Exactly Suntou, anything to discredit a man that offered them pro-bono advice. Musa has also joined the lynch mob. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > My English teacher in High School Patrick Lavelle used to say: > > Darbo, the most dangerous native is the semi-literate. Coach, you are not > well. > > Haruna. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pasamba Jow <[log in to unmask]> > To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tue, Nov 22, 2011 12:05 pm > Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the > presidency as an independent candidate > > > Musa, > Thank you so very much for heeding to the call by LJ Darboe to reproduce > this email. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Please read > below what Mr. Darboe said in July 2011. > Pasamba Jow-PDOIS > *"For the purposes of your question, sections 47, 62, and 89 are > non-controversial and raise no issues of significance. Any independent > candidate for NADD-UDP/NRP would easily satisfy the requirements of those > sections* > * * > *There is no question that Section 49 permits an independent to contest > the presidency:" LJ DARBOE* > > > "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of > justice." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:48:57 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the > presidency as an independent candidate > To: [log in to unmask] > > LJD: > Like most of us in the struggle, committed and wishing to see a better > Gambia in terms of governance and the rule of law, your role as far as the > law/constitution, fairly or unfairly is always seen as the kind of > potential our country has in building the institutions of the law which > gives us hope to the kind of Gambia we can be. Granted this is not the role > you sought, but you have established the reputation, as Alhaji Mustapha > will quip: giving us the ALIKALAGI as far the the legal aspect to all > issues are concern. > STGDP started out very early trying to see how we can find a common ground > as far as bringing all parties under a united front. Of course, our > experience in 2006 was really to start early and try to think outside of > the box and deal with some of the political realities. When the idea of > having a potential flag bearer run under an Independent ticket was > discussed, most of the members said this should really be looked into as a > compromise. The PDOIS partisans who always hold the constitution in their > left hand, and always weight it into their arguments, argued that it can be > done as far as the constitution is concern. Some of us wanted an > independent advice from someone who is not a partisan, knows the law and > fully understands the need of a coalition to bring an end to our nightmare. > When I suggested your name some argued then that you have morphed to being > a partisan, the Joe Sambou’s and myself responded that when it comes to the > law and the reading of the constitution you have been consistent and > without a doubt your advice can be trusted. Below is the advice you sent, > and I was not disappointed in the delivery and the cautions couched into > the political situation we were confronted with: > > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:21:09 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Fwd: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:41:27 PM > *Subject: *Re: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket > > *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:41:27 PM > *Subject: *Re: Presidential candidate under an Independent ticket > Musa > > Please refer to an earlier response on this same question, especially the > portion I highlighted. > > I regret to say your intended proposal wont fly, and unless you can > somehow convince the pertinent players, a party-led front is the only > realistic option for November 24 > > > > Lamin > > > > From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: constitutional question > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, 17 August, 2006, 9:38 > Mr Jeng: > > Sorry didn't see your mail until last night. > > Thanks for taking time to consult on the issue of constitutional > permission for an independent to contest the Gambian presidency > > The pertinent conditions for contesting the presidency are to be found in > the following sections of The 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The > Gambia > > Section 62: Qualifications for Election of President > Section 89: Qualifications for Membership of National Assembly > Section 60: Political Parties > Section 47: Nomination of Candidates > Section 49: Challenge to Election of President > Section 230: Interpretation > > In so far as legal supremacy goes, any IEC rules at variance with the > express mandate of the Constitution are invalid to the extent of the > inconsistency > > For the purposes of your question, sections 47, 62, and 89 are > non-controversial and raise no issues of significance. Any independent > candidate for NADD-UDP/NRP would easily satisfy the requirements of those > sections > > There is no question that Section 49 permits an independent to contest the > presidency: > > *“Any registered political party which has participated in the > Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated in > such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the validity > of the election of a President by filing a petition within ten days of the > declaration of the result of an election”.* > > It is instructive to highlight that Section 49 directly conflicts with > Section 60(1), an amendment inserted in 2001: *“No association, other > than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the > National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public elections”**.* > > Under Interpretation at Section 230, *“public elections”* is defined as *“the > election for a President, National Assembly and a local government > authority”. * > > Clearly, the case of the Banjul Mayor offers a compelling precedent in > support of your thinking, having contested and won as an independent in a > public election, and this after the 2001 amendment. His legal troubles > notwithstanding, I am not aware of any effort to vacate his election on the > grounds he was not sponsored by a registered political party. It cannot be > overemphasised that an independent presidential candidate implicates the > incumbent President’s own survival, and I’m sure you can appreciate the > stakes involved in that scenario. > > There is an excellent arguable constitutional point for an independent > presidential candidate, but this close to September 22, I’m unsure as to > the merit of engaging such an explosive legal issue. If a legal challenge > is mounted by the President against the nomination of an independent > through the invocation of Section 60(1), it is likely the Supreme Court as > final arbiter of any such dispute will decide for him. > > Considering the *modus operandi* of the National Assembly, there won’t be > any legislative history offering a window into the rationale underlying > Section 60(1), the most troublesome constitutional section touching on your > question. The section is a classic demonstration of the general tendency of > The 1997 Constitution to subvert institutionalism and the rule of law in > Gambian public life. In so far as it anticipates surprises and moves to > preempt them for the benefit of the incumbent, the game plan was for all > potential opponents to reveal themselves and be *accounted for* in > advance of the actual contest. > > * * > *CONCLUSION:* > > With the Banjul mayoral precedent, there is an excellent legal case for an > independent presidential candidate but any such move will be challenged > pursuant to 60(1). The Supreme Court is likely to side with the President > under the “later in time principle”, notwithstanding that mode of > interpretation constitutes an improper standard for amending an express > provision in a vital document like a national constitution. > > * * > *RECOMMENDATION:* > > Actively and radically explore NADD as a vehicle for an independent > candidate. It offers as excellent a mechanism as pursuing our ambitions > through the independent candidate route without having to deal with the > legal challenges > > > > > > > LJDarbo > > > > > NB: > > I commend STGDP for its patriotism, and encourage you, as individuals, and > as a group, to redouble your efforts in the search for a unified front in > light of the astronomical stakes > > > End > > Note: This was the lawyer giving us a legal advice, but also very much > aware of the political realities in what we were trying to do. The appeal > sent to the IEC, using the same information was driven by some other > motivation; yes still the lawyer but more of an advocate. > > As for Mr. Gomez, I really do not know the Man but any Gambian who calls > himself a Justice Minister and oversees the injustice that is happening in > our country, and to willingly support it and defend it cannot be seen as an > honest Man in my neighborhood. It is rather convenient to easily put some > of these things on the door step of the Professor; all of us should start > taking responsibilities for our participation in these trying times. > As for me working for the Professor, if it ever gets to that, calling me > dishonest would be an understatement. > > Thanks > Musa Jeng > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Lamin Darbo" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Monday, November 21, 2011 7:53:29 PM > *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting > the presidency as an independent candidate > > Musa > > Notwithstanding our occasional differences in perspective on aspects of > the way forward for opposition Gambian, I always regard you as a reliable > partner in this difficult and complex struggle. Your strong views about my > integrity are therefore quite regrettable. I nevertheless accept those are > your views, and God willing, you shall not be receiving any emissariesfrom > LJDarbo asking for your reconsideration. > > For the benefit of transparency, I urge that you publish the advise I > gave you on the issue of an independent presidential candidate. As you > never came back for amplification, and, or, clarification of any sort, I > took it that you recognised the nuances built into my view. If I intend > to disown my assessment, I would have insisted on a verbal conversation, > and that way it is your word against mine. For the record, I stand by my > advise assured in the belief it is not inconsistent with my current > position on independent candidates in public elections, including the > presidency. > > On your reference to Gomez, I know him to be an honest and humble Gambian. > If, like him, Musa Jeng accepts an executive arm position from Professor > Jammeh, we may not be able to tell you were the same person we dealt > with as part of the vital and illustrious STGDP. In my view, the trick is > to stay away from policy level executive positions in the Professor's > government. Mr Edward Gomez did not do that and his reputation continues > to take quite a battering as a result. Although I question his judgement in > accepting a Cabinet position from the Professor, I wouldn't even passingly > refer to him as a dishonest person. > > > > LJDarbo > > *From:* Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Thursday, 10 November 2011, 20:40 > *Subject:* Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting > the presidency as an independent candidate > > Abdou: > > I do not have a problem with his analysis, and frankly I am sure it is > based on the law. But when we contacted him, and I even when back to him > for the second time months later, a clear indication of my respect to his > legal grounding. He indicated that independent candidacy is supported in > some part of the constitution, but knowing the kind of Gambia we live in > and Jammeh's control of the judiciary, it will be risky to give Jammehthe opportunity to tie our hands legally. He concluded by saying that it is > less riskier to go with the party-led and stay away from the potential land > mines for pursuing the independent route, Now, after seeing his letter to > the IEC, the question is, was his advice based on the law or someone who > had a dog in the fight. > > Thank you > Musa Jeng > > *From: *"abdoukarim sanneh" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:12:58 PM > *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting > the presidency as an independent candidate > > Musa Jeng > Lamin's analysis is the letter of the constitution. You have not see > Halifa's maneuvering and the campaign for the public to endorse the 1996 > constitution and their show case display of dishonesty when PPPwas disqualified. > Lamin's write up was about the correct principles of law as stipulated in > the constitution. It is the judgement of law that form the basis for a > democratic society. > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:16:23 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the > presidency as an independent candidate > To: [log in to unmask] > > It is sad that LJD has become a political hag, and is willing to explore > legal justification to buttress his political leaning. LJD was someone > that STGDP contacted to get his legal advice as far as exploring the > possibility of an independent candidacy as a compromise for a united front, > and his honest and objective legal advice was very important and relevant > to some of the things we were looking at. The latest move from LJDlaunching an appeal to the > IEC to prevent the running of the united front has really changed my view > of him, and his dishonesty is as clear as day. It is very apparent that we > have a lot of Justice Gomez among us, and it is just a question of whether > they have the opportunity to use legal maneuvering to justify the wrongs > Musa Jeng > > *From: *"Pasamba Jow" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:23:37 PM > *Subject: *Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting > the presidency as an independent candidate > > > L.J.Dardoe, please refer to section 49 of the 1997 Gambian constitution. > Thanks > > "Challenge to 49. > *Any registered political party which has participated in the* > *election of a President Presidential election or an independent > candidate who has * > *participated in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to * > *determine the validity of the election of a President by filling a * > *petition within ten days of the declaration of the result of the * > *election."* > > "True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of > justice." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. > > > Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:49:03 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency > as an independent candidate > To: [log in to unmask] > CC: [log in to unmask] > > * * > * * > * * > *London* > * * > *The United Kingdom* > * * > * * > *09 November 2011* > * * > *The Chairman* > *Independent Electoral Commission* > *Election House* > *PO Box 793* > *Banjul* > *The Gambia* > * * > * * > *Dear Sir* > * * > * * > *Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency as an > independent candidate > > * > * * > *“No association, other than a political party registered under or > pursuant to an * > * Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public > elections”* > > *s. 60(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia*** > > With less than a day from candidate nomination for the 24 November > presidential contest, there are strong indications the so-called “united > front” of NRP, PDOIS, and GPDP will attempt to field Hamat N K Bah, > erstwhile leader of the NRP, as presidential candidate outside any > specific party colours. As the body entrusted with the legal responsibility > for managing the public election process in The Gambia, the Independent > Electoral Commission (IEC) must remain alive to its obligation in > ensuring requisite fidelity to the letter of the law. > Ala section 49 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the > Constitution), *“Any registered political party which has participated in > the Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated > in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the > validity of the election of a President by filing a petition within ten > days of the declaration of the result of an election”.* > Although I am yet to come across anyone placing express reliance on > section 49 of the Constitution for the proposition that an independent > candidate is legally able to contest the presidency, there are those, like > *Foroyaa’s* publisher, who take the view that section 104 of the Election > Act supports a non-party sponsored candidate for presidential elections. > Unquestionably, this perspective is erroneous in so far as it placed > exclusive reliance on the Election Act, a 2001 legislation backdated to a > January 1996 commencement date. This particular Act started life as (Decree > No. 78 of 1996, amended by Decree No.91 of 1996, Decree No. 93 of 1996, and > Act No. 7 of 2001). As inferior legislation, it has no capacity to > control an express constitutional provision like section 60(1) of the > Constitution. > Pertinently, section 104 (1) states that “The conduct of elections to an > elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall be > based on party politics” In so far as this particular section conforms to > the Constitutional edict on the point of party-sponsored candidates as the > cornerstone of our public election system, there is no question about its > validity. However, section 104 (2), in contravention of a specific > Constitution stipulation on public elections, states that “*Notwithstanding > subsection (1), a person who is qualified to be registered as a voter under > the Constitution and this Act may contest as an independent candidate in > any election*”. This utterly pretentious posture of section 104 (2) of > the Election Act collides with an explicit Constitutional provision on > public elections, and must be regarded as of no consequence whatsoever, and > therefore void under the supremacy clause of the Constitution > Although section 49 implies a candidate may contest the presidency as an > independent, it is an extremely weak provision when juxtaposed against the > express statement of section 60(1) which categorically states that *“No > association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to > an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public > elections”**. *Under *Interpretation* at section 230 of the Constitution, > *“public elections”* is defined as *“*the election for a President, > National Assembly and a local government authority*”. * > It is noteworthy that section 60(1) was an amendment inserted in 2001, and > must therefore be seen as intended to be a definitive declaration of who > can sponsor a presidential candidate in public elections. The statement > that only a registered political party can sponsor “candidates for public > elections” is too categoric a pronouncement to admit of any uncertainty. > To avoid invalidation, inferior statutory law on public elections, in this > case the presidency, must comply with the Constitutional edict on who can > contest presidential elections, or be voided to the extent of any > inconsistency. In the accepted doctrinal words of Federalist No. 78, “*a**constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a > fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as > well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative > body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the > two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, > to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred > to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their > agents*”. > > Should legal and political doctrine not be good enough for the IEC *vis-à- > vis* an independent candidate contesting a presidential election, I > revert to the supreme authority of our Constitution. At section 4, and with > absolute clarity, the Constitution states that it is “*the supreme law of > The Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of > this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void*”. Clearly, > section 104 (2) of the Election Act is wholly void and of no consequence in > so far as it frontally collides with the express declaration of section > 60(1) of the Constitution on who can sponsor a candidate in presidential > elections. It is imperative that the IEC perform its mandated duty and > bar Hamat N K Bah from contesting on 24 November as an independent. > Notwithstanding section 49 of the Constitution, supported as it ostensibly > is by sections 104 (2) of the Election Act, *Cap 1:01, Volume I, Laws of > The Gambia 2009,* there is no question regarding the purpose of section > 60(1), a 2001 amendment to the text of our supreme law. Undoubtedly, > section 60(1) explicitly bans an independent presidential candidate, and > inferior law in the Election Act cannot control a Constitutional provision > on the same point. In so far as legal supremacy goes, inferior > legislation, including electoral laws in the Election Act, and, or, IECrules, at variance with the express mandate of the Constitution, are > invalid to the extent of any inconsistency. > Accepting that independent candidates contested and won in public > elections, this is nevertheless not an argument that passes Constitutional > scrutiny. The fact that law failed to be enforced by competent authority > does not mean a particular conduct is legally permissible. Although I am > personally inclined against the illiberal tendency of 60(1), the fact > remains it is a *bona fide* constituent element of the supreme law of the > land, and must be enforced. > Hamat N K Bah must not be permitted to contest the November presidential > elections as an independent candidate. To avoid unlawful conduct, the IECmust reject his nomination in line with the clear mandate of section 60(1) > of the Constitution. > > Lamin J Darbo > > Cc: > *Daily News Gambia* > *Freedom Newspaper* > *Gainako Newspaper Online* > *Gambia Echo* > *Gambia L* > *Gambia Post* > *Hello Gambia* > *Jollof News* > *Maafanta.com* > *Senegambia Newspaper* > > > > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤