OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE "FOROYAA" ARTICLE
PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY MARCH 7TH 2001
First of all I will like to take this early opportunity to thank all those who sent congratulatory messages to the MRDGUK. On behalf of the Movement's diverse membership and our many supporters, I return warm and fraternal appreciation for the kind sentiments expressed. The Movement relies and will continue to rely on the moral support and goodwill of the Gambian people both at home and abroad, as we endeavour to contribute in the search for justice and the restoration of democracy in the Gambia. I thank you all.
I must make the point at this stage, that this rejoinder is a direct and necessary response to the matters raised in the official reaction emanating from the Peoples Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS), regarding the London Briefing Meeting that took place on the 28th February 2001. But before I do so, may I first of all reiterate the uncompromising philosophy and principle of neutrality and independence that underpins the Movement's political stance. This principle is embodied in the Movements Constitution and articulated in the Official statement released by the Chairperson and sent to all the parties and other target institutions in the Gambia. This same philosophy was also echoed in the letter introducing the Movement to all the opposition parties including the PDOIS. As of the date of this statement, the Movement is not yet in receipt of an acknowledgement letter from the PDOIS.
Whilst we aim to facilitate closer bonds between the political Opposition and to actively support and encourage the formation of a broad base coalition of all these groups, we are determined to remain strictly non-partisan. We believe that this is the only posture that can engender both the trust and confidence of all the parties we hope to attract to our defined course. A course that is rapidly gaining in supports among the wider Gambian community both at home and abroad. Indeed the current membership of the Movement reflects this diversity of political affiliations and allegiances, which we recognise as crucial to the attainment of the primary aims and objectives of the Movement.
As a matter of fact, the PDOIS was the first Opposition party to be informed of the formation and the plans of the Movement, albeit informally. The chairperson of the Movement had the honour and the pleasure of chairing a meeting at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London in October of last year, in which Mr. Halifa Sallah of the PDOIS was the guest speaker. The Chairperson seized the opportunity to apprised Mr. Sallah of the existence of the Movement and of its aims and objectives. The Chairperson recalls that Mr Sallah was very supportive of the initiative and encouraged the move. The Chair and the Movement remains hopeful, regardless of the statement from "Foroyaa", about the London Meeting, that a way could still be found to link our two Movements in a way that will compliment our search for a just and democratic Gambia.
The MRDGUK has since its establishment, endeavoured to cultivate positive and fraternal working relationships with all the Opposition parties and other representative institutions in the Gambia. The initial reactions from other parties have been greatly encouraging and we hope that jointly, we can continue to make progress in this and in other fronts.
However for the sake of clear exposition, let me refer readers and the PDOIS to Section 2(c) of the Movement's Constitution which states, that one of the aims and objectives of the Movement is "to sensitise the International Community, Human Rights Organisations, national governments and other institutions as to the grave social and political conditions prevalent in the Gambia and to solicit their assistance with a view restoring constitutionality…".
So it is clear, that the briefing session that was held at the House of Commons last week, was within the activities contemplated by the MRDGUK at its inception.
It may also be of use, to readers who are not in possession of the Movements Constitution, to be apprised of Section 3(c) of that Constitution which reads "Registered as well as proscribed parties in the Gambia shall be accorded affiliate membership upon fulfilling a set of criteria to be determined by the Executive Committee" The criteria to be met, is that such parties as can prove total subscription in practice and in principle to the democratic ideal, automatically enjoys affiliated membership, with full membership in the discretion of the Executive Committee.
Let me now turn our attention to the issues raised in the statement that was released by PDOIS on Wednesday afternoon. Firstly the PDOIS statement said that the London meeting was convened by Mr. John McDonnell MP for the London Constituency of Hayes and Harlington, so that he can receive briefing from the Gambian opposition in order that he can make representations to the British Government about the plight of the Gambian refugees in his Constituency. This statement is highly erroneous and a misrepresentation of fact. It is also clearly disingenuous, and bordering on the cynical. What the Member of Parliament actually said, is that his interest in the Gambian situation was aroused when he made representations on behalf of some Gambian Refugees applying for Asylum under the Geneva Convention of 1951.
His invitation letter, which Mr Sidia Jatta of PDOIS acknowledges, reads, "In order to draw attention to the plight of the Gambia people, I have convened this meeting to receive briefing from the opposition representatives". It is clear from the invitation letter therefore, that the Member of Parliament's concern was not limited to the plight of the Gambian refugees living in his constitution, but to that of the Gambian people as a whole.
The London meeting had a wider agenda than the PDOIS statement is trying to make out. The same invitation letter sent out to all the parties, listed the following items as part of the agenda, and I quote "The withdrawal of basic civil liberties and democratic freedoms within the Gambia…the cancellation and rigging of elections. The imprisonment and harassment of opposition parties and the use of physical violence against opponents by the current regime..". The invitation also laments the fact that these abuses are escalating, but have largely gone unreported in the British media.
It may be of interest to know that the London Constituency of Hayes and Harlington, which is John McDonnell's constituency, is home to a comparatively small group of Gambians. Whilst their plight is necessarily of legitimate concern to the MP, his main concern and the reason for organising the briefing meeting and that of the other Members of Parliament who are working with us, transcends the limited remit of the Refugees' plights. The main theme of the meeting was as the invitation clearly states and I quote once again, "to discuss the current crisis in democracy in the Gambia".
Also there where other Members of Parliament at the briefing who did not make any mention of the need to be briefed for the purposes of making representations to the government on behalf on their Gambian Constituents. Both the Members of Parliaments for Hackney South Ms. Diane Abbot and the Member of Parliament for Islington North Mr. Jeremy Corbyn made speeches that did not refer to the "Refugee" issue at all.
It is also obvious, that the Member of Parliament need not have invited all of the Gambian opposition simply to brief him on the plights of Gambian Refugees living in Britain. The MP could have received briefing from a range of sources, which would have provided him with objective evidence about the true conditions in the Gambia. The American State Department Country Report is a reliable source and readily available, to which he could have easily made reference. He could also as the PDOIS statement suggested solicited briefings from the so-called "Refugees" themselves. Indeed he could quite easily have contacted the British High Commission in the Gambia, Amnesty International (AI) or any of the other international human Rights organisations, for information regarding the state of the Gambian political and human rights records. Furthermore the MRDGUK could have compiled a credible and comprehensive dossier of human rights abuses and evidence of the undemocratic and repressive nature of the government in the Gambia, which he could have made use of. He did not have to invite all of the Gambian political opposition to London for the sole purpose of briefing him on the plights of Gambian Refugees alone. So the PDOIS statement does not conform to the truth of the situation.
The statement also describes the work of restoring democracy in the Gambia as a "limited undertaking". The Movement does not agree that the restoration of democracy is a limited enterprise. We believe that it is a task whose accomplishment delivers the promise of self- determination, of free and unhindered participation in national decision making, of individual liberty, respect and dignity. These are the building blocks of a society at peace with itself and its neighbours. We therefore see this task as central to the creation a stable society and a necessary prerequisite to the material advancement of a nation. It cannot therefore be a limited undertaking.
The PDOIS statement went on to say, "PDOIS considers itself to be more effective in promoting change in the Gambia than a British MP". Nowhere and at no time did the Movement hold any view contrary to or in support of this assertion. In fact it has never attempted to make any comparison between individual politicians, parties or mode of campaigning and operation. It is simply not of consequence to us as a Movement whether one is better equipped than the other to carry out the business of promoting change in the politics of the Gambia. Our position is that every Gambian has a role to play in the fight to restore democracy in our country. I like to believe that PDOIS and the MRDGUK are in agreement on this basic point.
However as a Movement, we do not consider the support of a British Member of Parliament who is willing to raise questions on the Gambia in the British Parliament to be in any way indicative of the Gambian opposition's inability to carry out the task of opposition on the home front. The Movement certainly does not consider the opposition parties to be "impotent", far from the truth. What the Movement is seeking to do in corporation with the British Members of Parliament, is to raise awareness within the international community, of which the United Kingdom is an important member, about the dangerous political situation that exists in the Gambia today. It is meant to sensitise the outside world about the increased incidences of human rights abuses, of totalitarian governance in the Gambia and of the potential for anarchy inherent in these conditions. We believe that the Gambia is currently going through a critical political phase and our efforts to involve the international community in the search for an early and peaceful resolution to this clear and present danger, is purely a preemtive move.
We also believe that in an increasing interdependent world, the use of secondary pressure from the international community to compliment the laudable efforts of home grown opposition parties and organisations, has proved in the past to be a vital weapon in the fight to defuse the intransigence of political dictatorships and totalitarian governments. The South African case is one example that readily comes to mind. Through sustained international pressure and support, the South African people and the ANC were able to take the fight against apartheid to its final conclusion. That support as you are no doubt aware, was initiated not by national governments, but by backbench parliamentary support and the dogged determination of concerned individual members of the international community. As a Movement, we aim to do no less.
Finally, PDOIS's statement calls on opponents of the government "to trust our own abilities to change the Country" and that "we must rely on our own people for change". The Movement has never envisaged a situation in which it will abdicate the responsibility of rescuing our country to any other entity. Also as Gambians we have a more direct role to play in the affairs and direction of our country than the mere provision of material support to the parties of our choice. In conclusion, let me direct the author of the PDOIS statement to the closing paragraph of the Official Report presented by the Chairperson of the Movement on the London Briefing session, published on the 5th March 2001. It reads "It is the Gambian people themselves and no one else, who will be the sole arbiter of their individual as well as their collective aspirations. We the sovereign people of this great nation will determine our own destiny". It is my ardent belief that PDOIS and the FOROYAA editorialist will find that we as the collective opposition share more in common than that which appears to separates us.
Jeggan james Bahoum
MRDGUK
London
9TH March 2001