A Writ of Mandamus: A Writ of Mandamus is a petition that a person who has standing can file with a court of competent jurisdiction to compel the performance of a clear, public legal duty, owed by some person in official or quasi-official position. The duty must be one arising from law and not from contract. Mandamus should not be used to compel the exercise of authority unless there is a duty to exercise that authority.
In that famous case, Marbury v. Madison, (1803), Chief justice Marshall wrote for the majority and stated that, “where the head of a department, such as the secretary of state [here James Madison, yes that famous James Madison, the Federalist Writer and who was then President Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State] has a mere ministerial duty to perform, such as the delivery of a commission, he can be compelled to perform it by mandamus. If a secretary of state can be compelled to do what a statute requires him to do how much more a constitutional provision? The Vice- President debacle in The Gambia is not a statutory issue but a constitutional provision issue. When a constitutional provision is implicated, it demands great attention and action.
Section 70 (1) of the Gambia Constitution state in pertinent part: “There shall be a Vice-President of The Gambia who shall be the principal assistant of the President in the discharge of his or her executive functions and shall exercise such other functions as may be conferred on him or her by this Constitution or assigned to him or her by the President.” In the Gambia, according to the Constitution, a Vice-President is to be appointed by the President.
As things stand in The Gambia, there is constitutionally no Vice-President as such because President Barrow refuses to appoint one. Because President Barrow did not publicly say that he refused to follow the mandate of the Constitution, we can arrive at his position on the matter from the answer that Mr. Ousainou Darboe gave when he was asked the question of appointment of a Vice-President. Mr. Darboe, the Gambian Martyr, and Gambia’s very own Nelson Mandela, whether self anointed or not, and who according to his know-it-all “tal-lu-bays and worshippers is beyond reproach and criticism answered that, there is no definite time set in the Constitution to appoint a Vice-President; which by implication means that President Barrow can appoint a Vice-President whenever he feels like it.
Now, this is a most absurd answer coming out of the mouth of a lawyer who claimed to have practiced law for over forty years. To go to court and give such a ridiculous answer to a judge on why a constitutional mandate is not obeyed would be the most laughable thing there is. Can you imagine writing a brief in response to a petition regarding a certain constitutional mandate and thereby argue for the position that the reason why one’s client did not do what a constitutional provision requires him or her to do is because the concerned provision does not set a definite timeline to perform the mandated duty. It is like saying, though the Constitution requires my client to perform that duty, but because the provision in question does not set a definite timeline, my client can perform his or her duty whenever he feels like it.
Let it be known that Mr. Darboe’s answer to the appointment of a Vice-President is not based on any legal authority or principle of legal interpretation, but on his own authority. If Mr. Darboe’s position is based on any legal authority beside his own “authority” let him point us to that source. I called Mr. Darboe’s principle of interpretation on this matter the “Diyaa Kuyaa Principle of Constitutional Interpretation”!
If Mr. Darboe’s worshippers or for that matter anyone in the current administration, including my big brother, Mr. Mai Fatty, can come up with a legal basis to support Mr. Darboe’s position please step up to the plate. You see, there No; Nada; Zil; Darra; Hani-Feng basis in law to support Mr. Darboe’s position. Mr. Daboe’s time would be better spent researching a legal basis for his position instead of calling at 2:00AM, his know-it-all crybabies and who also think they own The Gambia, to explain why a certain Gambian lady is working for The Gambia at the U.N.
Two points worth keeping in mind with regard to Mr. Darboe’s absurd answer to the appointment of a Vice-President: First the answer does not follow reason and is not based on any legal principle of interpretation whatsoever as I pointed out above. If section 6(2) is not being followed because it does not state a definite time to act, then what exactly is the use of section 6(2) in the constitution? From Mr. Darboe’s position, section 6(2) is mere superfluity. If, on the other hand, section 6(2) has no business to be in the Constitution, then there is a way to change it or take it out of the Constitution.
Now, one does not change a constitutional provision by ignoring its mandate. And also, one does not ignore the dictates of a constitutional provision because it is inconvenient. The second point that defeats Mr. Darboe’s position is that, in a constitutional provision or a statute, where a duty is to be performed and a definite time is not specifically stated, the interpretation is that the duty to be performed should and must be performed “within a reasonable time.”
Reasonable time is defined as “that amount of time which is fairly necessary, conveniently, to do whatever is required to be done as soon as circumstances permit.” The period for interpreting a “reasonable time” in most jurisdictions is within ninety days with the exception of unforeseeable circumstances. If there is a circumstance or circumstances happening in The Gambia, and not a constitutional prohibition, as the circumstance that prevent(s) President Barrow from appointing a Vice- President, he can say what that is or what those things are? President Barrow has not given a single reason. He has been in office for over six months. That is twice the standard of “within a reasonable time.”
The bottom-line is that, to say a Vice- President is not appointed because the Constitution does not set a definite time to appoint one is nothing other than saying that President Barrow may appoint a Vice- President when he sees fit. In other words, the appointment of a Vice-President is left to the whims and caprices of Mr. Barrow and not by the mandate of the Gambia Constitution. The question then is, who is Supreme in The Gambia?
Section 4 of the Constitution states that “ This Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Gambia…”and President Barrow has refused to do just what “The Supreme Law” of The Gambia has required of him to do. President Barrow’s conduct is loud and clear. He is by implication above the Constitution of The Gambia. There are no Ifs, Ands and Buts about it. Why in the world is the current administration refusing to follow the law? What is so difficult for the current administration to just follow the law? Gambians certainly are not asking for much. Just follow the damn law! Because the law is not being followed, it raises all the alarm bells in the world contrary to what the administration may want Gambians and the rest of the world to belief.
Instead of risk being arrested or waste time and resources organizing demonstrations to protest why a Vice-President has not been appointed more than six months after President Barrow took office, the wise thing to do is to file a Mandamus petition with a court of competent jurisdiction like the High Court in Banjul and hopefully see the case go up to the Supreme Court. If such a case reaches the Supreme Court and Mr. Barrow is compelled to perform his duty, then Gambians will have clarification on whether Mr. Barrow is above the law. And if the Supreme Court does nothing then you also have clarification that in The Gambia, the more things change; the more they remain the same. This would be a win-win situation for Gambians to know where the country really stands.
Section 6(2) clearly established that the question of standing will not be an issue. According to the dictates of Section 6(2): “All citizens of The Gambia have the right and duty at all times to defend the Constitution and, in particular, to resist, to the extent reasonably justifiable in the circumstances, any person or group of persons seeking or attempting by any violent or unlawful means to suspend, overthrow or abrogate this Constitution or any part of it.” This simple means that any Gambian citizen in good standing (i.e., not including those in jail, the mentally retarded and minors) can file a writ of mandamus or any other petition to any court of competent jurisdiction to defend the Constitution when it is being abused.
Now, the elephant in the room is, where art thou, Bar Association of The Gambia! From the legal doctrine of nonfeasance, i.e., to do nothing when one has a legal duty to act, the members of the Gambia Bar Association are well aware that such a person or group will be held liable for failure to act. This doctrine is applicable to both President Barrow and to members of the Bar. In the President’s case for refusing to follow the Constitution, and in the case of the members of the Bar, by virtue of their profession, they have a duty to act by filing a Mandamus or something similar to it and their failure jointly or severally to do so.
If for some reason the members of the Bar do not respect the authority of the Constitution, at least they should keep in mind what the highest authority, the Prince of peace teaches us in the Holy Scriptures “To whom much is given, much is expected.” To the laity, because The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, President Barrow can be compelled to do what he is constitutionally required to do. The question is whether the legitimate sons and daughters of The Gambia will rise up to defend their “common” mother, The Gambia, when she is being abused? Illegitimate children stand idly by when their mother is being abused. This issue is a test. This is an issue that will separate the sheep from the goats or the wheat from the chaff. Whenever the Constitution of a country is being abused and the citizens of that country stand idly by, there is always a very great and painful price to pay down the line. Sometimes I wonder aloud whether Gambians have learned anything the passed twenty-two years.
Note1: President Barrow has requested members of his cabinet to declare their assets. Some Gambians in the diaspora have applauded this move but I am yet to hear anyone asks, what about him? Why does he not declare his assets first? Is he above the law; oh! Damn! I forgot, he is bigger and higher than the little laws of little Gambia. Gambians either obey the law or it consumes them. President Barrow on the other hand consumes the law because between him and the little laws of The Gambia, he reigns supreme!
Note 2: The members of the Think Tank need to be aware of two things: (1) Whether a society is democratic or not is judged by how those in power follow the laws of the land; and (2) Whatever policies they will come up with at the end of their work, they need to remember that those policies will not have the force of law per se. Happy Sabbath Day everyone!
By Gambian Outsider!
This is what we need. The learned to guide us. May be she is the only person who can become VP or is she being used as a front to remove the age limit so that Darbo can qualify to stand as president?
Stay outsider!
But shouldn’t it occur to everyone that he has started with himself in order to ask the rest to declare their assets….If Barrow didn’t declare his assets in a formal publication, then the question, (What the heck is going on) must be asked. Ah! the foolery won’t cease around Gambians…..Perhaps it’s the good old culture of too many greetings and praises to his excellency that tempts them to bop up their own chests.
A lot of care is what is needed to be taken by Barrow and his administration. If Gambia fails this time it will be harder than ever to ever make it again.
Too many praise singers. Long way to go.
It’s absolutely the beauty of democracy that breathes & germinates progressive societal advancements anywhere…
The difference of opinion, & free expressions of dissent without prejudices…
In our divergent views, we’ll collectively capture the gist that’s always lost with unchecked leaderships anywhere & everywhere; hence the (our) mundane criticisms based on opinions; all in endeavours to better the Gambia, the world & humanity at large collectively as the global village…
Critical thought provoking engagements, of ( material &/ specific) times & periods (/circumstances) depends on one’s opinion & critical angles of views; influenced by factors etc, etc…
I for one, CAN’T, DON’T &/ WON’T vouch for any politicians for I don’t have a political affiliation &/ permanent allegiance but influenced by ideas & endeavours, etc; however I do have my independent opinion, ( time & again) that I can express as wished, as permitted in democratic societies which at times might align to some politicians views occasionally…
Realistically The Gambia was in a Liberation Struggle some 6 months ago; now toddling on to the infantry stage progressively maturing into advance democracy as with time & age…
It’s some the current politicians alongside many innocent peasantry who’s taken much of the direct shocks, frictions &/ confrontations physically, etc etc…
There has been arrangements & allocations for political appointments for the stakes if the various parties & groupings engaged in the Coalition arrangements for example; it’s indeed understandable that while we always wish & aspire for the best democratic dispensations world over henceforth, it’s indeed unrealistic to expect total PERFECTION at first-step on start of the current democratic journey…
The current so-called Constitution has been abused already deliberately inserted by the discriminatory clauses one of which currently “barring” the current occupant; hence the overseer; none can deny the fact that it (Constitutions) got to be rewritten & subjected to referendum for anything REALLY LEGITIMATE to begin in earnest to be rigidly expectant for strict adherences from thenceforth…???
There’s NOBODY bigger than the Constitutional Constituents of a people &/ a state; thus views can differ occasionally whilst the due process/es of the law deliberations progress; BUT while it’s anybody’s constitutional rights to challenge the Executive decisions at given times; it EQUALLY anyone’s right too to sometimes share opinions similar from divergent perspectives; which is the beauty of harmonious democracy…
It’s indeed unrealistically unreasonable in my humble opinion not for the barbarities to stop forthwith after the demonic MURDEROUS kanilai KILLER DEVIL topple; but it’s equally farfetched to expect total right away perfection of current Government from scratch as “young democracy”…
Good points from the outsider. It’s difficult for laymen in law to differ with learned and experienced legal practitioners like Hon Darboe, on matters of the interpretation of the law, but I must say that we must dare to do so on this occasion.
It surely beggars belief that the Constitution would carry a provision requiring the performance of a duty by an office holder, only to leave the execution of that duty to the whims and caprices of the said office holder.
And even without the specification of a time period for the appointment of a VP, there are indications, through linkages of the VP’s office to the functioning of other institutions, which make the intent of the Constitution very clear.
For me, two such linkages are as follows:
1. Section 73 (1): “There shall be a Cabinet which shall consist of the President, the Vice-President and the Secretaries of State.” (Ministers).
From the above provision, a properly constituted Cabinet must have a VP, hence by the time the Cabinet settles down to work, and within a reasonable time period, it must have all its constituent members (including a properly sworn in VP) to meet the Constitutional requirement of a properly constituted Cabinet. There is no other way to interpret this provision.
2. Section 77 (3): “The Vice-President shall answer in the National Assembly for matters affecting the President, and the President shall be entitled to send a message to the National Assembly to be read on his or her behalf by the Vice-President. ”
Again, the VP’s office is linked to the National Assembly as the only designated office holder to answer questions affecting the President in the National Assembly, hence the intent of the Constitution here is for a properly appointed and sworn in VP to be in place by the time the National Assembly is elected and gets down to work. An overseer of the office, who has not taken the prescribed oath of office CANNOT, and SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, to perform this duty.
It is my humble view that Hon Darboe’s interpretation on this occasion is flawed, as he failed to consider these linkages.
President Barrow’s Cabinet, in my view therefore, is not a properly constituted Cabinet, as far as the Constitution is concerned and his continued refusal to appoint a VP, without stating his reasons to the nation, amounts to impunity.
It’s only a Political Manoeuvre, to discredit the current vice president overseer; who’s qualified in all aspects (including her efforts & deeds) except the purposeful political insertion of the current age-limit clause barriers by an AUTOCRATIC FIEFDOM which (we) all aspired tirelessly against, none least, the current overseer vice president her humble self, to oust for sanity to return back to our country…
Why must anyone really politically rely on something to score political points that (we) all know isn’t right &/ will have to change soonest, subject to constitutional review urgently required amongst others for the establishment of progressive democratic dispensations henceforth…???
The truth should be out for all to see without any cony deciphers; the politicians nonetheless will always be at their gameplays to govern…
Bro….It is not politics to insist that public officials honour their duties, and appointing a VP is a duty placed on the President.
I was amongst those who made excuses when Madam Tambajang was first appointed to the position, because I felt the age limit provision was anti-democratic, but I’ve realised that it was the same cardinal mistakes we made in 1994, when we made excuses for the young soldiers. We have all seen where that lead us to.
It is my view that all who took part in the struggle did so for the love of the country, and without expecting any rewards for themselves as individual, except the freedom that we all enjoy as citizens and residents, but if the position of VP is to be reserved for Madam Tambajang because of what she contributed to the struggle, then that really raises series of questions.
It is not in anyone’s interest that President Barrow continues to defer appointment of VP until Madam Tambajang is able to fill the position. That would tarnish her image, raise questions about her sincerity and intention to join the struggle and consequently, undermine her work as VP.
There is no reason why President Barrow cannot appoint a qualified individual now to fill the position and then reshuffle his Cabinet later, to fill the position with his preferred choice. He doesn’t need any body’s permission to reshuffle his Cabinet. Why create and prolong the unnecessary controversy?
There’s the MAMMOTH difference between “transitioning” democratic government of Coalition, of various (& political) partners; & a transitioned “transformed” democratic government/s that can only regain with the sanitary review of the current discriminatory so-called Constitution which currently obtained from MURDEROUS kanilai AUTOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP FIEFDOM manipulations; subject to referendum & adoption…
The current overseer is performing the functions “exceptionally well” in ability & dispensation; none can deny that; what’s the political deviation from the direct “realistic interests of collective Gambia” in terms of services; ( as to) than the political opponents hinders of the politicians to impede & disadvantage (one another)…???
There’re other equally urgent areas, like the point departing Truth & Reconciliation to commission; for the eventual healing of barbarities to scars; for genuine reconciliation into collective progressive prosperity; (excepted) to catch up with the current fasten paces of the (rest of the) descent world…
Well Ladies and honourable Gentlemen>>> I told you so. How many times do I have to drag you to the well before you drink?…and your answer is> “Well because no one is getting tortured or disappeared” any more>>everything is rosy.
But my friends, viewing the Gambian world through rose coloured glasses does not change a thing.
Yes we all want the same thing, but giving praise joined with hope, does little to embrace the true reality on the ground. The appraisal by Gambian Outsider, is uncontroversial, direct and sends a live torpedo surging into the heart and soul of the coalition.The commentary by Bax is thoughtful with expectation.
I think Barrow can not in himself, make any of this situation right. The stage is set for Mr Darboe to explain everything. Hopefully Hon. Halifa will guide him back to the true path of enlightenment.
The Gambia expects every man to do his duty. Time is not on your side.
Do we then, (are) now for example literally saying, the Constitution must bar all “convicted & jailed people” (even those on thrum up charges like used to obtain in Gambia) from political offices as morally obtains everywhere; where does that leave Mandela & many more engaged in Liberation Struggles…?
My point is; any situational circumstances merited circumstantial analysis in equations on the catalysts on the ground (at material times) who energised, influenced &/ spearheaded effecting the change/s…?
There’s NOTHING I meant to imply for entitlement to anyone; for while we must congregate our collective efforts, we can’t equally expect to gain direct political privileges equally; my position rather, was for the understandable political distribution of political offices amongst them as political stake holders; which is excellent in the (current) holder’s qualifications & dispensations in the position; hence the current constitution NEEDS urgent review within transitional period, where/thereby can only be a (genuine) political argument to the issue; rather than the deceptive insistence on overall benefits of the Gambian public; which is the case on the politicians’ rather current insistence on the issue…?
Actually, South Africa is a very interesting case and it should interest Gambians because we share something in common.
The administration of President De Klerk was faced with the serious challenge of moving that country from minority apartheid rule, with all its discriminatory and racial baggages, into a non racial multiparty democracy.
They did not cherry pick from the “old” apartheid era constitution, as and when it suits them, to achieve their goals in government. They embarked on a series of wide ranging and broad consultations, discussions and negotiations, from around 1990 to 1993, culminating in the drafting, adoption and ratification of an INTERIM CONSTITUTION and the establishment of a Transitional Executive Council to oversee the run up to democratic elections.
President De Klerk gained endorsement from the white power wielding minority when he called a white only referandum on 17th March 1992, to seek their mandate to carry on with ending apartheid and he got a resounding “Yes”, almost 69%.
In short, South Africa had to adopt Transitional measures to deal with the challenges it faced at the time, to move from a repressive era into an all inclusive one (herein lies what is common to us). These measures included the unbanning of resistance groups like the ANC, release of political prisoners and allowing wide participation in the democratic process.
The new government in The Gambia has not shown any indication that they want to adopt transitional measures to deal with the situation it inherited. Instead, they are relying on the same instruments of the dictatorship to govern, but want to cherry pick, as and when it suits them, to achieve their goals. That’s a problem that needs to be pointed out.
When Hon Sallah advanced the idea of a Transitional Framework to deal with the challenges faced by the new government, its battalion of blind, die hard supporters took to social media to make all sorts of noises against him and his party. They were incapable of seeing the wisdom in the man’s ideas because of their unthinking attitudes.
If the administration had sought endorsement from the Gambian people, through the then National Assembly, to rely on a transitional framework to deal with the challenging and complex situation it inherited, no one would have raised their voice if Hon Fatoumata Jallow Tambajang was appointed VP.
But they chose to rely on the same instruments they inherited, so they should be held to account on the basis of those same instruments. No excuses whatsoever.
The only mandate of any democratic government is to make the people strong. Not itself strong. Let the Gambian people’s good future be the guiding principal. All the rest is just political nonsense.
Mr Bax, for your understanding; whiles my last two (forth & fifth) were attempts to respond to some of your point raised; the first three were rather generalized coincidence of expressions; in clashes of ideas; rather (not about) than engaged arguments…
Just the beauty of divergent viewings for collective societal advancements enablement & improvements…
I think the outsider had failed the test he sets out for “other” Gambians.
First of all the anonymity is not needed. Jammeh era is gone and what we know so far, does not corroborate what Outsider is implying by being anonymous. Which is there is a climate of clampdown on divergent views in the Gambia.
Secondly, Outsider himself and friends have , as citizens, the right to invoke the Mandamus writ. Such petition right is open to all citizens and can make use of it where they see fit. Hence instead holding the Bar association to fault, with such a own renowned legal mind, OUTSIDER can take the things into his own hand and file a petition to the supreme Court.
Thirdly, I don’t support the continued vacancy of the vice-presidency. I agree that the continued vacancy solicits undeserved attention and energy better served on other pertinent issues facing the country.
Finally, FTJ’s eligility for the vice-presidency is in no doubt and has political backing in the country. If Barrow is still holding firm to her, I urge the govt to say so and inform the public about the status of the legislation to scrap the age limit.
Absolutely, ain’t no problem with anonymity. Facts matter here!, unless someone wants to embark on alibis for failing to live up to the Gambians’ expectations.
Barrow, cannot ask others to declare their assets and himself refusing to do so, acting by some self-awarded immunity. He can’t do that!!!
Come on…., should I be impressed with contributors identities or their inputs….? Well, as long as the NAMs will not enter parliament hooded and masked, no one can stand a genuine ground against matured anonymous online contributors and participants.
If you come with sweeping accusations and slandering to back up your arguments, I think it is only legitimate that we ask for your true identity and where your interest lie respectively what motives are behind such self-righteous diagnosis.
So that’s an assumption that everybody or I, know who you are by name. Believe it that some may not know many here in person more so in a picture. But, even if its the case that one is well known, what difference does that really make?
Man, it is not a self righteousness diagnosis, it all about speaking my mind even whereas I may be the most vicious. They say its ‘never too late’ even for the dregs of the society so it may be an opportunity for you the virtuous to learn from the spoilt. Others here are perhaps that rot on the big tree to tell you how to prevent the spread of decay.
If you want to know where my interests lie….they lie in exactly the opinions, views and criticisms I intend putting across, if you care at all. Viva!, all matured anonymous contributors and commentators. I am not one of them but relentlessly finding room to mature.
Anonymity is needed because those taking it,,,, fear reprisals. The laws Jammeh used are still there/ on the statute book . So what’s fresh? well I was about to say no one got shot yet or detained or harassed or arrested or protested…Oh! Dear !
The political plays aren’t anything new; it’s in plays everywhere including Gambia, in as much as in West & other places too; let’s stop the pretenses; governments have “yard of (acceptable) measurements” inline with human sacrosanctity but not outright perfection; for there’s no ever perfection nowhere even in the West & beyond…
Donald Trump (US) played “nepotism” to hire family members upon possibly equally / more qualified potential candidates for the advisory jobs…?
The peasantry British (UK) voters just KO’ed the Tory deceptions in BrExit-playing the internal political wrangler; in pretences for political manoeuvre with Tory-DUP “political agreement” rather than genuine general societal interests; the list can go on & on…?
Any realistic time frame for concrete demands is subject to divergent opinions &/ would at least consider to time of constitutional amendments & subsequent referendum required…
What’s important at this transitional stage of government is the quality of services the current overseer is dispensing in services to the peasantry Gambia as whole; rather than the political ego’s of the pretentious politicians &/ detractors …?
Bajaw,
No need for ‘the cat and the fiddle’ rhymes. There is an article on Banjul, among the three shabbiest capital cities/villages in the world without doubt. Such conditions of the Gambia’s capital city/village is not something country’s capital cities share in common. Gambia’s government must concentrate on where we lack behind and not on where others are lacking behind.
The agreement between the DUP and the Tories is legal and constitutional. What it may potentially disrupt is the Good Friday Agreement for the total impartiality of the British government to act between the Irish Nationalists and the Unionists. Clearly this may present an opportunity for a political impasse, in the short term. But at present the Ulster Parliament { Stormont } Has not assembled since January and all efforts to reconvene Parliament have failed. Should this continue The British government have the power to intervene. At this point many could say that any such legal intervention may be subject to pressure.
The observations from the Anonymous “Gambian Outsider” would appear to be worthy of proper investigation and could potentially leave the coalition government to be found wanting, in not aligning itself with the tenants contained within The Gambian Constitution. The arguments from well wishers stating this government is still in its infancy and in time may correct itself, is not substantiated by any statement coming from any member of the Barrow government. Maybe if and when the Think Tank convenes and puts forward its advice, the legally gifted members will state the obvious. But observing the way Gambian government works for 17 years, I can not offer any encouragement that the anticipated outcome will be any different. It’s 6 months and counting with just two and a half years to go from the guaranteed transitional period’s end. That is if the coalition asks Parliament for the 5 year Constitutional period of elected government to be curtailed to three years to honour the coalition’s manifesto promise. On this matter there is yet another silence from Government. I again suggest that the concerns from Bax and Gambian outsider are superior arguments worthy of a full explanation from Lawyer Darboe.
DUP and Tory Agreement is legal but morally pathetic! DUp is a conflict Partner in british-occupied Northern Ireland. Having them in coalition is anything but sincere leadership. It is all about machtinstinkt of the failed Tories and their English Wutbürger!
Bax
You & your political leadership have a mandate to hold government to account on anything you deem fit; & so do us all including where one feels there’re rooms for encouraging such as the current vice president overseer arrangements, which was an effective decent choice IF comes to her selfless services & qualifications which is Excellent for Gambia at large but (except) for the political egoistic discrediting & impediment of the opposing politicians rather simply hiding behind the current dictatorship-constitution; I for one believe, such an issue can have a moral & definitive arguments bases on the constitutional review & referendum yet to come…
While South Africa had the opportunity to dismantle apartheid by initial “constitutional adjustments & changes” which enabled them to start afresh, Gambia is yet to effectively adjust &/ change any clauses in the current discriminatory constitution; which should show that we have to get the real dedicated people in the various jobs to uplift & stir the country ahead rather than just meaningless political appointments for the sake of it…
When it’s acceptable (to risk BrExit turning into Brestroy) “constitutionally” to agree with DUP in Britain to maintain a political domination & retain power whilst literally siding with one part of the community against another in hypocrisy in a so-called mature democracy why would one expect perfection in a 6 months old democratic government still juggling with a dictatorship constitution…?
Barrow can’t ask others (ministers only) to declare assets & dodge out; I believe him too will come to declare subsequently in time of the ministers doing so…
Politics is full of deceptions everywhere NOT just in Gambia; what’s UNACCEPTABLE is the human butchering as used to obtain under the MURDEROUS OPPRESSIVE kanilai KILLER FIEFDOM; the current government need all including support, encouragement &/ constructive criticisms; while the defamatory & political manoeuvre will be laid bare for all to digest…
It’s everyone’s rights to criticise, commend &/ encourage the government whenever &/ wherever one deems necessarily appropriate…
Let’s not conflate different issues. Hon FTJ’s qualities of leadership and selfless service are not the issue here. Of course, I hold the view that when a position in government seems to be reserved for someone due to their past efforts or for whatever reasons, then questions about sincerity and motivation have to be asked.
However, the issue here is adherence to the rule of law. Should an individual’s qualities of leadership justify departure from adherence to the rule of law?
Should the government and its agencies be allowed to cherry pick which provisions of the constitution to uphold and which not?
Some of us think they shouldn’t whilst others think they should. That’s the reasons for these discussions and that should be clear to all of us. No other inferences can be justifiable made for the reasons of these discussions, as far as I am concerned.
As with Yaya Jammeh, one thing led to the other and if there is anything we should learn from that cardinal mistake, it should be NEVER AGAIN to remain quiet or justice acts of impunity.
The recently delivered Budget is another case in point where we should ask questions. It includes the sale of Yaya Jammeh’s assets to raise revenue but there is something troubling here, isn’t it? It was only a few months ago that we all applauded the government’s victory at the courts to freeze his assets until the government can investigate the legitimacy and sources and how he acquired these assets.
So there are questions we should ask our government. For example, how did we get from freezing assets to selling them, within a few months? Who did the investigation and what form did it take: internal audit, commission of enquiry (which was the initial promise) or what? What was the extent of Jammeh’s theft of state funds and how much does he owe the state? Have all the assets been accounted for? Has the issues about ownership queries of any listed assets been resolved? (at least we know one company’s ownership was contested by its CEO).
Who made the decision to “unfreeze” and sell assets frozen by a court of law: was it a court of law or an executive order?
Or does a Gambian’s past records justify a departure from the rule of law, yet again? These are legitimate questions that should be asked.
You have legitimate questions to ask Bax; as you stated here & it’s in the name of Gambia for such issues to become clear as communal societal concerns; that’s what Gambia needs; to work towards the common good; rather for the individualistic, political grouping &/ ideology, etc, against genuine Gambian societal advancements…
The government needs clear the air & hopefully will do so as matters of MANDATORY incumbency upon them as expected & REQUIRED…
As diverse people some will undoubtedly have divergent viewings to same issues at stakes, at particular times; NOBODY will deny the current constitution & the particular clause (the political opponents are trying to bar Madame Tambang from holding the office) NEEDS URGENT REVIEW subject to referendum; NOBODY can deny (except on political & individual reasons) that Mrs Tambang is INCAPABLE of the job she’s doing when you come to PURELY services to Gambia & it’s INTEREST; why would anyone (rather except on pure political grounds ONLY) sell to anyone that the noises about the constitution failure overseer VP appointment is a realistic debate; why can’t any (reasonable) person, at least see to the constitutional reviewing & referendum (my opinion); & rather get everyone spend valuable time on to the reviewing & revisions required through to reconciliation & genuine societal advancements endeavours in earnest…?
In South Africa, for example, both De Klerk & Mandela were prepared to “break the banks” for communal rehabilitation, reunion & reconciliation purposely for SOCIETAL advancements(& jointly won Humanity Novel accolade); but not for individual &/ partisan manoeuvres as in the case on the VP issue here currently in Gambia…
That made South African case study a “success” before; but I doubt anymore; as Zuma the Dirimoh gnaws into the very fabrics of what laid & hold the great revolution; (things) will either have to revamp / overhaul / left to stand the test of times (yet to come)…
For the “aircraft sales”; from my own guess & observation (opinion), might do something with the “deterioration, tire & wear” in the values of such assets when kept with time…
Hence the quicker way of “liquidation” into consolidate funds & resources whilst “good value for marketing” would be in Gambia communal interests…
What requires are the transparent dealing & detailing for accountability purposes; together with rests of any assets frozen (yet to be) &/ otherwise…
Better Gambia Together…
Kinteh{Kemo} Had the Labour Party gained enough seats, be sure that The Scottish Nationalists would have formed a coalition with Labour to gain power. I myself see no problem with the formation of any coalition of political parties. However there is no coalition between the Democratic Unionist Party and The Conservative and Unionist Party.It is a supply arrangement that assists the Tories in holding a working Majority and enables it to form the Queen’s government and attempt to deliver the articles and legislative ambition contained in the Queen#s speech. That set aside I do not see why you attack everything I say for the sake of it. If you have nothing constructive to offer to the debate then shut your cake hole. The debate here between friends is truly enlightening and constructive and offers true democracy and leadership, presently absent from your own coalition.
It is you who brought up the topic DUP and tried to justify the unholy-coalition government in Westminster while bashing the coalition government in the Gambia. My input here is to make sure that the forum contributors and readers get broad perspective and not be tempted to view the Barrow govt in isolation. We currently have an old democracy in Westminster struggling with a coalition- led by a weakened prime minister at the mercy of the Northern Ireland unionist extremists. I know that this sore spot for many English people but it is the fact.
Mike; how acceptable it is for a “supply arrangement” to lawfully be constitutional in holiest Britain than not the current service for value in the government VP appointment in Gambia…?
You clandestinely mentioned “queen speech” implying (that it was) for peasantry British advancements; when the actual (truly) reality is the whole thing was a Tory written policy manipulations; which was in fact, put off (delayed in time) for the supreme (superior) Tory political partisan interests, which takes precedence for the political negotiations with the DUP above British basic genuine communal interests…?
Whilst others (commentators) may have the time & energy; you got to be serious for me, for one, to spare my valuable time on…
Forward Gambia & nothing more…
Let not me or anyone else distract this very interesting debate: by responding to issues off piste. If you have any concerns here in Britain write to your local MP. Otherwise Gambia needs you. I think Bax is up to his very high standard. Maybe others have no response to his intelligence, and seek to have a go at me. But that’s ok, If you can’t win this argument then feel free to change the subject as a diversion. I am happy to read Bax anytime.
A circumspectory approach to opinion stating is not a bad thing as we scrutinise the Barrow govt. Readers want to be provided with perspective analysis not just undifferentiated criticism handled in isolation. I am not living in UK and do not plan to do so.
Then perhaps you should give” your readers” something to read…apart from wishing Gambian Outsider to “Stay outside ” This is not your exclusive club where any members you choose are banned. This is a British based publication staffed by reputable Gambians trying to be inclusive. Your government are welcome to come here and defend their lack of progress. But maybe there are some questions they may find too difficult to negotiate. Certainly the standard of enquiry from contributors on Jollof News appears to be higher rated. Over the last 24 hours The BBC have welcomed the opinions of Sarata Jabbi and Fatou Bensouda.
I hope not that jollof becomes a platform for the “few” jostling for attention oblivious to the “many” whose political weight decide the direction of the country. It would be sad and self serving. I trust editors of jollof want to influence the narrative on the ground less it is a worthless undertaking.
You are entitled to your opinion. For Jollof News policy I would suggest you make contact with the Editors. I am distant from any such matters and that’s the way I like it. Anything else ?
Nope! Settled!
Yes!; one more thing; before then Mike; sometimes you tend too jumpy (swallow baits, sinks & lines) unto issues; before you know, you started readjusting to moderately backtrack with one corner of your mouth, to another; then attempt-jumping out back, on one leg & another…
The Gambia indeed needs “all the help”; & in so doing anyone (Gambian & OTHERWISE) are HONESTLY (genuinely) entitled to take &/ identify sides on the political divisions as beauty of democracy…
What some of us can’t afford is to spend our invaluable time allocated for societal advancements endeavours to be spent on trivial detractions & distractions…
It’s far from perfect in the West (US, UK & anywhere else) for the matter; it’s just (Sir John) Chilcot on reprimand for Tony Blair’s dubious bloodstained MURDEROUS deceptions on the Iraqi war, for example & the current aftermath into posterity; the current Tory fiasco & the general lack (ABSENCE) of leadership in Western governments as obtained lately amongst the dares & threats to the worldwide world; not just the West; why do you think you can out-snore everyone on here; when in actual fact, (you) can ONLY scare life out your fat-cats in Britain & the West in Priestly robes & falsehood representation of & playing God on earth…?
Next time please before you leap, (take) look better around in UK (West); before you assume the self-appointed referee, judge & the overall knowhow role status you tend to conscious & unconsciously (knowing &/ unknowingly) allocated/awarded to yourself on here…
(Opinion)
Bajaw>>>thank you for you reprimand. From you it is always welcome. Oh! and by the way>>I am not Yahya Jammeh. You must find new play mate.Enjoy the heatwave and Wimbledon.
…..and daddy Please don’t smack me>>>it’s against the Law in Britain and America.
Far from smacks Mike; my children are expected to be mannered; & distinct truth from falsehood; so (that) they too (will) have to be responsible (parenting purposes) at some point in time; passing the baton of responsible sustenance of the progressive human chain for the better…
The virtues of honest dedication to humanity; & innovative advancements endeavours as owed to one another; in our this global village…
Thank you
Your contribution to the future of humanity is much appreciated.