KB

No need to apologise for the change of title, in fact
it gave it some spice to start with.

You have raised some interesting points but to be
honest with you I have to properly explain my previous
proposals and from there we can resume this
interesting debate.

(1)WHY THE UNITED OPPOSITION SHOULD RULE FOR NOT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS

I still advocate for a Coalition Government that
should rule for not more than 24 months. Perhaps I
will be considerate here and say they should rule for
a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of 24 months.
I believe that the only way forward for a successful
Coalition government is to review the transitional
programme fraudulently hijacked by the AFPRC regime.
All of us should admit that the First Republic was
born on 24 April 1970 and suddenly died on 22 July
1994 when our so called defenders of the constitution;
the PPP Cabinet surrendered power to the AFPRC-what a
tragic way to relinquish power.
Coming to the Second Republic, I still believe that it
is in its pregnancy. The issues which should have been
dealt with under the Second Republic have still not
been delivered yet. We have a constitution that is
totally been abused by its architects. We have a
constitution that has made our leaders elective
dictators. In order to resolve the situation, the
first task of the Coalition Government is to honestly
review the Second Republican Constitution.

When one looks at the way the Second Republican
Constitution came into effect, there were several
provisions which wrongly incorporated in it. In fact,
we have just heard news from the Gambia that the APRC
Government  have introduced the Constitutional
Amendment Act without consulting the people who
initially endorsed it by way of vote in a referendum
held on 8 August 1996.

Our current constitution is typically designed in line
 with the American Presidential system of Government.
With this in mind, the President of the Coalition will
have enormous power to do what he likes. I don't need
to enlighten you on how Yahya has been hiring and
firing Secretaries of States. If one looks at the
provisions of the First Republican Constitution, the
President had to rely on his parliamentarians to
choose a cabinet. Imagine therefore if either Sidia
Jatta, Bah or Darboe were made leader of the
Coalition, based on the provisions of the current
constitution, he may appoint who ever he likes as
Secretary of State with the exception of the elected
MPS.There are bound to be problems in this area,
unless the parties in the United Opposition have
formulated a pre-election/victory agreement.

(2)THE NEED FOR A TRUTH AND RESTITUTION COMMISSION

It appears we seem to be agreement in this area, my
only reservation is the level of amnesty to be granted
against the perpetrators. I strongly believe that in
order for us to certain who was responsible the gross
abuses of human rights abuses, some will have to be
granted amnesty, so as to assist the Commission in
ascertaining the truth. If you could recall during the
Treason Trials of September 1981, Appai Sonko a fomer
member of Kukoi Samba Sanyang's Supreme Council of the
Revolution was granted amnesty in return for him to
testify as a principal witness. His testimony to the
court was of significant help to the prosecution in
establishing the role played by the alleged coup
plotters of July 1981. Just recently, we have seen
Nigeria through its Oputa Commission using the
services of Sergeant Rogers. Sergeant Rogers though
regarded as the one responsible for the brutal murder
of Kudirat Abiola and many other political figure has
freely given detail evidence on why and how these
political figures were executed. Now lets take a look
at the situation in the Gambia, the likes of Fabakary
Kolior a former member of the July 22 Movement has now
defected to the UDP. Don't you think he could be of
enormous help to the commission, if he is granted
amnesty ? There are so many others who will fall under
this category.

(3)NULLIFY THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONS OF THE
INQUIRY

Sorry to say but I should have said REVIEW rather than
Nullify. To be candid with you, I must admit that the
PPP Government was corrupt. However, the Commissions
of Inquiry set up to investigate failed in most cases
in establishing the actual degree of corruption. In
most cases, these Commissions were mere kangaroo
Courts, only few of them acted fairly. Most of the
powers granted to the Commission were obnoxious to
start with. Having attending some of the Commissions,
I realised that the Chairmen/Chairperson in most cases
acted as player rather than a referee. In other words,
they were never independent to sart with.  Since some
innocent people have either lost their jobs or
properties, Don't you think there is a need for the
decisions of these Commissions to be reviewed
honestly?


Awaiting your views on my proposals and its reasons

Have a wonderful day

Sanusi




--- Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >
Sanusi, sorry I could not get back to you yesterday.
> The debate you wish to
> engage in, is a very important one because it will
> help us get closer to
> forming a United Opposition against Yaya come
> October. Note my emphasis on
> the election I mentioned. It is important that
> during the negotiations that
> people bear in mind that we have both the October
> 2001 and January 2002
> elections to think about. The different elections
> call for different
> strategies and different concessions as far as
> forming a coalition is
> concerned. I am sure you will agree that it is more
> difficult to form a
> coalition in the parliamentary elections where we
> have more players involved
> than in the presidential election where we are
> dealing with a single
> candidate.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I sensed that your
> paramount issue is that of
> fairness. You do NOT want the person that won as a
> result of the coalition
> ticket to reap benefits he does not deserve. A
> genuine concern if this is
> your position. You went further to suggest how to
> remedy this apparent
> undeserved advantage our next president might get.
> You suggested that the
> person stay in office for no more than 24 months. It
> is in the remedy phase
> that we differ a little. But I share your view that
> the next leader should
> not have a free ride on a coalition ticket.
>
> However, I think the situation can be remedied
> without resorting to having a
> government for less than 2 years. I think at the
> stage when we pick the
> leader of the coalition, we can conduct the process
> such that the most
> deserving person is picked to lead the coalition. In
> my book, the most
> deserving person would be the person in the best
> position to defeat Yaya one
> on one. The ideal way to have done this would have
> been to conduct a
> 'primary' election. But we all know that time is
> running out and we have
> very limited resources to run two elections in order
> to choose our next
> president. So how do we select the most deserving
> person? The Parties should
> come together with the Diaspora (that is supposedly
> Neutral) and present
> their facts and figures. From those we can tell who
> has the most support in
> the country. This is by no means an easy task. But
> it is doable if people
> put the plight of the Gambians at the forefront and
> approach the matter in a
> selfless manner. At the end of the day, we should be
> able to reach a
> consensus as to who is in the best position to
> defeat Yaya and therefore
> deserves to lead the country for the full term.
>
> But I guess this does not address all your concerns.
> Another concern of
> yours is perhaps to level the playing field that has
> been rigged by Yaya in
> favor of the incumbent government. The political
> landscape is such that it
> gives numerous advantages to the government of the
> day to 'steal' elections.
> Parties going into the negotiations also have to
> have this somewhere in
> their minds. That is, people might be worried that
> if they help elect
> another party's leader in October, that party might
> use that advantage (of
> incumbency) to 'steal' future elections. This
> concern has to be addressed.
> Cutting the time of the government's initial
> incumbency from five years to
> two years, goes some way to alleviating this
> problem. But we can do more.
>
> Before the coalition, the parties need to agree, on
> the record, that the
> future government is going to implement certain
> reforms that will ensure a
> level playing field in future Gambian elections. For
> example, as you rightly
> pointed out, Decree 89 should be repealed forthwith.
> Powers given to Yaya to
> appoint and fire Chiefs should also be removed from
> our law books. The IEC
> has to be overhauled. The are a number of other
> 'political' laws that can be
> amended or repealed to ensure a level playing field
> for all the members of
> the coalition in coming elections. I think that is
> where the focus should
> be; i.e. try and remove the benefits of incumbency
> rather than cutting the
> term of the presidency short. You might argue that
> we can do both. Why not?
> The Parties can certainly negotiate on that. I just
> think that the next
> government need not be a transitional government. It
> should be given full
> opportunity to implement a program over a five year
> period. This program
> will entail other reforms apart from the political
> ones stated above. While
> the political playing field is being leveled, the
> next government should
> also be embarking on projects to lift our people up.
> You cannot overstate
> the suffering of the Gambian masses. You just have
> to call home and talk to
> people. That will give you a dose of depression to
> last you for a long time.
>
> We need a government with some reasonable amount of
> time to implement
> certain programs in the economic/development front.
> Otherwise, we leave that
> government vulnerable to another AFPRC/APRC. In
> other words, if we have a
> government that is there for a short amount of time
> and is unable to do
> certain things, you hear lieutenants trying to
> justify a coup. You also hear
> what is left of the APRC outfit (after the criminals
> are weeded out and
> jailed) saying that the new government did not
> change people's lives for the
> better. So unless we have a very solid development
> program that can reap
> meaningful benefits within two years, I would rather
> give the next
> government a five year term if the leader is picked
> fairly by the coalition
> and some of the benefits of incumbency are removed.
>
> On the truth and reconciliation/compensation
> commission, I guess we are not
> far apart. I have to say that I do NOT at all
> believe in impunity; not that
> am implying that you are either. However, I realize
> the benefits of plea
> bargaining. In order to get to certain truths, some
> undesirable elements
> have to be accommodated somewhat. As far as I am
> concerned, it is going to
> be a case by case basis. There are simply some
> people whose crimes are so
> heinous that even if they gave us Yaya's head we
> should not let them go with
> impunity. All these can be done within the confines
> of our current legal
> system. I do not believe in kangaroo courts.
> Although I recognize that not
> all commissions of inquiries are bogus, I am just
> uncomfortable with the
> nomenclature. I would rather have a system where
> criminals are brought
> before regular courts and tried as common criminals.
> If we NEED to 'bargain'
> with certain people to get certain testimony from
> them, fine. So long as the
> prosecutor is not giving the witness something
> he/she does not deserve in
> return for testimony we can have otherwise.
>
> In short, no blanket amnesties. Each case checked on
> its merits. The only
> blanket statement I will make is that anybody with
> blood of our children in
> their hands, WILL HAVE TO PAY.
>
> Thanks again for your contributions.
> KB
>
> Ps: I took the liberty and changed the heading of
> the posting.
>
>
> >From: Sanusi Owens <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing
> list
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Mr. Owens: Re: My opinion. - Kebba
> Dampha
> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:37:22 +0100
>
=== message truncated ===









____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------