Come on Chris, give yourself a bit of respect before you loose mine. Regards Daffeh On 6 April 2011 12:58, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Why did you not participate in the recent interview on Freedom where the > statement you wrote below was discussed? > > You did not answer my question as simple as it is. One honest answer will > do. > > Chris.. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Wed, April 6, 2011 6:29:43 AM > > *Subject:* Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A > SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... > > Chris, do I have to give an interview to Freedom? When did that become my > obligation? What makes you think I was approached for an interview and I > declined the offer? Even if I have been approached, have I not got the right > to decline? Could it not be the case that I was not readily available? How > about a possible lack of interest or perhaps a total contempt for the > freedom radio talk show? The point is; the judgement and decision is mine, > not yours. > > In any case, I think you are bit late on this topic as the curtain has > already been drawn on it. > > Cheers > Daffeh > On 6 April 2011 11:41, Halima Sukuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi Daffeh, >> >> Simple Q for you? Why did you not participate in the recent interview on >> Freedom where the statement you wrote below was discussed? If you found the >> time to read Musa Jeng's piece and you made time to listen to two different >> interviews that Banka Manneh participated in and furthermore you certainly >> squeezed in the time to write your piece, then why is it that you could not >> find an hour and a half to participate in an interview where the content of >> your writings was discussed? I was disappointed that it was not you as the >> second panelist. >> >> Bravo to Mr. Mass who had agreed to come to the interview and discuss an >> opinion that he did not write. I think he handled the interview extremely >> well. >> >> Also- UDP website. I see alot of recent updates out there. I had checked >> it several weeks back and it was full of older material. Glad to see the >> progress. >> >> Chris >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Sent:* Tue, April 5, 2011 4:52:24 AM >> *Subject:* Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A >> SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... >> >> Yes I am fine, Haruna. There is no point responding to this duo. One is a >> walter mitty, the other a disingenuous hysteric. >> >> Thanks for checking on me. >> >> Daffeh >> >> On 5 April 2011 06:27, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Daffeh, I hope you're alright!!!!!!!! >>> >>> Haruna. Cousin Fakoo Fakoo is closet UDP. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 9:26 am >>> Subject: Re: STGDP=?windows-1252?Q?=92s_?=Call for a Return to NADD is >>> Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... >>> >>> Fankung, almost all coalitions are premised on the recognition that no >>> one party can do it alone. However, that has never precluded the legitimacy >>> of the majority party to lead. That is why the Conservative Party of David >>> Cameroon is leading a coalition government here in the U.K despite the fact >>> that they could not have formed a government on their own without having to >>> coalesce with another party, the Liberal Democrats. In a democracy, >>> legitimacy is always derived from the majority, not the minority or your >>> silly notion of equality. >>> >>> My rejoinder is only meant to clarify issues. I have no interest >>> whatsoever, in fostering a ping pong game with people like you on this >>> coalition issue. >>> >>> My advice to you is to consider inculcating some element of sincerity in >>> yourself when debating national issues. >>> >>> Have a good day. >>> >>> Daffeh >>> >>> On 4 April 2011 13:28, Fankung Fankung Jammeh <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >>> >>>> Here is another evidence that the Gambian opposition is full of power >>>> hungry leaders. It is clearly written in WALLS that NO OPPOSITION PARTY can >>>> defeat Jammeh on its own, or even make a dent in hi support. I know for sure >>>> that this SS Daffeh fellow knows that HELL WILL FREEZE OVER when we hear UDP >>>> defeats Jammeh on its own. And yet, all he sees is Darbo. If Darbo is not >>>> the leader no coalition. Oh well, get preapared for your 9% come >>>> November.... GOD BLESS APRC AND PROFESSOR JAMMEH. >>>> >>>> >>>> Gambia: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous >>>> STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous >>>> By SS Daffeh, Secretary-General UDP UK >>>> BANJUL, THE GAMBIA—Sometime ago, in December 2010, Mr. Musa Jeng of >>>> the U.S-based Save The Gambia Democracy Project [STGDP] presented in the >>>> media a proposal he dubbed ‘‘The Compromise’’ in which he articulated how an >>>> agreement could be reached to break the stalemate that has taken grip of the >>>> coalition negotiations between the main opposition United Democratic Party >>>> [UDP] and a purported representative of PDOIS , with the former joining >>>> NADD, a political entity he described as belonging to all opposition >>>> parties, and assume leadership of it. >>>> He posited this as the only realistic option to break the stalemate and >>>> went on to justify his call on the basis that due to their experience in >>>> 2006 and the aftermath, PDOIS will never be willing to go along with what >>>> the conventional wisdom dictates and become part of a UDP led coalition. He, >>>> however, did not state what this experience was and why UDP should be held >>>> responsible for it. >>>> As a result of two recent online radio talk shows in which its chairman, >>>> Mr. Banka Manneh, participated, we now understand Mr. Jeng’s proposal to be >>>> in total convergence with the position of the Save The Gambia Democracy >>>> Project [STGDP]. >>>> First of all, the STGDP should be reminded that this process like all >>>> coalition negotiations requires an honest approach that puts national >>>> interest above all others including ideologies, personal egos and >>>> differences. This can only be done if all stakeholders including PDOIS >>>> accept the universally practiced conventions and standards of coalition >>>> building to be the unfettered guiding principles of negotiations. This >>>> requires that the biggest party be adopted as a vanguard and for all other >>>> parties and political entities to throw their weight behind. >>>> In 2006, both NADD and UDP presented themselves before the Gambian >>>> electorates as independent sovereign political parties and tested their >>>> individual electoral strengths. The UDP had almost five times more votes >>>> than NADD and currently has more representation in parliament than any other >>>> opposition party in The Gambia. It also has a bigger and more robust grass >>>> root support base than any other opposition party. To put it in a nutshell; >>>> UDP is by far the biggest opposition party in The Gambia. This is >>>> irrefutable and beyond questioning. Therefore, I do not see any wisdom >>>> whatsoever, in STGDP’s call for the UDP to join a smaller party, NADD, in >>>> the guise of compromise. If abandoning one’s party for another is the only >>>> solution to this stalemate, then the common sense approach would be for the >>>> smaller parties including NADD, to join UDP since the latter is the biggest. >>>> As a matter of fact, what this process requires is not for parties to >>>> abandon their ship to join another but for the smaller parties to rally >>>> behind the biggest in line with internationally recognised and acceptable >>>> standards and norms of coalition building and as a matter of political >>>> legitimacy and necessity. >>>> Given the polarising and intractable nature of the NADD dispute of 2006, >>>> I find it utterly incomprehensible that the SGTDP would like to think that >>>> the resurrection of the same old squabble that causes serious damage to >>>> inter-opposition party relations can engender a realistic compromise >>>> solution to this impasse. If they had done a careful and balanced assessment >>>> of the situation and the facts on the ground, I have no doubt that the >>>> STGDP would have realised that this idea has no potential but for the >>>> opening of the Pandora’s Box once again. I envisaged no realistic compromise >>>> to be engendered let alone realised in that kind of environment. >>>> By virtue of their usage of an unexplained grievance that the PDOIS >>>> party apparently holds against the UDP as a sole rational behind their >>>> proposal, the STGDP has also failed to take into account the grievances of >>>> the UDP in the same respect particularly on the question of registration >>>> that altered NADD’s status from that of an alliance to a political party in >>>> contravention of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that >>>> established it [NADD] and which cost the leader of the NRP, Mr. Hamat N.K >>>> Bah, his parliamentary seat. Therefore, both the UDP and the NRP can and >>>> quite legitimately, equally use their experience of 2006 and prior as a >>>> justification for their withdrawal and reason for refusing to return to >>>> NADD. The premise of STGDP’s compromise proposal is therefore fundamentally >>>> flawed in its lack objectivity and appreciation of the facts on the ground. >>>> Their claim that NADD belongs to all opposition parties is not borne by >>>> facts. Although the UDP participated in the creation of NADD the alliance, >>>> they did actually pull out from the organisation in 2006 after careful >>>> consideration. Therefore, if there was any UDP claim to NADD, that claim has >>>> been entirely relinquished in 2006 when the party pulled out. >>>> Suffice it to say; the NADD that the UDP participated in creating was >>>> intended to be an alliance, not a political party, and this is >>>> clearly stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Memorandum of >>>> Understanding [MOU] that established the alliance. However, that creation >>>> was completely and utterly obliterated when NADD was clandestinely >>>> registered with the Independent Electoral Commission, despite opposition >>>> from the UDP, as a political party and thereby changing its nature and >>>> status. Therefore, it is completely and utterly erroneous to state that NADD >>>> as it currently stands was created by all the opposition parties. >>>> A genuine pursuit of national interest and goals must always be guided >>>> by principles and values that are universally recognised and cherished. >>>> Otherwise it is bound to fail before it even starts. Thus, the idea that the >>>> universal principles and standards that underpin coalition building >>>> everywhere in this world should be forgone in our case for national interest >>>> is utterly simplistic at best; and disingenuous at worst. >>>> STGDP should also explain why it continues to be their position that it >>>> is the UDP that must do everything inconceivable and unheard of to break >>>> this coalition stalemate when the PDOIS/NADD party, on the other hand, is >>>> ever determined to remain firm in their trenches of unreasonableness and >>>> intransigence, not to mention their persistent refusal to reciprocate UDP’s >>>> overtures. >>>> If the STGDP wants UDP to return to NADD, then it would be advisable for >>>> them to consider actively lobbying for a complete de-registration of NADD so >>>> that it can re-claim its original and intended status, an alliance, with a >>>> flag bearer chosen from within the UDP and sponsored under a UDP ticket. >>>> This must be so as the UDP would still be the largest constituent party in >>>> the alliance anyway. >>>> Talking about compromise; the onus is obviously on the smaller parties >>>> including PDOIS and NADD to first recognise and accept the political >>>> legitimacy of a UDP led alliance, at least in principle, and then state >>>> whatever condition[s] they would like to see attached. That way, we can move >>>> this process one step forward; from the principal issue of formula to a more >>>> secondary issue of conditionality and thereby making compromise more >>>> realistic and feasible. This is how a compromise solution can be engendered. >>>> However, PDOIS and NADD mustn’t think they can have it both ways; they would >>>> have to either indicate their willingness to become part of the proposed UDP >>>> led alliance with conditions attached or accept that it isn’t for them to >>>> talk about conditionality in that respect. >>>> In my view, the NADD issue is an antiquated one that has not only been >>>> rendered obsolete but also lacking taste. >>>> *PDOIS’s Subterfuge* >>>> The pronouncement by PDOIS that a party led alliance is only prudent >>>> where there is a second round electoral system is the most ridiculous >>>> statement ever made in this coalition debate. As far as facts are concern, >>>> there is no second round voting system in South Africa and yet it was the >>>> ANC that led the coalition which brought President Jacob Zuma to power; >>>> there is no second round of voting in India and yet it was Sonia Ghandi’s >>>> Indian National Congress that led the coalition which returned Prime >>>> Minister Manmohan Singh to power; there is no second round voting system in >>>> Brazil and yet it is the biggest party that led the coalition which >>>> brought that country’s new president, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, to power. - >>>> The list can go on- In all these cases, the idea of a primary to select a >>>> leader/candidate had been unthinkable and none-existent. PDOIS’s >>>> pronouncement is therefore not only baseless but also and very clearly, a >>>> preposterous subterfuge that they are now clinging on, regrettably, to hide >>>> their intransigence and refusal to heed to the popular call for the >>>> opposition to forge an all inclusive coalition to challenge the incumbent >>>> APRC in the forthcoming elections. >>>> SS Daffeh >>>> Secretary-General >>>> UDP UK >>>> www.udpgambia.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> * >>>> >>>> ***************************************************************************** >>>> GOD BLESS THE GAMBIA. >>>> LET US JOIN HANDS AND SUPPORT SHEIKH PROFESSOR DR. ALH YAHYA JAMMEH >>>> (NASIRU DEEN) TO BUILD OUR COUNTRY. * >>>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ >> >> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤