Dad, you're gasping for straws here and you know it. Let me see if I can
break it down for you in another way because I think you borrowed the
tyrant's blinders for momentary amicus for nought.
[In a message dated 3/6/2010 3:22:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Uncle, your distortions lie not only in that sentence you quoted but the
thrust of the whole article under discussion.] Dad.
So you're saying Dad that my distortions are not only averse to one
statement from the treatise but global distortion of the treatise. So to prove or
disprove your theory, we will first establish whether THAT SENTENCE
{Halifa and PDOIS "were and still are part of that history"} is a distortion.
Then you can challenge me on all my other statements singly or collectively as
you desire. I will listen to you because I know you still think I haven't
convinced you that that statement is FACT. And it does not even address
Halifa's discrete treatise powerpoint presentation.
[And even bay (by) saying Halifa and PDOIS "were and still are part of
that history" clearly shows your intent at distorting the article.] Dad.
See what I mean? How does the foregoing statement of fact indicate my
intent one way or the other Dad. Either Halifa and PDOIS are part of Gambia's
history in 1965, 1964, 1963, 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959, 1958, 1966, 1967, 1968,
1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, until today or they are not. I think
you got confused as to PDOIS the political party. I am sorry I did not make
that clear to you. To me PDOIS is a philosophy conflicted with the identity
of a political party. And I refer to the PDOIS founding leadership in
Halifa, Sam, Sidia and their associates. Maybe you are now relieved of
anxieties variously.
[You are distorting because the topic under discussion is about what
transpired and should or could have transpired as Gambia moved towards full
independence.] Dad.
NO DAD. This is not the topic under any discussion. The topic under my
purview is whether we should go back to drawing boards or not and if we do go
back, what we ought to be doodling on the drawing board. And you haven't
established yet that I distorted anything. You simply said you THINK I
distorted. We are about to verify that. You and me.
[Let me explain more clearly. Rene has shared with you that Halifa was a
kid in 1965 hence to say that he "were part" of that history amounts to
distortion.] Dad.
There. That's what I thought your quandry was. Any Gambian born on or
after 1965 is part of Gambia's history from that date onward to today.
Particularly if you are a teenager at that time. You fu... I mean messed up big
time if you were not volunteering in the rural areas explaining the friggin
constitution to the folk, and you now complain that the constitution were not
adequately explained to all the people and that could have accrued fuller
independence than what your elders were able to achieve at that time.
[It amounts to distortion because a critical look at your posting will
reveal that your attempt was to place Halifa and PDOIS at events that happened
in 1965 when both parties were not there.] Dad.
Dad, Halifa, Sam, Sidia et al were not only there in 1965 and 1970, they
had an opportunity to yield us value-independence at those times. PDOIS is
founded on the philosophies and principles of these fine gentlemen. You are
just living in that cloud-cuchoo land. Don't kid yourself. So is my
statement factual or not?
The remainder of your gaucherie is insignificant as to me and my
statements. I am not going to waste my time certifying yours and PDOIS' cacamayme
diatribe. Let us stick to your allegations of me and my statements first.
Later. Haruna.
Your major attempt at distorting the thrust of the article is mostly were
you choose to ignore it’s prime area of focus and wading into trivial
issues to show your character. This is the point you choose to ignore. The
reason why Halifa talked about explaining about 1965 constitution and blaming it
on the political leaders of the time is due to the outcome of the
referendum that followed after the Gambia attained internal self government. The
fact that people aspiring to govern them selves will turn down that
opportunity by failing to overwhelmingly voting in it’s favour, shows very clearly
that the people were left in the dark on what was at stake. When I came
across this fact some years I kept asking my self what was the motivation for
those who chose to vote no at that referendum in 1965.
Uncle Haruna, it is this failing of the 1965 referendum to turn the Gambia
from a constitutional monarchy under the British Crown to a Republic, that
Halifa meant when he wrote: "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...
"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..."
Uncle this is the main trust of the argument why the contents of the 1965
constitution and the emergence of the new institutions needed to be
explained to the people. I know you know this but choose to ignore it and slide
into pettiness.
However for you, no matter how much explanation is done for the people to
understand the why and workings of their national institutions, they would
never understand. That is why you even dare to write this: "were it not for
the tide of independences that swept Gambia into the minimum independence
we received..." For you Gambia was swept into minimum independence by the
"tide of independences". I had a history teacher in form one in LK who
taught us then that it was due to India’s independence after the second world
that African countries also followed suit. Not I know that statement was not
correct just as if one is to claim that India gained it’s independence due
to the thirteen colonies in the then new world (America) gained
independence in 1776.
As always you are entitled to your opinion but aligning them to others and
misrepresenting them is criminal. You seems to have a lot of energy to put
to waste. Your country, our country is one if not the most backward and
undemocratic country in Africa hence I expect you to direct your immense
energy and faculties to helping her out of political economic and social
decadence. Pick up from were you feel others are lacking and do your part to
better our common good instead of this "endless chatter".
You are still my uncle, and I love you so much and expect to talk to you
on the phone on Sunday. However, I nearly abrogated our relationship
sometime ago when you stalked about a certain member of the Pan African Parliament
commenting on Halifa. This almost put you at par with Fatoumata Jahumpa
Ceesay when she claimed members of the Pan African Parliament were happy that
Halifa lost his Serrekunda Central seat. It was nearly but it never
happened. So I love you so much.
Nyang
--- On Fri, 3/5/10, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and Independence
On the 18 F...
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 4:36 PM
Rene,
Remmember I told you I liked you. Well I love you now. You raise some
important points and the educational value of what Halifa shares is
unassailable. However, it is not the road to Gambia's self-determination. Let me
review your notes so I can do it justice. It should not be treated casually.
[-----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask]) To:
[log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask]) Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 11:07 am
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and Independence
On the 18 F...
Haruna, Consider for a minute, if all the things Halifa have mentioned
that we should have done at Independence did materalized, how would we
picture the Gambian political situation today] Rene.
That's the problem I perceived Rene. What Halifa suggests was that if the
constitutions of Gambia in both 1965 and 1970 were explained to the people,
then they would understand their sovereignty and yield a greater interest
in their true independence. Now the only way the constitutions could have
been explained fully to all (or most) of us would be to not have the
constitution written in English in the first instance. It ought to be written in
our local languages first and then translated into English. So let's assume
the constitutions were written in our local languages and explained
profusely to all of us at the material times. We would still interprete it
differently. And the political parties will explain them differently to their
partisans. The limited independence we had in 1965 as Halifa cliarvoyantly
shared was more due to the indomitable tide of independences in west Africa
than our own volition and efforts. Left to our own designs, I suppose we'd
still be having the inter-necine conflicts. And in 1965, it was some of us
who worked on that, if minimum independence. We owe a debt of gratitude to
those people key among whom as Halifa pointed out was Edward Francis Smalls
and Sir Dawda Jawara among others. In every history, it is the people who
change status quo antes. The profuse explanation of constitutions and
contracts is too mechanical and discrete to be relied on for any reorder of
cards. So Rene, as much as it sounds good that altering a single regime of
events in history could yield us true independence and value-sovereignty, I must
shy away from such listless hope. What is certain is that the permutation
of events might have changed or the genesis of epochs may have been
different, but whatever independence and sovereignty we would have had, would have
been yielded by Great Britain. They had no incentive to yield us wholesale
independence, and sovereignty is related to recognizable nationhood. We
must not forget about The Gambia's geographic position inside of Senegal who
were colonized by a culturally different overlord. This dynamic had more
to do with our sovereign yields than any profuse understanding of our
constitutions.
[ I think the arguments.he raised are very profound,] Rene.
I agree with you entirely. The argument Halifa raised has been raised at
the time. If our pioneers had their way, the 1965 constitution would have
been written in our constituent languages and or translated to us. However,
we could not do that and it was not in Great Britain's interest to do that.
You could make the argument that had we been able to do that at the
material times, the mere profuse understanding of the constitution would encourage
Great Britain to grant us total independence and sooner. The problem you
then get into is that Gambians had very little part if any in that ultimate
decision, and were it not for the tide of independences that swept Gambia
into the minimum independence we received, our profuse understanding of our
constitutions will not by itself significantly alter our history. There is
what we call the time value of history which seems to escape many a
philosopher. Philosophers cannot handle this intrinsic dynamism in history. if
they could, all our history will be benign as to us.
[and we may not have realized it then, but with the benefit of hindsight
and a thorough understanding of the political dynamics that evolved, the
historical narrative put us in a better position to right the wrongs of
yesterday.] Rene.
Again Rene, saying we had not realized what the yield of our history will
have been is like saying what if the sun were green????? There were a few
individuals who understood the constitutions at the time. And they worked
diligently to yield us as much independence as they possibly could from
contemporaneous history. Narrating your history to you does engender reflection
on your part. BUT YOU CANNOT redo the events you played no part in
yielding. And if you do them, you will only succeed in doing them in a different
environment....TIME. Just imagine, if we had back then, the Halifa we have
now, you could justifiably say we would have come out better knowing what
Halifa's desires are now. But we cannot reprosecute history. The best you can
do with history is narrate it and were you to have played any part in
historical events, learn from your mistakes and not repeat those mistakes
again. But Halifa's audience today is not responsible for the history he
narrates. Don't you think if Yahya had the benefit of hindsight and historical
knowledge of what he did even 30 years ago, that he would do things
differently if his desires for outcome has changed????
[This is the opportunity that people like Halifa, who has taken the time
and discipline to study the historical narrative wants to impress.] Rene.
You don't get it do you Rene? There is no opportunity for a do-over of
history. There never will be. The opportunity Halifa availed himself of after
painstakingly collating our history will be apparent to you
instantannement. Just sit tight.
[Clearly, at the time of independence Halifa was very young; and if I have
to assume he was not more than ten years old. Therefore, it must have
taken a lot of conviction, aptitude, vocation and a sense of purpose, for
Halifa to dedicate his time and efforts not only to understand the political
dynamics of that era; not only to interprete its history but to impact on that
history as well.] Rene.
Don't get carried away. You just told us Halifa was too young to impact on
that history at the material time. How on earth can he impact on that same
history now?????????????????????????????????? I would however encourage
all our education and growth in the historical sciences. Perhaps Halifa may
have been 10 years old and too young to affect the history which he now
wants us to try to reprosecute, but he remmembered not to take the temperature
with his tongue.
[To create a vision: a country that deliberately construct its entity and
survival rooted in the best instiutions and structures, that affords it
citizens to live a prosperous, free and dignified existence.] Rene.
Ok what about that? Do you know you can create a vision too Rene? Whatever
you have an interest in, you will participate in constructing or
deconstructing depending on your outcome desires. People make institutions and
structures tailored to their purposes. What is a prosperous, free, and dignified
existence Rene??? You PDOISards like to sing don't you??? What're you
talking about???? For starters, if you have to design my freedom, prosperity,
and dignity, I want no part of it. What about your own freedom, prosperity,
and dignity?? You must realise that you and I and Bailo and Suntou view
these values differently. What PDOIS has been engaged in since her existence
in Gambia, was to inform and educate us on our constitution and history.
When will it dawn on PDOIS that they can only reorder the decks as to
themselves? What you and Halifa believe is that when a people is aware of their
history and constitution as you narrate it to them, then they will accrue more
interest in yielding the outcome you suggest naturally flows from that
education. That is undone and I think PDOIS is engaged in a monumental
foolhardy as a political party. It is engulfed in hallmark and inescapable
conflict of interests and the people have known it for decades. I advise you cease
recolonising us only to experiment with what independence we may yield
from that. Our children will not let us.
[The argument, I believe, Halifa is making is that we have to deliberately
construct the instruments that govern our relationship with one another; as
well as the relationship that bind us to the geographical space that we
all call our home. Since we all have biases; since we all have different
interest persuasions; and may profess different religious and ethnic i
dentities, we should construct the one thing that we all share in common, our
Gambian indentity and our constitution, from a position of total surrender to
the dictates of what is just; what is right and what is humane.] Rene.
What do you think every Gambian is engaged in everyday Rene?
[This was never done from the time of our independence; and this is what we
ought to do now.] Rene.
You're funny Rene. Just because you haven't been doing that does not mean
your fellow citizens have not. Or is it that we must do those things as
Halifa and PDOIS designed them to be certified as done????? Men you guys can
talk. I advise PDOIS get to work already. Its much too late to begin now,
but begin you must. Imagine you have a blank canvas and crayons. Plan your
life with the givens you are dealt with today. And whatever you do, do not
plan Haruna's life. Please. I have not seen a lazier bunch of folk in my
entire life. With this attitude Rene, the only saving grace for PDOIS and
Halifa is coincidence of cycles and seasons. Lightyears my friend. We may not be
here to witness the next 100 year flood.
Haruna. Don't get me wrong, the historical education is appreciated. The
opportunity Halifa afforded himself from the profuse discipline and hard
work in narratives, is to repackage PDOIS-2011 and discount it for sale again.
Read the penultimate paragraph of the discrete treatise. Allez!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask]) >
To: [log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask])
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 12:55 am
Subject: Re: Foroyaa News: The Road to Self Determination and Independence
On the 18 F...
Dad, thanx for sharing. What a way to sell PDOIS-2011. I mean the history
is all good but it seems to me Halifa and PDOIS were and still are part of
that history. To now tell us we got to start over because the earlier
constitutions were not explained to All the people of Gambia is incredible. I
think PDOIS has been explaining the 1970 and 1997 constitutions to "ALL" the
people for over a decade now. Look where that got them. It would seem self
evident to me that if PDOIS translates the current constitution into
Mandingo, Fula, Wollof, Sarahule, Jola, Serer, Aku, and Manjago, that they would
get more mileage out of it than try to explain it in English to ALL the
people of Gambia. That still would not alter Gambia's history. So to say we
have to go back now and do the explaining to all the people would imbue
patriotism in the people to become independent from Britain again is
mind-boggling. We may not have been independent in 1965 or perhaps in 1970, but by
God we are now independent of Britain. We are not going back to prosecute
history because it will be another history we will make. And that may keep us
unindependent from Britain. What a waste of time and intellect. Revisionism
is for the faint-hearted. History is a permutation of events. It is not
linearly iterative. Altering one single regime of events in
history(explaining the constitutions to all the people), if that is possible, will alter
the entire history. That will not necessarily alter the outcome of your
history. It merely alters the permutation of events. People alter their own
histories. Not the events. Explaining constitutions to all the people does not
necessarily yield comprehension or the same comprehensions.
I suggest we work with what we've got and make it better. If you were to
pick Halifa up right now and drop him in the middle of Suomi and tell him
this is your new home from now on, I'm not sure he'll survive for a week.
Life is dynamic. We cannot turn back time because the new arrivals can't wait
for us to do that. So we need to learn to solve our problems as they are
presented to us each day. Learning history is good for all societies. It is
the lessons of history we must use to adapt to contemporaneous challenges.
This is cheap propaganda. Let's begin again because we needed PDOIS leading
us inorder to be certified independent. Its like saying "follow me to the
BIG DINKO and we can climb out the other slope and be independent of the
DINKO. Just the thought of it is exasperating.
Any criminals and criminalities among us will still survive constitutions.
So I say instead of starting from square one (I don't know why PDOIS likes
going back to drawing boards? Can't they get it right the first time? And
how many times should we be going back to drawing boards anyway?), confront
the malignancies and criminalities today that reduce your sovereignty to
nil. If you can't do that, please give us our friggin peace.
Vat is zis??? Haruna. I don't want to be recolonized so I can be better
independent. NO. I'm not kona do it.
In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:37:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask]) writes:
The Road to Self Determination and Independence On the 18 February
celebrations
By Halifa Sallah
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.
First and foremost, it aims to affirm and assert the right to
Nationhood, that is, the right of a people to a homeland that they could
collectively call their own; a homeland endowed with National rights to Sovereignty,
Territorial Integrity, and political Independence and safeguarded by a
united, free and indomitable people or citizenry.
Secondly, it is designed to guarantee the sovereignty of each citizen
and affirm their equal power to determine how their destiny is to be managed
to ensure the fullest realisation and protection of their civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights.
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.
However, the objective is not to live in the past. The objective is to
draw relevant lessons from the past in order to use them as raw material to
construct the future.
Compatriots. the road to self determination and Independence was fraught
with many struggles, challenges, concessions, reforms and transformations.
The book entitled "The Road to Self Determination and Independence -The
Gambia" which is waiting for publication will give the interested party the
details.
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?
It did not take long for the colonial administration to yield to popular
demands. It adjusted wages according to periodic demands. It established
local councils and gradually introduced the elective principle, as demand
intensified, until it became the dominant way of determining representation in
the Urban Council.
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.
Section 29 of the 1965 Constitution creates the office of Governor
General. It states categorically that "There shall be a Governor General who shall
be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during her majesty’s
pleasure and who shall be her majesty’s representative in the Gambia."
The oath for the due execution of the office of governor general is as
follows:
"I name……..,do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and truly
serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second , her heirs and successors, in
the office of Governor General of The Gambia.so help me God."
This confirms that the Governor General owed allegiance and obedience
to the British Crown. In fact, the 1965 Constitution gave her Majesty
executive power in the Gambia which could be exercised on her behalf by the
Governor General.
Section 62 states that "The Executive authority in the Gambia is vested in
her Majesty."
Section 32 creates a Parliament. It states that, "There shall be a
Parliament which shall consist of Her Majesty and the House of Representatives."
Section 60 empowers the Governor General to suspend or dissolve
parliament. It states: "The Governor General may at any time prorogue or dissolve
Parliament."
Section 66 defines the role of the Cabinet as follows:
"The function of the Cabinet shall be to advise the Governor General in
the Government of the Gambia and the Cabinet shall be collectively
responsible to parliament for any advice given to the Governor General by or
under the general authority of the cabinet and for all things done by or under
the authority of any Minister in the execution of his office."
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.
The building of a Republic is a non partisan Affair. This is why I
continue to emphasise the need to have a transitional arrangement in 2011 so that
we could involve every one in the construction of the Nation we have never
been able to construct for 45 years.
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.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: _http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html_
(http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html)
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
_http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l_
(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]
(http:[log in to unmask])
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interfaceat:
_http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html_
(http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html)
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
_http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-lTo_
(http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-lTo) contact the List Management, please send an e-mail
to:[log in to unmask]
(http:[log in to unmask])
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface
at: _http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html_
(http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html)
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
_http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l_
(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]
(http:[log in to unmask])
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: _http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html_
(http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html)
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
_http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l_
(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]
(http:[log in to unmask])
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: _http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html_
(http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html)
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
_http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l_
(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]
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤