Banuna
There was something call trust when a person is selected to handle the
matters of a Coalition/alliance or high level talk. The serious error of
judgement, which I have stated earlier is on the UDP and others to actually
belief that, Halifa will be neutral in coordinating the efforts of NADD. To
this end, I blame the UDP, PPP, GPP and NRP. They should look for an outside
person either from the Gambia or sub-region to coordinate and handle the
negotiation processes.
Halifa's coordination was found wanting, he should have requested
independent parties to handled the difficult sensitive issues during the
alliance talk. This would have accorded him the historical remembrance he is
searching for.
The Gambia want a fresh discussion, not re-analysing a debacle which only
serve bitter memory for all concern. Yes, indeed, the UDP and the rest of
the leaders are to blame for allowing Halifa the mandate to dominate the
whole NADD palaver. History cannot be hijacked Banuna, Halifa does not have
ownership of our history, he can only say part of his own-story... dance to
his narratives if you wish, but you cannot convince us that, he is right by
misleading folks over and over again.
It is with reluctance that, we respond to his attacks. We know he is adamant
with his postures, but we shall handle them.
We have avoided responding to few issues emanating from Foroyaa/PDOIS, this
is to give a chance to serious discussions. However, we cannot let him
hijack the public relation discussions forever. The reason PDOIS is
discussed is fundamentally due to their regular public relation affronts,
hence those who think, we should leave him to it are misjudging his
intentions.

The UDP/U.K and youth wings are constantly following the erroneous remarks
of Halifa and Foroyaa, the era of ignoring them is gone. For the good of
civility  and smooth operations, we will leave out less belligerent
statements, but whatever he will view as historical facts will be
challenged.
After the UDP congress, Foroyaa ran a story saying, Political parties
shouldn't wait for diaspora funding before holding a congress. Now, which
party is PDOIS/Foroyaa teasing here. Remember that, all the key players in
Foroyaa are actually PDOIS politicians. They sit on the editorial board and
can publish material disguising under 'editorial' given themselves
protection.
When I said here that, Foroyaa is politically bias, some angrily jumped at
me, but if they cannot restraint themselves in matters of opposition
discourse, then who is to blame for fanning division? We donated to our
parent party as concerned Gambians. we careless who gets offended by that
gesture. However, the UDP did all their expenses without a dine from us, all
we did was complement their efforts.
Bauna, in response to your mocking Mandingo greetings. Go tell Sidiya, I
said, 'Anin Bara', however, we needed him at Wulli three days ago when our
convoy reached his centre ground of Nyakoi. There three truck loads of rice,
sugar and vegetable oil were distributed. Tell him to contact his voters at
Sutukonding to confirm the story. In Nyakoi, we will say "alil tilin".
The UDP/U.K will not get involve in inflammatory discussions in any debating
forums until, all efforts fail in getting our leaders to a discussion table.
We hope that, they can all see the urgency of now, rather than a search for
a elusive legacy.
The Gambia deserves better attention from all of them. Singularly selling
dormant documents to hard-up masses is a serious futile attempt. We urge the
UDP to be patient and engage with others no matter how difficult the efforts
are. We will encourage OJ, Hamta, Sedia and the rest to ponder deeply over
the Gambia. No party can change our dynamics in the next 20 years, so let
them follow a slow gradual process.
Suntou

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Banura Samba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>   UDP/UK Members,
> It is rather paradoxical  and whimsical to state that  "largeregistration
> of NADD as a political party was a disaster". Mr. Daffeh , you tend to
> refute Halifa's statement that "the registration was a constitutional
> requirement".
>
>  In a hindsight, I hold UDP entirely responsible for the disaster you are
> claiming here, why?  When the MOU was written and tabled out where were you,
> Daffeh and all the intellectuals of  UDP?  The UDP I used to know, equipped
> and surrounded with well educated and informed people , where are  Borro
> susso's? Where you blindfolded into signing the MOU without foreseeing these
> issues ? Why didn't you point out , raised those concerns and blatantly
> refuse the formation of NADD, hence you know the unconstitutionality of it ?
> But you accepted everything in it and even Darboe went to the court to
> deffend NADD's constitutional requirement.Why would Darboe waste his time
> ,resources and energy , knowing fully well that the verdict of the court
> will not be on their sides (NADD)?
>
> There is nothing more than intellectual suicide by an intellect who appends
> his signature to a document and he or she takes a U-turn and said it was a
> mistake (disaster). I totally find your press release disturbing and
> misleading because at this hour who will believe you and Darboe in your
> attempt to convince the Gambians? Just apologize to Gambians because you
> have betray them, period rather apportioning the blame on each other. I
> think UPD/UK would have engaged the Diasporas; and Gambian opposition at
> home with the topic reconciliation  and unity rather than precipitating the
> flames of  disunity. This is absolutely going to be dejected result of
> 2006. Where no one gains except fortifying  Jammeh's grip on power.
> Analyzing and blaming each other millions times as Joe Stated  will not help
> or bring changes for 2011.
>
>
> HISTORY HAS WARNED US IN 2006 AND STILL WARNING US FOR THE LAST TIME ,
> 2011.
> BADOU.
> "Abaraka allah ma sundomo yelehla"
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Tue, August 3, 2010 12:33:59 PM
> *Subject:* Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press
> Statements
>
> 31st July 2010
>
> *Press Release: - UDP/UK’s Response to Halifa Sallah’s Press Statements*
>
> On the 26th June 2010, the spokesperson of PDOIS and former flag bearer of
> the National Alliance for Democracy and Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa
> Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently
> concluded Jarra Soma Congress, that the  and utterly laregistration of
> NADD as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating
> that the registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60
> of the Constitution to back his claim. The United Democratic Party [UK
> Chapter] dismisses this statement as irresponsible, deceitfulcking basis.
> This is a statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to
> distort facts and hoodwink the Gambian public on the subject of what
> actually led to the collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned
> into a complete farce. Here are the facts;
>
>
> In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established
> NADD, the signatory parties including PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed
> will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as
> follows;
>
> *‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who
> seek to establish an alliance.......’’ *
>
> The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article
> 1 of the same MOU, the establishment of an alliance called NADD. This is
> what Article 1 states;
>
> *‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National
> Alliance for Democracy and Development with the acronym [NADD].’’*
>
> All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe
> or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an alliance. There is no single
> reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even
> by the provisions which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In
> fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD as an
> alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;
>
> *‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’*
>
> Those of Article 16 are as follows;
>
> *‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’ *
>
> It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as
> an alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an incontrovertible fact.
>
> *Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then*
>
> Two conflicting statement have been advanced by Halifa as to the true
> status of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12
> of his press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but
> went on to claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger.
> These are contradictory and irreconcilable positions, and it clearly shows
> that Halifa was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to
> what was actually envisaged by the MOU that established NADD.
>
> The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’
> hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase all together. We have
> therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of
> what was envisaged in NADD’s MOU *vis-a- vis *the relevant constitutional
> provisions.
>
> Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a
> requirement that NADD put up candidates in its own right and under its own
> banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit
> postulation of this under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with
> selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks about
> symbols. This is what Article 8 states;
>
> *‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential,
> National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus; provided
> that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary
> election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of
> delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each
> party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’*
>
> Article 16 states the following;
>
> *‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be
> determined within one month of the coming into force of the agreement with
> the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’*
>
> It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form
> part of a broad instrument, the context of which has been well defined by
> the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or
> can be deduced from the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be
> deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the MOU obsolete or
> having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and
> perverse but also inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the
> expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble and Article 1
> which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.
>
> Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor
> candidates in its own right and under its own name in any given election.
> Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by
> Halifa, it would still be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up
> candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section 60
> states;
>
> *‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or
> pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in
> public elections.’’*
>
> Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of
> Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa has been making into or
> purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been
> enforceable without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words
> and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were promulgated in the context
> of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while
> still maintaining the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a
> constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent
> Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD]
> could not put up candidates in its own right and under its own name while
> still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If
> Halifa had not arrogantly rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an
> independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional
> matters, he would have been better advised on this point.
>
> Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD.
> It presented them with two options; they could either re-negotiate the terms
> of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party
> should they desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or
> they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent parties as a
> vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the
> presidential election. Under Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required
> the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two
> options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states;
>
> *‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall
> be based on the principle of unanimity provided that matters of procedure
> shall be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present
> and voting. In the event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may
> agree unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’*
>
> As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek
> a unanimous agreement as to which path to take. However, since PDOIS has it
> as an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle
> to the UDP and its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly
> circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to wittingly register
> NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory
> parties, and despite strong opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was
> turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the
> beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader
> described it as a ‘disaster’.
>
> It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might
> not have been a significant factor in its disintegration since there was a
> time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP
> from the organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that
> NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its
> executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the
> organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw
> required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and
> issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be
> made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision,
> and indeed they have done that and at the right time.
>
> *The Supreme Court Judgement*
>
> It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as
> a result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which
> the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party.
> Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the
> Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the
> National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign
> political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and
> NADD the other. This is now case settled law. However, if Halifa has issues
> with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme
> Court, not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the
> Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear such matters. This
> is what Section 127 states;
>  *
> ‘‘The Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for the
> interpretation or enforcement of this constitution other than any provision
> of sections 18-33 or Section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and
> freedoms.’’*
>
> Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no
> need to show sufficient interest- for ‘anybody who alleges that an Act of
> the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or
> omission of any person or authority is inconsistent with or is in
> contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a
> court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’
> Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the position of the
> law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either
> file an appeal at the Supreme Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh
> application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing
> him arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done
> sooner rather than later.
>
> Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral
> Commission had conceived it as such is utterly frivolous and unintelligent.
> The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are
> certainly not the custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just
> like anybody else.
>
> Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are
> able to sponsor candidates in a public election. Hence, the IEC could not
> have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and
> sponsoring candidates in public elections. It follows therefore that the
> only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the
> purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be
> registered as a political party and be deemed as such by law. As a matter of
> a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the
> establishment of an alliance, not a political party.
>
> The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful
> of certain opposition elements who are hell bent on stoking controversy and
> division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s
> politics. As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to
> be united and rally behind the main opposition United Democratic Party under
> the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011
> presidential election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of
> duty to our beloved country, the Gambia.
>
> THE END.
>
> Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
> Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General
>
>
>  ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>  ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>



-- 
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the
difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs
for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran

www.suntoumana.blogspot.com


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤