Uncle, that is what the POA is saying. That before one uses sound amplifiers you must be granted permit
to do so.] Dad Modou.
Thank you so very much Dad.
So the permit is actually for the PA system and not for the rally or is it for both you think? It may be helpful if
you can share the exact language in the POA dealing with rallies and PA systems if you can. Thank you.
[So asking what a political rally is without a PA System can be answered by you my good uncle.] Dad Modou.
That was a rhetorical question. It was meant to get at the very essence of the permit requirement if the purpose
of a political rally is to reach a wider audience than a boardroom conference. Therefore unless the POA
describes what a PA system consists of, we can take it to mean any voice amplification mechanism intended
for an audience within a reasonable proximity of the rally.
[What I can tell you is that discussing this topic further will not help the UDP vis-a-vis the situation it finds it’s self
presently.] Dad Modou.
Hmm!!! "The situation UDP finds itself in"???? Dad this is the second time so far you share this fear of yours;
That discussing what is already in the public domain may unduly malign the case of Femi Peters V. IGP-Gambia.
I want to assure you that if you stay within the contours of my queries, you have nothing to fear. I take it you are
with your UDP coleagues and that the situation UDP finds itself in presently is PDOIS' situation too. Or do you
not think it to be??? Neansmoins, just stick with me. One way you can unduly malign the case of FP V. IGP-G
is when you waylay into waxing philosophical about extraneous issues such as inter-party this and sovereign
that. Just stay with me baby. I fail to see your concern for someone who thought the UDP should have dared
the police and security and hold last week's rally. Just stay with me. Please.
[Maybe you can help me with that of the APRC, if you had asked about the other parties only I would have given
you an affirmative response.] Dad Modou.
I don't understand Dad. Let me bring you the questions again:
1. Has any of the other political parties (incl. APRC) ever held a rally Dad??????
This means that the political parties affected by the POA are: APRC, UDP, NRP, PPP, PDOIS, ndam.
So if you are only conversant with any one of these parties, then you answer for that party only. Some of our
coleagues here may be conversant with other parties and they are free to share info with us on those
parties. So forget about APRC if you are not informed on whether it had held any rallies before.
2. And did they use a PA system????
So whatever party/parties you answered for in 1 above, you will answer for in 2. if you know the answer. No
conjecture please.
3. And did they therefore apply for permit to hold such rally???????
Ditto as in 2 above.
4. Were any permits approved prior???? Do you know????
Ditto Dad.
[I know PDOIS is running it’s activities.] Dad Modou.
Ok Dad. I don't know what activities are. The question was specific as to rallies and PA
systems. Once we expand the scope of the 'situation UDP finds itself in' we risk
malignantly affecting the case FP V. IGP-G. So did PDOIS ever hold a rally before???
And so on to #4, referring only to PDOIS if you are not sure about any of the other parties.
[Since you are telling us that the UDP’s holding of a rally is tied to it’s court case then it is
better to wait to for the people's to get the rally they want.] Dad Modou.
You may have misunderstood me Dad. I did not say or tell you that "UDP’s holding of a
rally is tied to it’s court case". What I did share with you however was that the UDP's
cancellation or postponement of last week's rally was circumspect. It helped safeguard
the life and security of citizens who had intended to participate in the rally because as
Freedomnews shared with us, some security officials at the rally to maintain peace,
were armed. The presence of ARMED personnel at a political party rally risks escalating
otherwise benign activity into violent confrontation and one officer may make a mistake
and fire shooting himself or other in the foot. Secondly, the circumspect in the decision
to cancel is in deference to the magistrate and the courts. In law and jurisprudence, and
when you have a matter before a judge or magistrate, part of the synthesis he/she
undergoes is to determine intent and plausibility. So the IGP's spokesperson shared
with the magistrate that the reason the political parties are required to apply for permit
for rallies is because when two or more political parties hold a rally at the same time
and venue, there is likely to be violence. So even though the UDP was the only party
holding the rally, because of the presence of armed security officers, some of whom may
not know how to handle a gun, the UDP showed marked restraint by cancelling it. This
will inform the magistrate that the very premise of requiring application for permit is not
only flawed, it is the IGP's security personnel who instigate violences at rallys to prove
their own premise. And the case FP V. IGP-G regards FP using a PA system without
proper permitting. I think you understand now Dad. Just stay with me please. If there is
anything you don't understand in what I write, please ask me for clarification. Don't
assume what I say or share. Perhaps you can now see the wisdom in the UDP's
handling of "the situation it finds itself in presently".
[I wish everything goes well at the constitutional review.] Dad Modou.
Oh it will. The constitutional question has to be resolved for all citizens. Not just the UDP.
[You are my Uncle you can tell me what to ask my other uncles at PDOIS.] Dad Modou. Well for starters, just ask them the 4 questions I shared with you above. This so that
we can get accurate answers. And not just divine answers. That will not be good.
[If it is Foroyaa I can give you a definite answer.] Dad Modou.
You did say Foroyaa is not only a newspaper, it is the organ of PDOIS. So I was thinking
if Foroyaa does not already have the answers, it can interview your other uncles to
share the answers with us, the people.
[The Inter Party Committee could provide us with the forum to deal with issues of such nature without much trouble or going through the unpredictable court system.] Dad Modou.
OK. So until the inter-party Committee does, we will do what we can. I think the inter-party
Committee presumes several parties in dialogue and sharing information etcetera. And
that includes the APRC I suppose. So until they have an opportunity to convene on the
constitutional matter, we will work on our rights of peaceable assembly. What do you think?
If we have to wait for an inter-party Committee hell might freeze over. And the inter-party
Committee is a red-herring for indifference and disingenuity in this here matter. The supreme
court decides on constitutional matters for all and sundry, not just political parties. Right????
Later Dad. I was busy earlier that is why I was not able to review your response more
expeditiously. Thank you for your effort here. I encourage you to leave the inter-party
Committee to the parties. Meanwhile let us see if we can understand the POA dealing with
singular (not inter-party) party rallies and PA systems.
Your best uncle. Haruna.
|
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤