LISTSERV - GAMBIA-L Archives - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Independence is not an event. It is not an emotive or sentimental construct. It is a by product of an evolutionary epoch making process which spreads over decades of historical engagements. It constitutes the harmonisation or weaving of diverse communities and social entities into a complex social organisation that we call a Nation. It is a vision and a Mission to affirm the right of a people to self determination in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural domains. Independence has two fundamental features.

Hence as the Nation commemorates 18 February as Independence Day it is necessary to map out the road which led us to where we are today, identify the challenges which confront us at this very moment and indicate where we are to go from here. This is the task imposed on us by necessity and common sense. We must fulfill it before we could make any movement forward. This is the only way we could give meaning to the remembrance of a date like 18th of February.

History is the teacher of all those who wish to learn from the past in order to be able to shape the future. It is therefore important to put the record straight before we could draw the right lessons that could be relevant to our cause to make our right to self determination a reality. It is often repeated that we have been colonised for 400 years. Some claim that Gambia was reduced from the size of an elephant to that of a snake. Some claim that a Nation conceived to be improbable has now proven its viability to the credit of its architects.

History is born out of facts and not fiction. If Gambia was colonised for 400 years why did Captain Grant sign a treaty with the King of Kombo in 1816 to establish the settlement of Banjul? Why would he be compelled to renew the Treaty they signed with the King of Nuimi to continue to settle at the James Island in the same year? Why would they seek the permission of the King of Lower Niani to settle in Maccarthy Island in 1823? Why would they seek authorisation from the King of Nuimi to settle on a landscape measuring one square mile at Barra point in 1826? Why would they seek authorisation from the King of Wuli to settle at Fatatenda in 1826? Why would they seek authorisation from the King of Lower Niani to occupy the land referred to as the Ceded Mile in 1844? If the territory of The Gambia was under British domination for 400 years why were armies under the command of indigenous rulers or religious leaders in control of many areas in between 1850 and 1894. In short, how could Maba’s forces impose their will on the inhabitants of Baddibu, Nuimi and Sine Saloum? How could Foday Kaba’s forces impose their will on Jarra, Kiang Niamina and Foni? How could Foday Sillah’s forces change the face of Kombo? How could Alfa Molloh’s forces impose their will on inhabitants of Jimara, Tumana and Fulladu? Why would the French sign a treaty with Musa Molloh as late as 1894 to establish a settlement in Fulladu? Why would the British sign a treaty with him as late as 1901? It is therefore a falsification of history to claim that Gambia has been colonised for 400 years.

In fact there was no country or Nation with a territorial integrity and sovereignty called The Gambia prior to the establishment of the internal and external boundaries of the country which began in earnest in 1889 and was finally completed in 1902. Prior to the external construction of the boundaries now known as The Gambia and its internal consolidation, there were different sovereign states and communal societies which struggled for dominance. These wars undermined the trade of the settlers. In between 1850 and 1890 the war was so intense that the imports and exports of the settlers dropped respectively from 153,000 pounds and 162,000 pounds in 1839 to 69,000 and 79,000 pounds in 1886. This is what compelled the British settlers to intensify their negotiation with the local rulers who were ready to collaborate with them in exchange for military support when ever they were attacked by their neighbours. They also intensified their negotiation with the French to have effective control of the territories relevant to their trade.

History teaches that movement towards colonial domination could only be possible when sufficient alliances were made with the weaker rulers against the stronger ones and when more indigenous people considered it safe to move into the established British settlements like Banjul. British settlement in Banjul grew in population as a place of refuge for those displaced by war and those freed from slavery. As trade and businesses grew, institutions, laws, administrators and education grew along with them. Once their settlement in Banjul became consolidated the British settlers had to define the territory they wanted to transform into the colony of The Gambia. The settlers decided to define the external personality or identity of today’s Gambia on 10 August 1889 by establishing a boundaries commission comprising French and British Officials. Once the external identity of the Gambia was drawn the French and British administrations in Gambia and Senegal combined their forces to combat those who resisted their attempt to impose their will to transform their settlements into colonies. Once Faday Kaba was martyred in 1901 and Musa Molloh contained, the British colonial administration came up with the Protectorate Ordinance of 1902 to divide the territory, whose boundaries had been agreed upon by the two colonial powers, into a colony proper and a protectorate. All the people who resided in the demarcated territory became British subjects. Hence there is no historical evidence to give legitimacy to the claim that Gambia was colonised for 400 years or was reduced in size from that of an elephant into a snake. The Gambia was externally considered to be under colonial rule in 1889 but was effectively put under British colonial domination in 1902. This is the fact of history and is incontrovertible.

The relevant lesson to draw is that colonialism was a fetter to the affirmation and assertion of the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of our people. At the advent of colonialism our people were reduced to subjects without a home land. They owed allegiance, obedience and adherence to a foreign power and state. They were banished for any sign of disobedience to such power in words or deeds. They had no right to nationhood, no people’s rights, and no right to self determination and no human rights.

They had no right to manage the affairs of their country directly or through chosen representatives. However, they paid taxes, duties, licenses and fees of diverse nature but did not have right to public services in equal measure. This alienation of the people gave rise to disaffection and resistance. The resistance started with the creation of associations, the convening of sub regional congresses, the establishment of newspapers to agitate against colonial domination, the formation of trade unions, rate payers associations and farmer’s cooperatives. The demands were both economic and political. The clarion call of the National Congress of British West Africa reverberated in the Gambia as Edward Francis Small called on the people to rely on awareness and organisation to build a people’s power base that could make the colonial administration to concede to popular democratic demands. ‘No taxation without representation’ was the clarion call.

Rate payers called for the establishment of local councils to manage their money. Farmers’ cooperatives called for farmers’ participation in determining producer prices. Workers’ Unions called for minimum wages which could guarantee existence above the poverty line. Newspapers tackled injustices and maladministration. Allow me to mention in passing that after 45 years of Commemoration of 18th February where are the rate payers associations which demand services for rates paid? Where are the trade unions which demand for wages above the poverty line? Where are the farmers’ cooperatives which demand for fair producer prices?

The demand for political representation went from the local to the National level by calling for reforms of the advisory bodies, which had no relevant executive or legislative powers, known as the executive and legislative councils, through the introduction of the elective principle. By 1947 the colonialist conceded to the election of one member of the Legislative Council. Edward Francis Small became such a member. The demand for the right to have elected representatives to manage national affairs intensified as political parties emerged after Small’s victory. This led to multi party contest in the Urban area to fill seats in the legislative council in 1951.The seats increased to 14 in 1954 and were hotly contested. The separation of urban and rural areas in both infrastructural development and representation to the detriment of the rural dwellers gave rise to agitation in the rural areas. This agitation is what propelled the PPP to the political stage with the promise to redress the marginalisation of the rural areas.

Again let me ask in passing, after 45 years has the uneven development between rural and urban area been redressed? Have the differences in administrative structures which placed the people in the rural areas at the mercy of unwritten laws and arbitrary justice been redressed? Despite all the promises of ensuring balanced and proportionate development of the urban and rural areas all became fairy tales of by gone years.

The liberation of Ghana gave impetus to the struggle for the liberation of all British colonies in West Africa. In the Gambia the Constitutional Conference of 1959 gave rise to the 1960 Constitution which gave birth to participation of all the people in the Gambia in determining representation and a house of representatives. This introduction of universal suffrage was the beginning of the process of attaining the right to self determination and Independence. The protest of the leader of the PPP against the decision of the colonial authorities in selecting the leader of the UP as Chief Minister gave rise to the 1961 Constitutional conference which gave birth to the 1962 Constitution which introduced a second pillar in the quest for self determination and Independence .

It created the office of Governor as the Commander-in-Chief of the Gambia, an executive council comprising the Governor as the President, a premier and Ministers who were to be appointed from elected members in the House of Representatives. It created a house of representatives comprising a Speaker, an Attorney General and 36 elected members and not more than 2 nominated members. The Constitutional evolution took place without the people having full understanding of what was taking place. The Gambia was gradually moving to attain the right to self determination without the people being enlightened to know what that meant. There were changes of instruments and institutions without real change of status. Notwithstanding, Nigeria had been declared Independent in October 1960 and Sierra Leone in April 1961. Gambia was the last on the queue among the four British colonies in West Africa to be declared Independent. Its process towards the declaration of Independence had to be accelerated. Hence in October 1963 internal self Government was granted and the position of premier was transformed into that of Prime Minister. However the Prime Minister was still a British subject and owed allegiance to the British crown.

The claim that Gambia was seen as an improbable nation which could not attain Independence is exaggerated. It has no place in law or fact. In short, since 1902 Gambia had a Governor representing the British Crown who had effective control of the colony. Secondly, the Constitutional conferences which led to the gradual attainment of the right to self determination were demand driven. Thirdly, the OAU had established that the old colonial borders would serve as the borders of Independent African States. Gambia was only improbable in the minds of those who had no knowledge of international law and regional agreements at the time. The Gambia had to be declared Independent because of the wind of change which had already blown over three British colonies in West Africa .

A Constitutional Conference had to be held in 1964 to prepare the ground for the 1965 Constitution which is referred to as the Independence Constitution. This is the Constitution which has given rise to the day the Nation is commemorating today. Allow me to refer to some of the provisions of the constitution to enable you to have the mental food to determine for yourself whether we did attain the right to self determination and Independence in 1965 or not.

The judges under section 89 were appointed by the Governor General. Section 70 categorically states that "The Prime Minister shall keep the Governor General fully informed concerning the general conduct of the Government of the Gambia and shall furnish the Governor General with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter relating to the Government of the Gambia."

Now I may ask: How Independent and Sovereign were we in 1965? How could national leaders who owed allegiance, obedience and adherence to a foreign power be conceived to have brought about the right to self determination of the Gambian People in 1965. The whole truth is that 1965 was just one more phase in the struggle to attain the right to self determination and Independence. It was the decisive phase precisely because the era for colonial domination had passed and it was left to our own national will and resolution to determine our own pace for the attainment of our right to self determination and Independence. The external personality of the country had been redefined. Gambia was seen as an Independent Nation everywhere around the globe. Our leaders had the duty to Construct the instruments, institutions, administrative and Managerial practices to ensure that the internal personality of the country did conform to the external personality of Nationhood, especially when it came to our membership of the OAU. This was the task of Nation building.

This task had six fundamental features, that is, Juridical, civil, political, social, economic and cultural. It was necessary for the political leaders, irrespective of party affiliation, to expose the defects of the 1965 constitution and its inadequacies as the Juridical instrument of a sovereign Nation and Sovereign people who were expected to have attained the right to self determination.

In short, political leaders should be able to distinguish party interest from National interest. A law provided for the holding of a referendum to decide whether the country would continue to be a constitutional monarchy under the British Crown in accordance with the 1965 Constitution or become a Republic under a Republican Constitution. Hence, regardless of their political differences all political leaders should have made it their role to explain the content of the 1965 constitution to the people, clarify why Governor John Paul was still in The Gambia as Governor General after Independence was supposedly attained on 18 February 1965 and indicate why the Constitution handed over to them in 1965, fell short of a genuine Independence Constitution. They should have enlightened the people to know that genuine Independence would require sovereignty to reside in the People; that authority to govern should be derived from them and them alone and should be exercised with transparency and accountability to promote their liberty and prosperity. The lesson is now as clear as noon day.

The making of a modern Nation starts with the making of its Juridical instrument, its Constitution. It constitutes the architectural sketch plan for building the nation. Contrary to the views of elites, that these are not matters for illiterates, historical science has taught that people could only take full ownership of a country if they take part in its making and the first civil act a people could take part in nation building is the building of its juridical instrument or constitution. This is why a referendum is held to approve Constitutions.

In 1965 a referendum was held to determine whether the Gambia should remain a constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic without putting the two Constitutional Instruments before the people to compare. The referendum should have been about accepting or rejecting a Republican Constitution which would repeal the 1965 Constitution once approved and put into force. In short, if the political leaders in the Gambia had made it their duty to explain what self determination and Independence meant in 1965, exposed the content of the Constitution to the people and then projected what a Constitution that reflects their right to self determination and Independence entailed they would have seen the need to transform the country from a Constitutional Monarchy under the British Crown into a Republic with a Republican Constitution which makes them sovereign. If they voted for the new Constitution to create the Republic we could have genuinely commemorated that day as our Independence day.

In 1965, reason was drowned in a sea of euphoria. Myth was substituted for reality. Party loyalty ruled over National interest. Consequently, even though we were the last British colony in West Africa to be granted the right to determine our own destiny at our own pace, the political leaders kept the people ignorant and as a result they chose the slowest pace to attain self determination and Independence. The referendum which was held in 1965 was designed for Gambians to decide whether they wanted to remain under the executive authority of the British Crown or move to a Republic managed by their elected representatives. The people did not know what was written in the 1965 Constitution. They did not know the content of the proposed Constitution which would bring about the Republic. The referendum therefore failed to succeed and the Gambia remained a Constitutional Monarchy for five years before it became a Republic on 24th April 1970. This is the price we had to pay for declaring a country Independent without raising the awareness of her people. We cannot have an Independent Nation without an awakened people.

It is important to mention, in passing, that since the people did not take part in the making of the 1970 Constitution they remained largely ignorant of its content until its demise in 1994 and its ousting in 1997. Suffice it to say that the attempts made to involve the people in the making of the Constitution of the Second Republic in 1995 and 1996 were, at best, cosmetic. The people did not enjoy freedom of expression and association under an Armed Forces Ruling Council which abrogated all political rights. In the same vein, the Council had authority to overrule the wishes of the people. Hence the 1997 Constitution could only be said to be the best constitution which could be made under a military regime but falls short of the best Constitution a sovereign people could make, if there is no fetter to their freedom of expression and association, in order to safeguard their right to self determination and Independence. This is why this 45th anniversary is so significant. It must be taken as an opportunity to emphasise that the Genuine Juridical Instrument, which should affirm sovereignty of the people and ensure the attainment of our right to self determination and Independence, is yet to be made 45 years after Independence was declared. It is therefore our duty to make a resolution to make it in 2011. In order to create a spring board for such a mission I will launch two books on the 24 April 2010, the "The Road to Self Determination and Independence, The Gambia" and "The Juridical Foundation of the Third Republic" to serve as resource material for Nationwide debate on the nature of the Constitutional instrument we need to assert and safeguard our right to self determination and Independence.

Many countries like Kenya, South Africa, etc have had the opportunity to make a new start but have not exploited it to the maximum. A transitional arrangement is always necessary which would leave no one behind in making a new start. This requires a provisional government structure which would be inclusive, consensual and temporal and whose members would not be part of the next following Government arrangement. This is important for every one who relies on some form of alliance or unconstitutional means to put a government in office. This is the new start which had not occurred in countries emerging from war like Liberia and Sierra Leone, DRC and Cote d’Ivoire. This is the new start that is needed in Sudan, Somalia, Guinea, Niger or even outside of Africa like Afghanistan .There is no doubt in my mind that many countries could have a new start as model Nations if the purpose of a provisional government is well defined and its mandate restricted to just one term so that it could bring every one on board in the form of National Convention at the Local and national level to debate on and construct the constitution, involve everyone in its review and adoption, work together to build institutions to safeguard the rights and general welfare of the people and prepare the ground for free and fair election which excludes the members of a transitional Government. This is a way forward for most African Countries. It is my conviction that it is way forward for the Gambia in 2011.