Hi!
    The two-three months of debate between Halifa on the one side and Hamjatta and Saul on the other, have at times been interesting and at others made me wonder what is going on. Both sides have intimated their desire for people to be the judges after reading their presentations. I would therefore take this opportunity to write about my feelings regarding the whole issue. I am not in any way saying that what I´m writing is right. I am just stating my opinions.
    While the debate started out as an objective exercise in scholarship, it soon degenerated into a personal fracas with egos at the helm. This affected not only the tone of the discussions but their complete structure and outlook. This was a disappointment because what was to be a solid discussion by brilliant minds was negated, at least to me, to scoring points and coming out the winner.
    At the beginning of the debate, voices were raised concerning putting Halifa on the spot. I was very surprised by that. Everyone knows that Gambia-l is a cyber community where the only way to be free from critique and criticism is to abstain from posting anything to it. Besides that, Halifa is a public figure and as such cannot be exempted from the microscope of public scrutiny. While I can understand the sentiments of those who questioned the right to scrutinise Halifa, I can definitely not justify the premise upon which such sentiments are based given that the whole exercise is a scholarly one. I hold Halifa in high esteem but that would not blind me to the fact that he is in the public arena and just as he scrutinises all aspects of other public figures' lives, all aspects of his life are fair game to be scrutinised. 
    One thing which struck me as odd was the endless "baaku" or steam blowing by all sides. I can guess maybe with a high degree of accuracy that at least one third of the exchanges (am I exaggerating?) have been devoted to threatening each other with throwing away the opponent's premises to the dustbin. Every time one side wrote about shredding to pieces the premises upon which the opponent based his assumptions, I eagerly looked forward to the next posting only to be disappointed with more "baaku". I was at one point even tempted to write and say "enough with the steam blowing. Please get on with the debate." I somehow managed to let go.
    Now, how do I rate the performance of the various sides? Both sides have, despite all the negatives which have kind of neutralised their effect, presented their cases with varying degrees of effectiveness and success. Saul and Hamjatta have utilised the offensive style quite impressively. (I must state here that I am truly impressed with Hamjatta´s proactive and thrusting style of argument given his young age even where his analysis and understanding of the realities are limited.)They have systematically put Halifa on the spot by attributing to him not only negligence and complicity, but by also belittling and questioning his contributions vis á vis the 1997 Constitution and Koro Ceesay´s death. They have utilised so well the same tactics that Halifa employs on his opponents. Maybe this should be no surprise as both have admitted to having been ardent followers and supporters of Halifa. Halifa has, in my opinion, maybe been taken aback by the ferocity and unexpectedness of the use of his own tactics on him that his tackling of the allegations piled on him have been both defensive and less than "Halifa-style".
    Both Saul and Hamjatta have, in my opinion, been at times unfair to Halifa by attributing disproportionate responsibilities to and expectations of him. Maybe this is all part of their strategy of putting him on the spot. PDOIS and Halifa´s inability to win elections has been paraded many a time on the L despite repeated pronouncements by Halifa that he and his colleagues are most interested in enlightening the people instead of cheap politicking. Despite this, the acceptance of the 1997 Constitution is attributed to Halifa and his colleagues. If they had such influence, wouldn´t they be in government now instead of having only one seat in parliament?
    Both Saul and Hamjatta have acknowledged the fact that they did nothing during the period in question about the issues under contention. Halifa however did something. Some would argue that Halifa had to do something given that he is a public figure. There were however many public figures who did nothing. The fact that Halifa risked both his life and freedom by doing something is commendable. The realities of the Jawara and Jammeh era are different and any sensible person knows that different realities demand different tactics. When the reality of the coup and its aftermath presented themselves, Hamjatta and Saul adopted the tactic of keeping quiet because of the realities on the ground whilst Halifa and Co. adopted their strategy as dictated by the realities on the ground. I personally believe that Halifa and his colleagues´ handling of the Constitution and the Korro Ceesay affair was not dictated by complicity but rather by good faith and principle as dictated by the realities on the ground. It is therefore unfair to expect Halifa to risk his life whilst those who expect that of him chose the tactic of keeping quiet when the reality presented itself. It is very easy with the benefit of hindsight to say how things should have been done especially when one is far removed from the realities on the ground.
    I have kind of lost my train of thought due to so many interruptions but I´d just like to finally add that I was quite disappointed by the language both sides adopted and how the issues were so personalised. I believe that with the level of intellect on display, the issues could have been discussed in a more scholarly and civil manner without resorting to the use of the language that has negated much of the essence of what has been presented.
    On another note, I think that personalising the titles of the postings makes it difficult to retrieve related postings in the future. Titles like "To Halifa", "To Hamjatta" etc. say nothing about the content of the postings. If I were to go to the Gambia-l archives and try to download the "On the 1997 Constitution" thread, I would miss a lot of brilliant postings because somewhere along the line, the discussions changed name to "To Halifa" etc. Please think about that. Thanks.
                                                                                                    Buharry.