In response to Gassa,

Gassa: << My understanding of a bond is a writen or spoken agreement guranteeing to
make good such agreement when required to do so. In other words, it is
similar to a bail bond and that none of the papers were actually required to
pay a deposit. It also seems to me that the idea is to ensure that any paper
that is convicted and fined has the ability to pay the fine. Frankly Mr.
Hydara, if that is the case I don't have a problem with that. If I may add
also that the stipulated fines for skin bleaching and the possession of skin
bleaching creams and products seem to be much harsher than the above. >> Emphasis mine.

No doubt you missed out on the absurdity of your reasoning - and seem certain to miss out in the future of such casuistic reasonings. Consider, for instance, your reasoning that the bail bonds, which you reasoned or assumed were prerequisited to ensure that media practitioners who flout the obnoxious media laws of this ghastly regime can cough up the cash to pay any penalties they are liable to pay under the law, as hitch-free or even fair. Let's extend this preposterous argument to, say, business entities like commercial entrepreneurs or enterprises, which like all private media practitioners, are in business to make profits or simply run a good business - and, as such, can flout the rules of the game. Supposing the strictures that are currently heaped on the private media are to be applied to other businesses, i.e., businesses must be in good stead to cough up or show up front - before being registered as businesses - cash in the event of them fouling the rules of the game and paying penalties. Can you imagine how many Gambian bvusinesses would go out of business or never fail to be registered in the first place were they to be the recipients of such ridiculous and obnoxious rules as Decrees 70 and 71?

If you don't get the point, let me give you a basic Business Economics 101 proposition: that businesses ought to be limited by liability. In so far as private madia practitioners in the Gambia are deemed as businessmen competing in a business environment, they should fall under the protection of this proposition, just as other businesses are. No business - be they private media practitioners or commercial entrepreneurs - should be the recipient of rules that insist that they have up front the money they are liable to pay in the event they are in breach of ridiculous and obnoxious laws as Decrees 70 and 71.

Ngorr Ciise

Fiat iustitia ruat caelum! - Let justice be done though the heavens fall!

-------

----Original Message Follows----

From: Jungle Sunrise <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: The private media in the first and second republics.

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 16:27:35 +0000

Good day to you too.

Mr. Hydara wrote:

"You are right, in the Magazine category, in addition to The Spectator, we

have Tourism Concern and Sheriff Bojang recently published the second

edition of his coloured magazine Xpress".

Mr. Hydara, there is also The patriot and another newspaper that is/was

being edited by Jeggan Grey-Johnson at least some months back. I have not

seen him for a couple of weeks but would provide the name of the paper and

other details when I finally catch up with him.

You also Wrote:

"On Decree 70/71, we recalled that it was Decree 70 that was first conceived

and promulgated. But the government realised that due to some kind of

precipitation, the people it was meant for were completely

forgotten: there was nothing ordering newspapers to re-register. So,

bringing in Decree 71, which clearly did the job, rectified the shot. It

specifically ordered all existing newspapers to re-register and in addition

it multiplied the bond by 100. During the colonial period the bond was

pegged at 100 Pounds; at independence that amount was converted to D1000.

The decree also provides for fines not less than D10, 000 and not more than

D50, 000."

Mr. Hydara, I would have been more comfortable you had reproduced the two

decrees in their entirity. I will however give my understanding of the above

statements as meaning that decree 70 originally required all new newspapers

that were to be established in future to sign a D50,000.00 bond. This was

later ammended by decree 71 to apply to existing newspapers as well.

My understanding of a bond is a writen or spoken agreement guranteeing to

make good such agreement when required to do so. In other words, it is

similar to a bail bond and that none of the papers were actually required to

pay a deposit. It also seems to me that the idea is to ensure that any paper

that is convicted and fined has the ability to pay the fine. Frankly Mr.

Hydara, if that is the case I don't have a problem with that. If I may add

also that the stipulated fines for skin bleaching and the possession of skin

bleaching creams and products seem to be much harsher than the above.

You also wrote:

"And the court empowers by the decree to close down a newspaper in

addition to the fine imposed on it for contravening the provisions of the

principal Act meaning the original Act."

Again I don't have any problem with that. If the original Act says you must

sign a bond of D50,000.00 to enable you pay for any future fines that may

range from D10,000.00 to D50,000., otherwise you cannot register your paper

and if you fail to comply with that order we will take you to court and the

court can fine you any between D10,000.00 to D50,000.00 and also close you

down. That, to me, is very logical and I don't have a problem with that

either.

You also wrote:

"You seem to think my narration strengthened your point. Now one

cannot equate the two situations of the media for the simple reason that THE

FIRST REPUBLIC, AS SEEN IN MY LAST TAKE, FAVOURED THE DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW

IN MOST CASES rather than the harassment, detention etc. etc. we are

accustomed to under the transition and the Second Republic.

I must hasten to add that we would have preferred that we go to

court as it was the case with Halifa Sallah, Sam Sarr and Sidia Jatta for

Foroyaa in 1994 and later with Pap Saine (your father-law?) Alieu Badara

Sowe and Ebrima Ernest for The Point, in 1995.

All the above people won their cases against the state." Emphsis-mine.

Mr. Hydara, whereas you don't seem to think so, but you are actually

strengthening my point! From the above quotation, you have confirmed that:

1) During the first republic, "IN MOST" cases and NOT in all cases, the

media were refered to due process of the law rather than harassment

(Emphsis, mine). You even confirmed this harassment of the media in the

first republic in your earlier post when you listed some of the people who

were picked up on a number of occasions by the defunct NSS and also the

imprisonment of one, Baa trawalleh.

2) You have also told us, from the last paragraph I have quoted above, that

due process of the was followed in the cases of Halifa Sallah, Sam Sarr and

Sidia Jatta for Foroyaa (1994) and Pap Saine, Aliew Badara Sowe and Ebrima

Ernest for The Point (1995). Were these cases not during the second republic

and as such the due process of the law applied in each case?

I rest my case here for now.

Have a very good day, Gassa.

PS. Pap Saine can confirm than I am married to his late brother's daughter,

Sainabou of 42 Glouscester street, for the past 13 years and my last son was

named after him.

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

<>//\\<>//\\<>//\\<>//\\<>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface

at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:

[log in to unmask]

<>//\\<>//\\<>//\\<>//\\<>