Lamin, there is no point in them doing so. There is an overwhelming case law in this area and their chances of success is utter. It would not make any economic or political sense for them to do what you are asking them to do. It will not only open them to judicial ridicule-the case will be deemed frivolous and rightly dismissed most likely with cost-, it will amount to utter waste of time and money as well. I think your views about the PPP is bit over the top particular when you said you welcome their ousting through a military coup. Anyway, I have a party to support and defend, and it's called the United Democratic Party. Thanks Daffeh On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > But this is the precise argument Daffeh. If BB asserted his property > rights, the PPP could have done the same thing. It matters not whether the > outcome was a foregone conclusion. > > In part at least, Schedule 2 conflicts with Chapter IV, more specifically > Section 22 of the Constitution on "Protection from deprivation of > property". There was clearly an argument to be made in the event the PPP > asserted its property rights as there was absolutely no attempt to even > casually connect Section 22 to Schedule 2's draconian provisions. > > Although Schedule 2 entrenched itself, it was not entrenched by the > critical Section 226 of the Constitution that precluded any amendment to > Section 22 except via a National Assembly/referendum process. > Notwithstanding the purported ouster of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can > indeed attempt to reconcile these apparently irreconcilable aspects of the > Constitution. This avenue could be triggered by the PPP asserting its > property rights over confiscated party offices in Banjul and Brikama. It is > not an argument to say this would have been a futile route as we know that > one party always loses in judicial disputes. Even if the action was struck > out on a motion for summary judgement pursuant to Schedule 2, the proper > thing to do for a party in government for upwards of three decades is to be > creative in its public arguments after it was booted out. > > Whilst we are on Schedule 2, what do you think about the indemnity clause > inserted in the Schedule? > > > > > LJDarbo > On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 1:36, UDP United Kingdom < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > About the provisions above, the truth of the matter is that > they form part of the supreme law of the land and therefore valid and > enforceable. In fact, they have been enforced by the courts in The > Gambia against certain people including BB Darboe. > > Thanks > Daffeh > > On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Demba, the constitutional Review Committee was not task with sensitising > people on the content of the constitution. Their task was to collect > views and to draft a constitution. It was the likes of Halifa Sallah who > took it upon themselves to campaign for a 'yes' vote and sold the > constitution to the people on the basis of half truth and utter deceit. A > 'No Campaign' was not allowed to exist hence, the other side of the deal > was never told. This is not to say there is nothing positive about the 1997 > Constitution but some of its provisions are so perverse and obnoxious that > it's should not have been presented in a referandum with a rigorous debate > and proper sensitisation on its content. None of these has taken place. > > Thanks > Daffeh > > On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, Demba Baldeh <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Thanks for pointing those flaws out Daffeh.. In fact these were the > provisions that were illegally and forcefully inserted into our > constitution without educating the people of what was in the document they > were approving.. If I recall well, the constitutional consultation > committee that went around the country never discussed such provisions in > being included in our constitution.. I therefore think they are as illegal > as the forceful takeover of the government through arms... So quite frankly > a new Gambia shall not recognize such illegal provisions to give self > immunity after committing a treasonable crime... Do you really with your > legal mind recognize those provisions as legitimate constitutional > stipulations that must be abide by... ? > > Thanks > > Demba > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:18 PM, UDP United Kingdom < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > "For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that no action taken or to > purported to be taken in the exercise of the executive, legislative or > judicial power by the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council or a member > thereof or by any person appointed by the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling > Council in the name of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council except > judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, shall be questioned in > any proceeding whatsoever and, accordingly, it shall not be lawful for any > court or tribunal to make any order or grant any remedy or relief in > respect of any such act."- Schedule 2 para.13(3), 1997 Constitution > > Further more; > > "Any confiscation and penalties imposed by the Armed Forces Provisional > Ruling Council or the chairman thereof shall not be questioned or > reversed." Schedule 2 para. 14, 1997 Constitution. > > It follows therefore that a judicial route to recover confiscated > properties is closed to the PPP and all other persons or institutions that > may be affected by this practice of the AFPRC, by virtue of the above > constitutional provisions. > > Thanks > Daffeh > > On Tuesday, 29 April 2014, Modou Nyang <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤