
Clearly, all sincere Gambians know that the State had no interest in giving
me a platform and did not give me one to speak over Radio Gambia to talk to
the Gambian people. In fact, after this whole exercise I will go on with the
history which will eventually show how a former Attorney General tried tooth
and nail to suppress the civic education booklets that FOROYAA was trying to
disseminate but was unsuccessful because of our persistence and willingness
to shoulder any outcome.
If performing this role is what would render me dishonourable, then I beg to
differ. In my view, it was the duty of all Gambians to explain what was in
the draft constitution. It was our duty to explain the implications of
voting 'yes' and 'no'. I would like to know which Gambians would have
preferred the restoration of the 1970 constitution instead of the 1997
constitution. I would also like to know which Gambians would have preferred
not to have a constitution at all and proceed to an election, and then be
governed by decrees until a new constitution is eventually promulgated. God
knows when that would have been.
I hope this point is clear. I hope none of you will deviate from the
fundamental issue you have asked me to clarify, that is, why I supported the
promulgation of the 1997 constitution. I hope I have given you a clear
answer.
Do you have any further question or contention on this matter? If not, then
we can proceed to the Koro Ceesay issue and I would then quote for you what
the Indemnity provision states.
Ah! Saul, your last piece on our conversation is excellent. Those are
certainly the things that I would have remembered saying, and I still would
like you to reflect whether telling Yahya Jammeh not to stand for elections
and allow Sidia Jatta and Sheriff Dibba to lead would have been heeded. I
would like you to reflect on what impression would have been created if that
was published by FOROYAA. I would also like you to reflect on the mood of
the country where the principal battle was between the pro-'no-election' and
pro-election' agenda which FOROYAA was a principal advocate of.
Principles of democracy aside, which I still stand by, that only the people
of The Gambia should determine who should represent them, pragmatism
dictated that it was better to move the AFPRC from a governance environment
under which they controlled executive and legislative power which was
utilised to drive all political forces of the stage to a governance
environment where they could still retain executive and legislative power
but where political forces can be on the political stage to enlighten the
people and expose those things that could further lead to the expansion of
the democratic space. I would like you to reflect on the fact there were
only two options available to the Gambian people, either to rise up and
overthrow the APRC or to move to an electoral contest.
No political figure raised an army to overthrow them. Hence, the other
option had to be pursued. Needless to say, those who took a country by force
of arms did not hesitate to use all the means at their disposal to retain
power. This is why our position is that the 1996/97 elections were a crisis
management strategy so that an environment can be created under which all
the institutions can be built to ensure free and fair election under the
Second Republic. This has been our position.
Clearly, the number of cases that find themselves in court regarding human
and political rights, the strength of the press in publishing the whole
report of the Auditor General for people to understand how public affairs
are being done, the exposures on political platform, as well as the new
trend in the National Assembly where some opposition elements are taking the
government to task and where some members of the ruling party have even
started to take a critical look at the way the government is governing, lend
credence to the wisdom of supporting the promulgation of the 1997
constitution which gives members of the National Assembly to raise all
questions regarding the administration of the various departments of state
and are entitled to get answers from the various secretaries of state.
However, in my account of the coup period, I will make everything abundantly
clear. You have said that your concerns are two fold - how the
constitutional issue and the Koro Ceesay issue were handled. I will wait for
your concerns on the constitutions issue and then proceed to the next issue.
Bye for now.
Halifa Sallah.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]
|
