Consider: Gabriel Roberts, the newly Jammeh imposed IEC Chairman presides
over the Baddibu and Kiang by-elections, the opposition rides to a smooth
victory [I say this because gauging by the APRC's reported failure in getting
a candidate for the Kiang constituency, the opposition's triumph is assured]
and come the general elections of October 2001, the opposition objects to
Roberts there and then oblivious to the inconsistency in both principles and
actions they are now engaged in, throw in their towels in objection to
Roberts' Chairmanship in principle and boycott the elections. Elections go
ahead and Jammeh helps field another opposition candidate to make the
elections look and sound democratic and he wins hands down. Roberts declares
him the legitimate winner and hands over another election to Jammeh. Gambians
home and abroad protest in earnest but to no avail as Jammeh is inaugurated.
Jammeh is lampooned from all corners and maybe economic sanctions are also
thrown in but Jammeh stays put: Gambians learn to accept the dire prospects
and realities of another five-year term of a Jammeh presidency. A plausible
sequence of future of events? You bet.
When Johnson was fired as IEC Chairman unilaterally and illegally by Jammeh
and Roberts was given another lease of public life, the reaction of the
opposition was to condemn and then challenge both the dismissal and the
appointment in the courts as illegal. This as I noted earlier has more
complications than the opposition would allow. One, what if the judge agrees
with the opposition position and rule that Johnson's dismissal was illegal
and should be forthwith re-instated, what then? Will Jammeh listen to the
courts? All evidence points to the negative. If Jammeh refuses to budge an
inch on the issue, what is the opposition going to do? Set up another or
their own very IEC? Or throw their towels and admit that they need to boycott
the political process as it is? This latter scenario - as recent events are
most likely going to promulgate as the Baddibu and Kiang seats are up for
grabs with Roberts presiding - is very very unlikely. Indeed, what we have
here is more myriad complications of thorny constitutional issues and in
fact, the opposition's ironic adaptation to a fait accompli.
By contesting the Baddibu and Kiang seats under an IEC headed by Roberts,
whose appointment they are contesting in the law courts, the opposition is
not only making matters murkier but more importantly, showing signs of
adapting to the new fait accompli that Roberts' comeback has superimposed on
the political landscape. Besides adapting to the new fait accompli, what does
this say about the legal assault that they have mounted to bring Johnson
back? Contesting these seats under the supervision of someone they view as
illegal wouldn't help their case in court: State advocates will point out the
inconsistency inherent in the decision to contest the very man whose imprint
on the by-elections results the opposition are in effect going to accept as
the legitimate approval of the expression of the peoples of these two seats.
Why contest Roberts heading the IEC in October 2001 but participating in
elections that will bear his imprint? Is the opposition not in fact
legitimising Jammeh's illegal and unilateral decision to fire Johnson by
participating in elections administered under the Chairmanship of Roberts
handpicked by Jammeh himself? If the opposition can accept the outcome of
elections administered by Roberts in Baddibu and Kiang, what is stopping them
from accepting Roberts as capable of equally administering 2001 general
elections? Suffice to say that if the opposition goes ahead and contest
Baddibu and Kiang under Roberts Chairmanship, their complaints of Roberts and
the contest of it in the law courts, would not only be chimerical but fail to
stand the test legal logic.  If anything, participating in these two
by-elections is a very tacit acceptance of the new political configurations
Johnson's forced departure has imposed on them all, by default. The
implication of contesting Baddibu and Kiang is to legitimise Roberts. This is
not a non sequitur but an evenly worked out legal argument.
Which brings us to how the opposition's legal contesting of the legality of
Jammeh's illegal and unilateral firing of Johnson would impact upon directly
and immediately on the political process, especially the 2001 general
elections. If the court case goes ahead unimpeded - in all its ramifications
- we can expect the 2001 elections to be delayed further. If the presiding
judge rules in favour of any of the parties involved, you can most certainly
expect appeals and that can make holding general elections in 2001 very very
impossible in the loosest of practical terms. That in itself provokes another
constitutional question: What if the legal wranglings surrounding the
Chairmanship of the IEC make holding elections practically impossible in
2001, what will happen to the current executive? Constitutionally, Jammeh is
not mandated to preside over the executive after his five-year term in office
expires - he is obliged by fundamental stipulations of the constitution to go
before the people and seek their mandate. Is it in lieu of the aforesaid,
that Cheyassin was rushing through with some constitutional amendments before
he was shown the door? Might it be the case that Jammeh's intellectual
heavies has already figured this out and the constitutional amendments are
just to handle the constitutional discrepancies challenging Roberts'
Chairmanship were most certainly going to provoke? We will only be in the
know when Joof introduces/announces the amendments to the general public.
Whichever way we look at the current political configurations, it doesn't
look. Indeed, it is very reminiscent of what the best-selling British
novelist, Frederick Forsyth, calls "the devil's alternative": Whichever way
we turn, the implications are bound to have a mess we can most certainly do
without. One thing, however, is becoming crystal-clear: Contesting the
Baddibu and Kiang by-elections under the Chairmanship of a intellectual
renegade like Roberts will tacitly and by default legitimise his illegal
Chairmanship and in the interim confirm that in fact the opposition has
already adapted to the fait accompli. And because of the wider ramifications
inherent in the aforesaid, I respectfully call on the opposition to review
the situation and have a rethink on contesting the Baddibu and Kiang
by-elections under the Chairmanship of Roberts. Assuredly, contesting these
by-elections with Roberts administering, will be against the very noble
spirit of defiance the opposition launched against the dictatorship's illegal
and unilateral decision to fire Johnson and hire Roberts - who was very
prominent and instrumental in handing over the last general and presidential
elections to Jammeh. To contest both the legality of Roberts' Chairmanship of
the IEC in the courts and the Baddibu and Kiang by-elections under the same
Roberts' Chairmanship of the same IEC is to attempt to eat your cake and
still have it.  The opposition can't eat its cake and still have it. It is
wishful thinking to assume that the opposition can contest Roberts'
Chairmanship legality in court and turn around participate in elections that
he [Roberts] administers and which will bear his imprint and still retain the
moral high ground. This is merely adapting to a fait accompli illegally
imposed on them by Jammeh and that is not going to tell well on them in the
very end.
Hamjatta - Kanteh



Hamjatta - Kanteh
[log in to unmask]
[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
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------