From Daffeh ,"Suntou, I have just asked the guy to read the statement again, he seems glueless", it should be clueless. Contrarily to your point of view (POV) , if I seemingly sound "glueless" (clueless) you must be held responsible for it because I can't get it why this didactic narration here instead of analytical analysis's that will bring everybody on board. Mr.Daffeh ,I humbly begged to defer with your adjectival clause "-------glueless" (clueless) instead you are the vary one who is cluesless. All what I have stated is that UDP must accept their error and all the oppositions , including PDOIS, NRP , you name them , must stop attacking each other. With all honesty and respect I have for UDP , I must state this here that certain so called members jump into conclusion by throwing out invectives unto others who critiques UDP and its leadership instead of engaging them into a constructive discussions. A notable example of this is Haruna who most often doggedly insult people for no reason or he is boozing out of control. I must commend Suntu this time for making a sound analysis but went ahead to inflict some personal attacks which we do not need at this time. Thanks.. Badou. ' ________________________________ From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 9:24:49 AM Subject: Re: Press Release:- UDP/UK's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements Suntou, I have just asked the guy to read the statement again, he seems glueless. well done on your piece. Daffeh On 4 August 2010 15:13, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Maybe you need to read the release again. > >Kind regards > >Daffeh > > >On 4 August 2010 07:25, 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] >>¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤