Oh ok Lamin, I got your point on the 2001 amendment now. Well, if Schedule
2 is an entrenched clause as you stated, the amendment is a nullity unless
approved in a referandum.

As far as I am aware, no court in The Gambia has affirmed the validity of
this amendment yet neither is it enforced by any. Therefore, you can't say
the amendment has taken effect, if that is what you want to imply. I think
the only thing it does, if schedule 2 is indeed an entrenched clause, is to
provide an excuse to the state not to bring prosecutions. Having said that
though, I am not aware of any  Gambian who made use of Section 5 of the
constitution to challenge this amendment at the Supreme Court. You would
have thought the likes of Halifa who sold the constitution to the people on
the back of half truth, utter deceit and fear mongering, would have taken
the moral responsibility to do this and exonerate their conscience but
allez. My point is; part of the problem has something to do with Gambians
not taking responsibility for anything; the do nothing and say nothing
culture.

Thanks
Daffeh

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Property rights indeed Daffeh, but I was asking about the amendment to
> Schedule 2 in 2001 on a different point, and that was why I stated "Whilst
> we are on Schedule 2, what do you think about the indemnity clause inserted
> in the Schedule?". I was simply soliciting your thoughts on the amendment
> to the Schedule.
>
> Schedule 2 precluded any amendment of its provisions but that did not stop
> the government from amending it in 2001, a whole four years after the
> Constitution came into force. The larger point here is that we are dealing
> with raw political power and that these legal shenanigans would unravel
> post APRC. I think this was what Demba was insinuating in his earlier
> reaction to you. It is also the reason why the PPP should have asserted its
> rights in the Courts regardless of outcome as there has to be some kind of
> settlement in the future when the playing field is levelled for all
> residents of The Gambia to freely invoke their legal rights.
>
>
>
> LJDarbo
>   On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 16:23, UDP United Kingdom <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  Ok. First of all, the April 10th and 11 incidents did not happen under
> the watch of the AFPRC junta but the APRC government. The legal distinction
> between the two is obvious and needless to explain.
>
> Secondly, the provisions I quoted are only relevant to the AFPRC junta. It
> does not afford the APRC government any right to unlawfully confiscate
> private property and they are explicitly prohibited from doing so unless
> otherwise justified by law and decreed by a court of law.
>
> Finally, the April 10th and 11 incident indemnity law is not concern with
> property rights. We are speaking in the context of asserting property
> rights.
>
> Thanks
> Daffeh
>
> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Daffeh
>
> I am not asking the PPP to do anything, only arguing that the party never
> bothered to do anything about its propertyl rights and must therefore not
> complain about a lack of support from Gambians. Supporting the PPP was the
> last thing in anyone's mind in 1994 for there was overwhelming congruence
> of opinion that its government got what it deserved.
>
> In any case, if BB did take action on his personal rights notwithstanding
> Schedule 2, what should have stopped the PPP from so acting? BB was wrong
> to blame Gambians for the fate of his government and party. I have seen
> nothing to change my view that the PPP deserved to be overthrown. This side
> of 1994, it is a moot point but I have argued that position even before
> 1994 and was not surprised when it came to pass. Sorry if you are offended
> but that is my view!
>
>
>
> LJDarbo
>   On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 13:46, UDP United Kingdom <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  Lamin, there is no point in them doing so. There is an overwhelming case
> law in this area and their chances of success is utter. It would not make
> any economic or political sense for them to do what you are asking them to
> do. It will not only open them to judicial ridicule-the case will be deemed
> frivolous and rightly dismissed most likely with cost-, it will amount to
> utter waste of time and money as well.
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤