Saiks,

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that I’m interested in knowing what MOJA(G) is up to or what they have in store for Gambians – perhaps, you are not only a pipsqueak but also incapable of reading. Pipsqueaks like you seem to imagine that MOJA(G) is still relevant and a force to be reckoned with, when the reality is that MOJA(G) belongs to the Gambia’s receding past and a political antique in every sense of that word. I mean who gives a tosh about MOJA(G)? Or their goofy, bankrupt worldviews? Who cares whether MOJA(G) is a political party, an urban movement or a fundamentalist group?

Let me now see if there is anything worth my while to address in your correspondence, which was strewn with rubbish and incomprehensible statements and assertions. I mean apart from misguided pipsqueaks like you, who else would write this kind of ridiculous passage:

"That Jawara is in the process of making love with Jammeh and the APRC will not change this position, even if the whole of PPP moved to the APRC this position will be the same. I don't believed that the issue in hand has to do with Jawara going to bed with the APRC but he returning back home after years of exile,if I have it right."

I like the cordon sanitaire here: you make a bold statement, then added a caveat by feigning ignorance on whether your interpretation may be right. In case you missed on it, which I seriously doubt, your argument is speciously advanced. You know damn well that Jawara jumping in bed with Jammeh is more a political move than any due humanitarian consideration. Have you heard any of Jawara’s statements or the numerous interviews he gave since the so-called "unconditional amnesty" was granted by Jammeh? Jawara has, in all of the statements – attributed or other wise – and interviews he granted, done a complete volte face on the Jammeh issue. These days, he is only full of platitudes for Jammeh’s leadership capabilities: a far cry from the lacerating criticisms that always come from Jawara in the past when he grants interviews or make statements on the Gambian situation. Pipsqueaks like you want us to accept that this "unconditional amnesty" has nothing to do with politics but with "national reconciliation". What nonsense.

Further to your goofily incomprehensible correspondence, you observed:

"Every Political party must have its own principles, way of going ahead with its political work, campainge, etc. I am not a member of the PDOIS, but their position in this case is not that new to me. I could very well remember having been face with similar problems under the PPP regime, PDOIS decided to contest the election. PDOIS publish then a leaflet denouncing the registration of voter as unfair, with details of how this was done. They did not only participate in the elections but produced another leaflet saying that the elections were free and fair, they never boycotted the elections. So it seems that PDOIS have been consistent with the way they have been dealing with some of these problems that are not new to Gambians and the Gambian Political political scene. PDOIS did tell us one can go to the poles and then contest the results in court if one is not satisfy with the way things have been handled, they gave us an example in two constituencies which resulted in byelections, if one disagrees with their position, to be fair to them, this is what one have to Challenge."

This is simply outrageous; and, dare I say, that even a teenager grappling with the uncertainties of puberty wouldn’t write this kind of garbage. Here, you are literally telling us we should employ the twisted logic of PDOIS when they complained about election irregularities but went ahead to contest them, and then went to court to challenge the results. To translate your goofy argument in every day language, let me give readers an analogy that should lay your nonsense bare. You are telling us we should participate in a game, which we know right from the word go the rules are set to undermine our competitiveness but should be ready to go to court after losing the game. Can anyone be so darned illogical? So PDOIS is telling us to put our faith in rules that they know are deeply flawed and corrupted but add a caveat that: oh well, you can always challenge the results in court. Sometimes, it is unbelievable that such silly arguments come from people who claim worldly profundity and pretend to know better.

Consider, in all frankness, the PDOIS proposition, which you are claiming to be consistent: that even though you know fully well that the rules are set against you, go ahead and contest the elections; just remember that the courts are there for you to contest the results. When you know before hand that the rules of the game are flawed but ignored this fact, and went ahead to contest the game, have you not in fact consented to the legality and fairness of the said flawed rules? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that PDOIS’ ridiculous reasoning makes sense: that you can ignore the flaw-ridden rules of the game that are deliberately set against you and designed to help your opponent win hands down; go ahead, contest the game; but when you lose, you can always take your case to court and claim to be a victim. The only victim you have here is the one which essentially makes one a victim of one’s twisted reasoning that you can ignore irregularities inherent in the procedures leading to an election, and always contest them after the event. Ever heard of the Latin maxim: ignorantia non excusat or ignorance doesn’t excuse? Even here, you can’t lay any claims to ignorance: you are cognisant of the rules and acknowledged the fact that they are flawed and corrupted. If you insist, to give an everyday example, on entering a private property where the owner clearly indicates that he is not liable for any damages that may happen to you on his property, any attempts for you to get judicial redress in the event you feel aggrieved because something happened to you whilst you were on his property, would fall on deaf ears. This is because you knew the rules fully well before hand, and the fact that they left much to be desired vis-à-vis your personal protection on a private property, but disregarded the caveat emptor the owner of the property placed at the entrance of his property; and as such, you cannot conceivably lay any claims to judicial redress.

This reasoning also takes as a given that there is something like the Rule of the Law in the Gambia, i.e., when the powers that be have a vested interest in a case that will ultimately undermine their power, judicial reviews or processes would translate into the executive having more respect for the laws of the land. Alas, there is no such thing as an independent judiciary or Rule of the Law in the Gambia, and the executive flouts the laws of the country – willy-nilly – as if they were just meant to flouted. That PDOIS can peddle such unadulterated rubbish, and for pipsqueaks like you to pick it up as good line of argument, is evidence – if any were ever needed – of the celebration of mediocrity in Gambian public life.

As per the consistency of PDOIS, keep kidding yourself they are still true to their beliefs or principles. Most supporters - i mean even the most fanatical - know that as things stand, PDOIS has been denuded by recent political events as closet apologists of Jammeh, and are the butt-end of endless derisions and, even, jokes. I'll leave that for another opportune moment.