Jainaba Bah,

For obvious reasons, you and I don’t like each other: I don’t like you, and the feeling is reciprocated from the other end. It is no accident, therefore, that you’ve been shadowing me ever since it appears that not only I’m a ferocious critic of the APRC but, most importantly, pours scorn on those who aid and abet – especially those intellectuals who happened to have recanted earlier held views – with the APRC; of whom, your husband, Sarjo Jallow, ranks in the top elite. It would have helped your cause if you cease the pretense and moral deceit, and be more honest about your feelings. When it comes to issues of public morality, I don’t equivocate: I express my thoughts as candidly and clearly as I possibly can muster. Doubtless, the same can’t be said of you and your politics. All good and well: people should be free to choose their morals, and live with the consequences of whatever stems from any such choice.

When you shadow people with malicious intentions, and the pendulum refuses to swing your way, invariably you resort to shenanigans to get your way. The oldest trick in the book is to create imaginary straw men, and start puncturing them with fists of unbridled rage you’ve always clenched for your real opponent whom you’ve been shadowing all the time. In the process, you attribute all sorts of opinions and deeds to your opponents; and, whilst you are at it, you won’t flinch from outlandish and egregious self-righteousness. This is the psychological context of your attack on Chongan, which is a mere Trojan horse to get to your real target: me

My piece on Chongan followed four interspersed lines of thought: one, Chongan and his men selflessly defended constitutionality, the Rule of Law and abiding to core principles on that fateful day of July 22^nd 1994; secondly, for said actions paid the ultimate penalty of illegal incarceration by the hoodlums of the AFPRC/APRC; thirdly, after the concomitant trials and tribulations of illegal incarceration, Chongan suffered further for still sticking to core principles when he was offered a job by Yaya and flatly refused to take it; and, finally, came to the UK and went through hell before breaking even. I posited, ergo, that this life is worthy of commendation; at any rate, it is to me. At a time when principles mean zilch to most Gambians, I would have thought that most people would agree with my assessments. You would have none of it:

<<Mr. Ebrima Ismaila Chongan is not my hero. I will not deify him. The trials and tribulations he experienced have been, and will be undergone by others. Even worse! He is not the first to go thru' trouble and suffering. He will not be the last victim.>>

Jainaba, not only is this passage of yours an imaginary patchwork of straw men craftily sewn here to hit at imaginary targets, whilst the real target remain in your subconscience; but, more, importantly, the arguments are so ridden with logical nonsenses it is breathtaking Consider, for instance, your off-the-wall insinuation that I was deifying Chongan. Do you know what it means to deify? My OED defines ‘deify’ as "to make a god of" and to "regard or worship as god." I have no doubt in my mind that conventional wisdom would not contest this definition of ‘deify’. Going by this definition, and given the fact that I have narrated sequences of event which choreograph Chongan’s trials and tribulations – at any rate, signs of his mortality – can anyone seriously suggest that I was deifying him? Can any recount Allah or Jehovah’s trials and tribulations and then seek to deify Them to rational beings? Are these two positions not syllogical and thus a non sequitur argument from you?

Further to your non sequitur arguments, you insinuated – another off-the-wall insinuation – that Chongan is being turned into a hero. Sister Jay, you are latching on the wrong vine: a heroic act doesn’t necessarily translate into the mythological hero you were trying to conjure in the minds of your readers. To deduce from my praising of Chongan’s heroic actions on July 22^nd 1994 as evidence that I’m placing Chongan on the pedestal of mythological heroism is to play both the sophist and syllogist. Worse offender in the passage above is the ridiculous idea that I’m suggesting that what Chongan suffered has not been suffered by else. This is a logical nonsense: had you not been prejudiced when you were reading my piece, you would have noticed a useful caveat:

<<I hope that by going this far to commemorate the dignified trials and tribulations of such an admirable and inestimable fellow like Chongan, others who know of specific individuals -- who stood against the tide of tyranny in the Gambia -- will name names and deeds.>> Emphasis added.

This caveat leaves out no Gambia who had ever sacrificed self-interest and private pursuit for the collective welfare, and as a result suffered from it. So another off-the-wall insinuation from you.

The most peculiar and interesting passage in your sodding correspondence was when you took to the lectern to lecture on public morality and political theory:

<< Well, well Mr. Ciise, Ebrima Ismaila Chongan might have been a fine standing soldier but fact remains HE WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE STATE during The First Republic! And the glaring truth is: The State is a machine of suppression! Whether in North America, Singapore, Cuba, Botswana, China, The Fjords(to borrow Ron's word) or on the Himalayas, anywhere in this planet of ours called Earth, The State is always an institution of antagonistic class society. To keep the citizens in check, every state consists not merely of armed men & women, but also of material adjuncts, prisons & institutions of coercion of all kinds. The First Republic was no execption. Infact The State under Jawara (with the instruments of power at his disposal) raised itself above and stood against Gambian tax-payers. The State under The PPP inflicted not only armed coercion, but physical and psychological repression on the voices of dissent!>> All emphasis yours.

Phew! The feisty Marxist dialectic revolutionary thundering against the oppressive State! All good and well; but when we get down to deconstructing this passage, not only is this an own goal but, most importantly, it opens you up to charges of latent hypocrisy. So Chongan in uniform "was an instrument of the State"… where does that leave Sarjo Jallow as Secretary of State? Let us pursue the logic: given your premise that all employees of the State, be they white-collared or blue-collared, are fair game, wouldn’t it stand to reason that those who served at the highest level and intellectually rationalised oppression deserve our severest condemnation? Let us be more specific here: If Chongan served the State at the level of deputy Inspector General of Police during the PPP and deserved a hundred whackings for conniving with the oppressive establishment, then Sarjo Jallow, for serving at the highest level as a Secretary of State, deserves a thousand whackings for his role in the strengthening of the hand of the devil in the Gambia! More to the point, can you specifically highlight where Chongan consciously rationalised, executed and helped strengthen oppressive fiats and orders in the course of his career in the service? Did he torture anyone? Did he kill anyone? Did he unlawfully seize anyone’s property? Did he go public and sought to rationalise any illegal or oppressive fiat and or order of the PPP? Did Chongan betray any lifelong held principles so he can ingratiate himself with the PPP?

In contrast, Sarjo Jallow, in his capacity as Spokesperson for the APRC is the exact opposite. Sarjo Jallow publicly rationalised the disgusting actions undertaken by that wretched regime when they threw the recommendations of the Coroner’s Inquest’s and Commission of Inquiry’s mild recommendations into the April 2000 incidents into the dust-bin. More to the point, Sarjo’s continued participation in the scheme of APRC politics – even publicly endorsing Yaya in the 2001 presidential elections – is a flagrant betrayal of earlier held convictions; and, more importantly, a betrayal of such former MOJAG comrades like Dumo Sarho, who to this day remains illegally incarcerated by the regime Sarjo willingly serves at the very highest level!

Cast your mind back to the year 2000, especially in the aftermath of the April 2000 incidents. Remember how you craftily created a cordon sanitaire around Sarjo to the effect that the APRC may be evil; but Sarjo was a conscientious individual working hard for the State to increase the lot of the average Gambian; ergo, he cannot be held responsible for the gov’t’s actions? Nonsense on stilts then, as now. I’ll teach you something about the theory and practice government. Jainaba, there is something called collective Cabinet responsibility; to the effect that all decisions taken in Cabinet are collective. If individual consciences can’t go along with any such decisions, they should resign immediately from office. If not, they share responsibility for any of the consequences of the decisions they have taken during that Cabinet meeting.

Did Sarjo resign his post in the Cabinet after the April 2000 incidents, especially after the recommendations of the inquiries into said incidents were callously discarded by this wretched regime? Instead, he stayed on to fight vigorously the APRC’s public relation campaigns to regain the moral high grounds in the minds and hearts of Gambians and the international community. Perhaps, most surprising was how he stayed with this ghastly regime after what they had and continue to do Dumo Sarho, who remains illegally incarcerated to this second. It is toe-curling hypocrisy to argue that Sarjo is not culpable of blame but train your guns on relatively conscientious individuals like Chongan, who had a better record in staying true to their convictions. This is why I was so outraged not so much by your criticality of Chongan; but how you could exempt Sarjo from any blame this wretched regime justly bears, and imagine you are doing yourself any favours.

At the end of the day, I don’t know you personally; heck, I can’t even tell you from Adam. But I know enough of your deceitful politics and dislike of me. Enough for me to tell you publicly that your dislike of me is vigorously reciprocated from this end. Let’s both live with that as a fait accompli.