Still avoiding the question. Chris ________________________________ From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 7:35:04 AM Subject: Re: STGDP’s Call for a Return to NADD is Disingenuous - WHAT A SURPRISE... BROKEN OPPOSITION... 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤