(JollofNews) – The leader of one of the political parties in the Gambia’s coalition government has warned against the distortion of the coalition agreement which gave birth to the government of Adama Barrow.
Halifa Sallah of the People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS), said the rules relating to the birth of the coalition are clear and must not be distorted.
In the run-up to last year’s presidential elections, opposition parties in the country formed a united from and successfully challenged former long-term ruler Yahya Jammeh in the polls.
As part of a memorandum signed by parties in the coalition, the president after winning the election would govern the country for three years before dissolving the government and calling for fresh elections.
The parties also agreed that in the interest of fairness, the incumbent would be disqualified from contesting future elections.
However, eight months after winning the election, President Adama Barrow is refusing to give a definite answer whether he is going to respect the coalition agreement.
The leader of Mr Barrow’s United Democratic Party (UDP), Ousainou Darboe, who is also minister of Foreign Affairs, is urging the president to stay in power for five years as stated in the country’s constitution and has threatened to take legal actions should the president step down after three years.
Mr Darboe, who was in jail when the agreement was made – for taking part in an ‘unauthorised’ protest against the regime of Yahya Jammeh – also argued that the memorandum establishing the coalition government was not agreed and signed by leaders of the coalition government.
But speaking to reporters shortly after returning from his tour of European countries including Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Germany, where he held meetings with Diaspora Gambians, Mr Sallah insisted that the three-year transition period was endorsed by all coalition partners.
“Whoever disagrees with me can debate me on the issue on national television,” he said.
“This agreement has been signed by everyone who is member of the coalition. The custodian is Ajaratou Fatoumata Tambajang, who is the chairperson of the coalition.
“What we agreed cannot be distorted, and must not be distorted.”
Meanwhile, a respected civil society activist, Madi Jobarteh, has called on the coalition partners to clear air over the memorandum of understanding.
“Since the opposition convention in October 2016, all of its leaders, individually and collectively including President Adama Barrow have consistently told Gambians that they had signed a memorandum of understanding to come together as a unified force to bring about change in the Gambia,” he said.
Mr Jobarteh added: “Whether the MoU was signed or not, the fact remains that no Gambian newspaper (at home or abroad) has ever published the signed copy yet. When you do a Google search for the Opposition Coalition MoU, it does not show! Therefore, where is our document? Who has it? Why are these politicians bickering over a document on the basis of which they came together to form a Coalition? It was that Coalition that obtained the support of Gambians to vote for Adama Barrow as president.
“Therefore, the members of the Coalition, individually and collectively including Pres. Adama Barrow owe Gambians the truth about the signed MoU which they need to produce for the public. Gambians have held the view that the document was signed. Hence it would be indeed an act of betrayal and falsehood for them to have failed to sign the document and not only kept quiet about it but also continue to give the impression that they signed it.
“The issue that citizens must recognize here is that this MoU is a national document. It is a historic document that recorded and cemented a national liberation process and achievement. Hence the Coalition MoU must be a document to be put in our national museum and archives for posterity. It is a public property and it must be in the public domain. Thus, this document is too important to be played with as a toy by the country’s governing politicians and their parties. The issue of this document is even more pertinent given the issues therein that have become punching bags for opposing parties and their supporters.”
It is definitely necessary that the document (MOU) is produced for verification or for those in the know to come out and clarify the status of that document. However, since it is regarded by even its fiercest defender, Mr Sallah, as a “gentleman’s agreement “, does it really matter whether it was signed or not. Honouring a gentleman’s agreement, from my viewpoint, is entirely dependent on the trustworthiness, sincerity and credibility of the parties to the agreement, and so far, ONLY Mr Sallah has shown that he has these qualities, amongst the parties. The rest, either through their utterances, ambiguity or deafening silence, have not shown that they possess these qualities.
As for the MOU, what matters for me, is that when the document was formalised and presented to the public, none of the partners present publicly objected to it or any part of it, and one can therefore draw the conclusion, that there was consensus to adopt the document as the framework for collaboration in government, if victory was acquired at the polls.
The MOU also contains ideas and ideals which are in accordance with the aspirations of many genuine democrats, and except for the 3 Year Term of flag bearer ( who wasn’t known at the time), one would struggle to raise genuine objections about it. The question therefore is, or should be, “why is the document being rejected?” I would like people to be focused and refuse to be distracted. I would like journalists to ask those who reject the MOU, particularly Mr Darboe, why they are rejecting a document which aims to, amongst many:
-end impunity and self perpetuating rule in The Gambia;
-institunalize term limits and strengthen checks and balances for oversight institutions to hold government accountable to the people;
-educate Gambians on ethics of electoral conduct and promote exemplary and mature citizens during the 2016 election period and beyond;
-uphold and defend the secularity of the state and discourage discrimination of any kind;
-carry out constitutional reform to broaden rights, decriminalize speech and uphold fundamental rights; etc
Let’s hear whether these people object to these values and why.
If it is a “gentleman agreement”, then it beggars question whether it has the legal power to overrule the constitutionally mandated 5 year term. Even if it were to be signed, court interpretation would most likely see the MOU as a set of modus operandi of allied parties that is not binding on the constitution or electoral law stated guidelines. That means it would rest on the goodwill of Barrow to resign on his own accord or if he deems fit continue to the end of the 5 year mandate. He can reconvene the signing parties and put forward his argument why he should carry on beyond the 3 year agreement.
So the agreement reached must not be seen as a nationally binding document but a working documents for the allied parties. Finally, with the perception out there that only pdois party is championing this 3 year term, I fear that their absence in the executive undermines their ability to enforce the MOU – irrespective of whether it is signed or a “gentleman agreement “.
1. Except for the suggestion that PDOIS is trying to “enforce” the MOU, I will absolutely agree with your views. I don’t think anyone within the coalition partnership is making a case for the superiority of the MOU over the Constitution.
2. The perception being created about PDOIS’ determination to force Mr Barrow to step down after 3 years, is the result of deliberate misinformation by elements within the coalition camp, whose aim is to distort the facts and distract from the crucial issues. There is not even an iota of truth in what they say.
Statements/utterances from PDOIS clearly show that, whilst they would wish for Mr Barrow to honour the 3 Year Coalition Agreement, as a foundation to combat self perpetustion, that decision is entirely his to make, and if he chose to enjoy his full 5 Year term, that will be end of the matter for them.
Suwaibou Touray even asked rhetorically, in a recent interview, what anyone would tell a court of law, if Barrow decides to complete his 5 Year Term or resign after 3 years. So the 3 Year issue constantly kept in the public space, is a STRAWMAN.
3. PDOIS’ absence from Cabinet is often used to make certain justifications, including the view that it is a legitimate reason for Barrow not to honour his 3 Year pledge, which he made on a number of ocassions.
However, if Mr Suwaibou Touray’s recent revelation that Mr Darboe refused to sign the MOU and rejected it soon after coming out of prison, then I will say that such action constitutes far more legitimate reasons for PDOIS to excuse itself from Cabinet.
Why?
The Coalition is composed of 7 “different” political parties and an independent candidate, each with their own ideas for government and approach to governance. We all know that PDOIS is a socialist party, whilst the rest, we assume, are neoliberal capitalists, of varying degrees.
Wouldn’t it be a coalition of chaos in government, if there is no common framework to guide and ensure unison in government from such a diverse group, with one probably, diametrically opposed to the rest in approach to government? How can Socialists and Capitalists work harmoniously in government, without such a framework.
The MOU provided such a framework, and when Mr Darboe rejected it and refused to sign, he has essentially destroyed the only instrument that could make harmony in Cabinet possible between the partners.
My reasoning here is that, from the perspective of PDOIS, once the MOU was torpedoed, they did not see any basis to be in Cabinet because there was nothing to say what direction cabinet will go.
With the MOU, the direction is clear but without it, nobody knows what’s going to happen. So they thought it was in everyone’s interests that they opt out of the executive and contribute from the legislature.
I think that without a framework for collaboration in government, President Barrow is better off without PDOIS in Cabinet, as their presence can create challenges.
I am really confused which side to be.As I cannot sit on the fence on the whole Coalition MOU.Since it was gentle man’s agreement as said by Mr Sallah.Do they signed the MOU or they don’t signed it?If so let him produce material evidence to us by clearing the doubt since the President and the coalition members are silence of the whole issued.Then Gambians would know which direction to take.
In some cases at Law; A verbal agreement can be deemed legal. However, a verbal agreement is inferior to a written and signed agreement. To determine a verbal agreement it must be established that the said verbal agreement must be proved beyond any doubt with convincing evidence. If Mr Darboe is not supporting the MOU….then I think a verbal agreement would be very difficult to establish. The question then would be why ? This would then be up to the Judges explanation, in his or her judgement. I am certain Lawyer Darboe knows.
It is evident in many folk’s arguments that what is ‘legal’ or ‘constitutional’ and vice versa, are strictly supposed to be those already stipulated in a book of constitution.
My individual conviction is that, a fundamental constitution, based on common human intelligence and values, is also a potential and a well able guide, to be further able to determine, what in our actions, verbally presented ideas or ideals, are constitutional or unconstitutional.
How therefore, can [agreements] that led to uprooting an illegally entrenched dictatorship, that prostituted the fundamental constitution of human rights values of the country through a parliament at gunpoint, threat of torture, extra judicial killing and all forms of persecution, be considered unconstitutional??
No, there are absolutely no unconstitutionalities in the coalition agreement/s documented and signed, or not.
PS: And please let authors not forget including the picture of Doctor Isatou Touray when publishing pictures of coalition leaders in articles relating to the coalition. To resort to hissing this request off with the common illful Gambian rhetoric of; ‘It Depends on Who You Know in the Gambia’, will be a very sinful misjudgement herein!
I am afraid I have no other choice but to side with Bax’s and the tobabo’o Mr Scale’s analysis of this contentious issue that has so far refused to go away. In fact, the matter has been settled in Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish & Norwegian) case law for ages now. Remember, coalition governments are the norm rather than the exception in that part of the world. The question at hand, to my mind, boils down to the following question: In cases of defects in contractual documents that are borderline cases between pure constitutional law and the law of contract that makes the latter immediately unenforceable, does the law of contract in such cases overrule stipulations of constitutional law that are at variance with it or vice versa? All we know from the press so far is that there has been an agreement (or an MoU, if you will) between a number of political parties, but we still do not know the precise contents of it. In such a scenario, both the Danish Ombudsman and the higher courts of the kingdom have in due course ruled that constitutional provisions that contradict such contractual terms overrule the latter. Being a democracy, and in the light of available international jurisprudence on the matter, I see no reason why a Gambian court should rule otherwise – bearing in mind that the constitution of any nation is the mother of all laws.
I reason, a verbal law of contract, or in other words an agreement of that sort, of the coalition 2016 of purpose; that was out to help restore democracy, the rule of law and a civil society can – overrule flawed stipulations in the constitution or even fundamental stipulations in an already soiled and prostituted one that help to entrench the dictatorship that robbed us of the state of constitutionality, a defamed constitution that is likely to hinder the process of democracy in the future, or be detrimental to the very idea of constitutionality in the long run, thus making the constitution liable to amendments or drafting of a new one that would be meant to restore the sanity in our state of affairs in order to be able to brand our livelihoods, a Civil Society. I am not researching from any book/s as support to what I am writing here but speaking out of what I consider to be my sensible point of reasoning with hope to be shed some light in the dark tunnel I am groping through.
I am not sure what is the borderline of your Input. It appears to me context-Alien. Can you Elaborate?
Alien?? There is a lot of rumour about them around! The anxiety about of it is needless to mention. We need much more advanced telescopes. The ones we have now are badly blurred.
Darboe is da man !!! the master at jiggery pokery. What’s all this about Halifa being the advisor to The President ? Power Games perhaps ?
No wonder Mr Barrow wants his sleep. Maybe he yearns for his former life ?
Its all toooooooo<> beautiful this place we call home. Meanwhile the poor and the uneducated, are forgotten. Their votes did the trick and opened the door to mayhem at the higher pay scale.
So what’s fresh ????
Mike, did you ever opined the present constitution is being capitalised upon to perpetuate a Jammeh-type manipulative government??
If your answer to the latter is Yes I Did, then what would be your individual suggestion for a quick way to break free from this backtracking situation?
Have you ever worried about the sticking limitless presidency terms stipulated in the current constitution?
Do you feel the need and urgency that the current constitution warrants a rethink by the lawmakers?
If, No, is your answer to the question latter, then last but not least, what freshness from the current government for the poor and uneducated are you longing for??
Scales, well said. Politician upto their funny business.
GAMBIA: COALITION 2016 MANIFESTO
”INTRODUCTION
People Centred State administration requires appropriate Constitutional and institutional developments complemented by appropriate policies, strategic plans, programmes and projects aimed at improving the general well-being of the citizenry.
Disregard of Constitutional provisions aimed at protection of the citizenry and lack of financial discipline in state administration has transformed Gambia under the APRC into a Heavily Indebted Poor Country which is being increasingly isolated because of governance practices that are in contravention to Good Governance , Rule of Law , Democracy, Human Rights and Substantive Justice.
In this regard , I have offered myself as an Independent Candidate who will serve for only three years at the head of a broad based and inclusive Coalition Government aimed at conducting Constitutional, institutional and administrative reforms that would establish the foundation of a democratic system of administration that would put an end to the culture of impunity and self-perpetuating rule and usher in an era for Gambians to enjoy liberty and prosperity under a system of government that is sensitive and responsive to the needs and aspirations of its citizenry .”
”CONCLUSION
The Independent Ticket supported by Coalition 20`16 aims to create a transitional Coalition Government that would promote tolerance of ethno-linguistic, religious, gender and other diversities in promotion of national unity
We have agreed to put all differences aside to put a transitional government in place that would initiate constitutional, electoral, institutional, administrative and managerial reforms that would make justice guide our action towards the common good and further unify our diverse people to create a democratic system which enables each party to have equal access to the media and seek the mandate of the people in a free, fair and genuine election after a three year transition.”
Note:
The three year transition programme is captured both in the introduction and the conclusion of the electoral manifesto of the coalition which the then candidate and now president Adama Barrow presented at the Independent Electoral Commission in person which is public knowledge. Is this not enough evidence that all the parties have agreed to a three year transition programme regardless whether some other agreement call MOU or whatever was signed by all or not.
Secondly we should remember the meeting where the GDC representative refuses to sign an agreement before the convention. It was at these meeting that the agreement was signed. Before that we could remember a meeting where the press was invited to witness the signing of the agreement and it could not proceed because The UDC representative Mr Honourable alagie Darboe asked to be given time to brief his party leadership who were on a country wide tour during the negotiation. Is the transition period not captured in that document which was undoubtedly said to have been signed by all the parties with the exception of GDC. Whether we call that agreement as MOU or not; does it actually matter?
It is definitely left to Mr Adama Barrow decide how he want to be recorded in history; A man of his ward or the opposite. The ball is in his court to play the way he likes. He is not being force by PDOIS to do any thing.
I think the big lie and the height of dishonesty is to label those who prefer honoring the agreement as been power hungry or trying to undermine the coalition government.
Thanks bro. There is no point about the constitution being disregarded.
This is evidence revealed in abundance unless it had been such a trap laid by souls sold to devils. We may lack the words to defend what is true but that doesn’t mean we don’t what the truth is, no matter what our individual motives or sentiments. I am glad I see the need for an open mind that genuinely agree and disagree wherever and whenever necessary.
Mr Bourne; The Constitution was bastardised by President Jammeh and bent to his will. This was reinforced and unchallenged by his Majority in Parliament. This is the general consensus as viewed by the democratic opinions expressed freely on Jollof News. We have witnessed public statements From the Minister of Justice and President Barrow, that they intend to formulate a brand new Constitution, but within an undefined time scale. My reservations; >>The coalition have used the same Constitutional provisions that enabled and protested the despotic Jammeh regime. Meanwhile they saw an urgency to modify the age limit for Presidential office. But no urgency to repeal anti freedom laws. This could have been done without a wholesale reformation of the Constitution. It merely required a public explanation which I am certain Parliament and the public would have accepted. The new Constitution will require a referendum. At this point I would hope the public would be advised on any changes and fully educated on the pertinent issues before they vote. You ask what I would do for the poorest; I have recalled my experience on “doing business in The Gambia”. My market research was probably the most extensive ever carried out. I have added to that knowledge By knowing or conversing with some of the most eminent political and business leaders of The Gambia for over 17 years. I would have an extensive plan to regenerate industry and commerce to attack poverty at its grass roots. But such a plan based upon local knowledge and experience could not be put into the few paragraphs, On Jollof News.
Bax>> I am a little disappointed, with those who are saying, that because the coalition was formed to get rid of Jammeh, the MOU or its existence or non existence does not matter. In essence the end justified the means.
This kind of statement has no credibility in any state of law. It lacks legal procedure and due diligence. Correct me if I am wrong, but Lawyer Darboe is saying that he did not sign the MOU and being the leader of the largest party and with the coalition candidate for President being a member of the UDP, the validity of the coalition’s victory, may become a legal matter for consideration. Who would challenge is another matter ? The obvious claimant would be Mr Jammeh. This would be a Constitutional crisis based upon a flawed Constitution that has been tampered with. I would have to say that Mr Darboe may be only telling the truth. for if this is the case he should be commended, but with some confusion as to why he should bring this to the attention of the general public at this late stage. I also have some sympathy for those said Halfa convened a press conference to argue that their is an MOU but did not produce a copy. No doubt the next few days will hopefully raise the fog of confusion from us all.
Mike, I’m not a legal mind too, and I don’t know how the courts will view a political document like the MOU, but for me, significant moral and ethical questions are being raised here, alongside the legal ones, and I hope there will be more clarity in coming days.
Halifa has indicated that Madam Tambajang-Jallow is the custodian of the document, so she should come out and tell the nation what the truth is. Like Madi said, this is a historical national document that should be treasured and kept in the archieve. The whole world is aware of its existence. It’s status must no longer remain unclear.
Halifa is a betrayal none of the pdois member is working under coalition government is because of Halifa sallah .But your this so called European tour if you think that when there’s ballots in diaspora for Gambians to vote for you.You will not have nothing in diaspora Gambia’s are aware of you. An irresponsible person let’s join together and removed the dictator we did that none of your party members took a post and work for the betterment of the Gambia because you don’t want any body to rule you.You’re now talking mou agreement Gambians voted for five years.Adama Barrow 5years that’s the constitution you think you know or you have sweet tongue more than every body irresponsible man.
Mr Manneh; I think we are on the same legal page; However we cannot make the Gambia in our own image even if Gambian law is based upon English law which in any cases in Gambia is 17th to 19th Century>>>which we have long since upgraded to fit modern times and social change.
But somehow and some way we seek a happy medium giving credit to education and modern themes and applications.
I think Halifa seeks desperately to add some stability to Gambia at this time. For he may see a Hurricane on the horizon. The man is a politician>>but he is not a daft politician. I don’t know about you but I get the feeling that Gambia has entered a phase where reality becomes a never ending dream, that never quite reaches a conclusion. Perhaps Mr Barrow like me yearns to sleep through such never ending turmoil. It is very sad for me to witness that, Gambia must always be unsettled without any discernible progress. Backwards ever forward never. Too many drivers not enough passengers.
In any case Halifa has stated that They {pdois} will not protest or demand President Barrow’s resignation.
Fabaks, has added a Substantial and Significant Foundation to a Potential Challenge that Ousainou Darbo and his Plaintives would have to overcome in their Insidious attempt to Nullify and Void the Single Most Relevant and Paramount Document that gave birth to the Coalition Alliance Party and by Extension the Selection of Adama Barrow as the Coalition Alliance Candidate for the 2016 Presidential Elections which unseated former President Yaya Jammeh and ushered in The Adama Barrow, Ousainou Darbo, Fatoumata Jallow Tambajang and Mai Fatty Government. Throughout the Presidential Campaign, UDP Leadership and Supporters held up the Coalition Alliance which is the Offspring of the MOU as their Lifeline, only turn and Betray it with Insidious Abandonment for Selfish and not National Reasons. Yaya Jammeh was a man, the Instrument he Utilized to Legitimize his rule was the Constitution. That is the 1997 Constitution. The very Constitution that Ousainou Darbo and some who would be “Mansa” (King), for “Mansayas” Sake once Opposed and With their presumed dignity, respect, and honor dedicated and rededicate over the years to Exponge, Purge off all the Suspect Repugnant Sections and Sub-sections of the Said 1997 Constitution. Now, come, Six, Seven or Eight months in the Driver’s seat, the same people are now Singing a different tune with regard to the MOU, their Once Sweet Lover and Political Lifeline which they now hold in Contempt and Scorn. Paradoxically, Ousainou Darbo and Supporters are Now against the MOU and the Three (3) years Stipulation which gave birth to the Coalition Alliance, the Coalition Candidate in the name of Adama Barrow and as a by-product enabled Ousainou Darbo and Supporters to be in the POSITION they are in today as the Current Gambian Rulers. One would be forgiven to speculate whether the Rush or Scramble to go to Mecca for the Pilgrimage less than a year of “Governance” in the Gambia, has in great measure to do with the Fact and Realization that, the “Wrong Doers”, some might say “Sinners” against the Gambian People, the MOU AND THE COALITION ALLIANCE need to Atone for their “Sin” against the Gambian People and Beg for Allah’s Forgiveness. I Beg the reader’s indulgence to digress a little. With reference to the Entourage reported to have about 30 Pilgrims who accompanied President Adama Barrow, including Ousainou Darbo and Mai Fatty for the Pilgrimage to Mecca, who is the Pay Master or put in another way, who da dey pay for cost of the Pilgrimage to Mecca? Who are the Pilgrims and what is their Connections to the Various Cabinet Ministers and President Barrow? How much is the cost to the National Treasury? An Enquiry should be Held to Account for the Sources of the Funds. To my good Gambian Citizens of the Christian Faith, are there any Arrangements or Provisions for you too to take a Proportionate number of Pilgrims to the Holyland for a Pilgrimage to the Holy Cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem? What is good for the Goose Should be good for the Ganda. My Thoughts informs me that is what the English man said and it applies in the Gambia of All and not of One Ethnic Group, Religion or Region. Back to the MOU AND THE “ENEMIES OF PROGRESS” as Nollywood laments in many an Episode, who are determined to Usurpe and Undermine the Very Foundation, Bricks and Motar they Utilized to Coalesce as One, to Defeat former President Yaya Jammeh, that is, The MOU AND THE COALITION ALLIANCE. These two elements Propelled Gambia and Gambians from the Status quo of African and Gambian Politics of Self-perpetuation once in Power. However, it appears that Old Habits Die Hard and this African and Gambian Habit is Not going down without a fight. Given that the Country is Young and the Vested interest in the fight for the Old ways is Old, the fight for the Disposition and Displacement of the Old Order with the New Order of Due Diligence, Due Process, Honor, and Sincerity in all Transactions Written or Not, Signed or Not. I take Hon. Halifa Sallah’s allegation as is and trust that he is on the Right side of History on matter of the MOU and it’s Offspring the Coalition Alliance Government. Hon. Salla named names of those who Signed the MOU on behalf of UDP. He also named the Individual Designated for the Safe keeping of the MOU. The fact Ousainou Darbo is alleged to have refused to Sign it Subsequent to his release from Jail after his Representatives Signed off on the MOU TILTS the Burden of litigation of the Matter on him and UDP. The fact that the named Custodian of the MOU and those who Hon. Sallah said Signed it are Silent and yet, have not Provided the Copy of the MOU, can only be interpreted as Substantiating Hon. Sallah’s allegation. Hon. Sallah does not have to do anything else. He Provided the people the names of those who Party to the Signing of the MOU. NOW it is those named who need to STEP UP and Do the Right Thing by telling the Gambian People the Truth and Only the Truth. All Gambians Wait for them to Come Out of the Shadows in to the Day light.
Yes Sidi: Out of chaos comes only more chaos. This situation becomes more outrageous by the day. Who pays the ferryman>>>the taxpayer of course. The debt is written in their name to honour.
A government of photo opportunities and pleasing words that are an exercise in cosmetic nonsense.
No substance>> No responsibility>>No idea’s>>. Other than selfish personal ambition. Hey ! so what’s fresh ? why did anyone think it would be so different? Jameh and the rest are all Gambian’s Forget tribalism its only a smoke screen. Its greed and callous abandonment of duty personified.
Let’s come to our senses and reality. Whether the MOU is a gentleman agreement, or whether it is signed or not, is still subservient to the mandate voted for on the 1st December 2016. The Gambian people voted for a 5 year term. Whether a separate MOU between allies of parties on one hand should be honored or not depends on a range of factors. One factor is whether the president deems it fit to resign at the end of the 3 year period or complete the 5 term period. That is up to him- in an ideal situation he would reconvene the parties and layout his argument for going beyond 3 year period. But even that time is not yet here and the question premature.
What is the benefit to stallholders championing sticking to the 3 year term agreement?
I don’t see any electoral victory for pdois or GDC or Aprc at the end of a year period. So why the whole noise? People from APRC want Barrow to stick to 3 years. The same echo is coming from GDC. It beggars the question what are their motives other than to bring chaos and instability to a Govt they are not part of?
Pdois stance is the most baffling. A party to the coalition refused from onset to take ownership of the govt – thereby breaking the first cardinal pillars on which any MOU is built on. Asking the govt to dance to your tune from outside the box is a stunning arrogance to me. If any, I would expect that Pdois in rejecting position in the cabinet, consequently abandon the MOU. I expect that that they say we are not in govt and thus the MOU is not binding on us anymore and we will prepare for the next election anytime it comes around not later than the mandated 5 year period.
Any signatory to the MOU has the same right as PDOIS to renege on their pledges on issue they see fit. With all due respect, Halifa is not a saint and cannot assume that his excuse for not sending any pdois member to the cabinet is a universally accepted wise decision and that any other signatory to the MOU is not entitled to interpret other elements of the MOU differently. Hence UDP can outlay the MOU differently and support Barrow to finish the 5 year term IF Barrow come to that conclusion. I see no problem in UDP interpreting the MOU differently just like PDOIS took liberty to disown the cabinet in the first place.
No No No! Many arguments here are neither partisan based nor of ulterior motives, but indeed early warnings about the apparent unchecked lack of self- integrity in the newly voted-in breed of politicians. They will be surprised by the reaction to their actions of lip servicing to voters. They can go on cooking up statistical data to suit their own taste. That would be a taste of their own medicines. The average Gambian have a clue now as to how to deal with manipulative leaders and their ‘forty’ cronies.
Therefore they better straighten up or else drop and break like thin glass.
I think you have got things upside-down. If the information that Mr Darboe refused to sign the MOU soon after he came out of prison is true, (and there is no reason to doubt it, as his position on coalition is well known) as revealed by Mr Suwaibou Touray, then you cannot accuse PDOIS of being the first to abandon the MOU. In fact, PDOIS’ abstenance from Cabinet will be perfectly understood and justified, if the MOU, which was supposed to be the framework for collaboration of the different parties in government and provide the agreed governance programme for the transition period, was no longer accepted by the UDP. Since the MOU was the only document that clearly spelt out the reform and governance programme, what will replace it, if it was no longer valid?
In that line of logic, I accept pdois would be entitled to take a backseat and pursue legislative means to hold the cabinet to account. Which they did. Consequently, One would expect that pdois see the MOU breached and the elements therein not binding on any party. Hence, the 3 year term was up for discussion and it requires the collective resolve of the allied parties to enforce it or not. Since the reality is that only pdois is not in the cabinet, I suspect the remaining coalition parties see no need to enforce the 3 year agreement as of now. I see no reason why this approach of the participating parties in the cabinet, should bother pdois. As I said before, there is no evidence out there to back up the notion that UDP and allies would lose the next election to pdois , GDC and aprc. Therefore, why preoccupy with an eventuality that would barely go your way even if granted? If Barrow would try to stay on beyond the 5 year mandate without election, then of course that is a situation outside any party MOU.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I can make out, none among the coalition partners is making issues about President Barrow’s term of office. It is obvious that both Suwaibou and Halifa were responding to questions or reacting to others, rather than being the originators of this latest round of debates about the MOU. So, I don’t think they have shown any signs that they are bothered by the position of the others on the 3 Year Term. In fact, they have repeatedly stated that it is up to President Barrow, whether he serves 3 or 5 years. It will be great if he consults with all and make an announcement now and put this whole issue to bed. Why is he holding the nation in suspense?
In my view, keeping this term issue in the public space is a distraction from the real issues. It’s baffling why people want to reduce the MOU to only the President’s transitional term of office. The document is much, much more than just how long Mr Barrow should serve. It is also a detailed programme of governance and reforms proposed by the coalition that no sane Gambian would disagree with, I hope.
Why aren’t we asking the UDP why they rejected the entire framework and what alternative are they providing. I don’t think concerns are about who wins next elections or not. Why aren’t we asking President Barrow about his intentions? These are the discussions Gambians should be having, rather than a non issue.
Like I stated, I don’t think the concerns about term of President Barrow’s office is motivated by who will win next elections. I think many are resigned to the fact that we are headed for another (UDP) RULING PARTY MONOPOLY for God knows how long, after this transition period. Our prayers should be that the next military coup is not headed by another Yaya Jammeh type of character, because I can’t see how the UDP will be defeated at the ballot box, judging by what’s on the ground.
A constitutional provision for a referendum is evidently worthwhile to decide Barrow’s fate, with regards to whether his term as ‘transitional’ sticks or not. It shouldn’t be a big deal who becomes president or from which party he/ she comes from. The big bad deal is, when the coalition backtracks on an agreement that became a fundamental reason of why many voters voted for there party candidates in a coalition with the hope, that idea will gather the strength enough, to be able to oust a very bad deceiver of a leader. Many voters are not as partisan now as before I guess. Some who voted for Mr. Barrow as the coalition candidate may totally change their minds to a totally new direction in the near future depending on how their ratings of the Barrow administration lowers.
The bases of what I may refer to as the confusion in my view is as follow….
MR OUSAINOU DARBOE
”Gambia’s Foreign Minister Ousainou Darboe, has debunked his critics, saying “This idea that Mr. Darboe wants to be the president of this country is rubbish,” adding that if he was desperate to become Gambia’s president, he would have supported the three-year time table reached by the opposition to formulate president Barrow’s first term in office.”
”Mr. Darboe was speaking during an interview with Fatu radio on Sunday. He said it is unfair for people to accuse him of harboring presidential ambition.”
“Each time, they come out they say he is power hungry. We see the people who are power hungry. Those who are power hungry are the ones who want to have three-year term. They know, we all know that they voted the president for five years. They never voted the president for three years,” Darboe remarked adding that the government is spearheading a constitutional reform program to cater for the concerns of Gambians. He warns that it too early for the constitution to be violated stressing that the president has been voted for five years and the constitutional mandate given to Barrow should be respected.
Mr. Darboe also said the three-year transition period MOU, often referred to by Halifa Sallah and co was never signed by the parties that formed the coalition government. He challenged Sallah and co to produce the signed copy of the MOU.”
MR HALIFA SALLAH
”The Member of Parliament for Serekunda Halifa Sallah who is also the Secretary General of PDOIS insisted that consensus was reached on the terms and conditions of the coalition as he held his comeback press conference on the 24th August at his party’s bureau.”
“Consensus was reached on the terms and conditions that are binding on coalition candidature shall form pledges that each aspiring candidate will give before the national convention participants. We all came there and we told you at the national convention that we have agreed to three years. I don’t know why you ask the leaders this question when the fact is already there. The document was not signed by the leader of the United Democratic Party because by then he was in prison,” said Sallah.
”We decided to come together and I want this to be clear and I emphasize again that I was selected as a Presidential candidate. I called a meeting of Presidential candidates for us to be able to come up with one candidate because I was convinced that anybody who rejected that will be rejected by the people and you will be left behind and that’s precisely what happened,” he said.
Sallah said they have invited all the parties, the concerned persons from the civil society in the persons of Hon. Fatoumatta Jallow Tambajang, Singhateh and then the independent National Assembly members Hon. Magassy and Hon. Sanneh. According to him, they combined them and agreed to hold a Convention with equity regardless of who was the basis and then whoever is selected will serve as an independent candidate.”
“I have made it very clear to the Diaspora that we agreed on a three -year term for that independent candidate. It is important for all of you to understand that without that agreement we will not have the type of Coalition we had. Most likely we might have gone on our separate ways,” he explained.
He said it is because of the agreement that they moved together to hold a convention and then candidate Adama Barrow was selected, won the election. He said it is important for Gambians to understand that when the incumbent resisted, no political party called its members to march to the State House to remove the incumbent. “That did not happen!” he emphasized. He said No ethno-linguistic group marched to remove the incumbent.”
I am able to deduce from the statements of Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah that there was more than one document as a subject of discussion or argument here.
1. The one which spelt out the modalities of the convention and the criteria of the office and the tenure of the flag-bearer as mentioned by Mr Sallh below…
‘’He said they agreed on the 17th of October 2016 to come together to hold a convention on the 30th of October and to participate in an equal footing that person who will be selected will become an independent candidate.
“In that agreement we also established a committee on good governance, a committee on national convention, committee on democracy and rule of law, committee on justice and human rights, committee on voter education and national reconciliation, planning and finance committee and a campaign committee.
The Committee on good governance was charged with responsibility to work on the tenure of the flag-bearer and in that agreement we all agreed and it is already circulated, journalists have received that agreement. I don’t know why leaders are even being asked because the agreement is circulated and it is known to people,” he expressed.’’
NB: This is the one which was signed by all the parties.
And
2. The draft MOU [probably geared towards paving the way for a detailed system change-I may be wrong]
NB: This is what was not signed and is the one Mr Darboe is referring to.
So the document that Mr Darboe is talking about and the one Mr sallah is referring to are not the same but two different documents.
And the Press and most of the people do not seem to be clear about this.
In 8 months, no legislative accomplishment, absolutely nothing from the assembly, there is no attempt to work with the Stakeholders to do the people’s work and here we are, these so called smart people and expect are engulfed in self interest to the detriment of Gambians. Perhaps they all should just take the next flight and join Jammeh. I think so!!
Well, that’s because the well articulated programmes of governance and reforms, laid down in the MOU and Manifesto, have been torpedoed. What’s the alternative Mr Darboe is providing? Does anyone know? How many Cabinet Meetings in 8 months? Right now, Cabinet is disabled as key members are on Hajj, raising serious questions of funding. Who is funding these journeys? When last did any of these go on Hajj? 8 months in office and they are all off to Hajj!!! And you’re blaming legislature Dr! What an upside-down world we live in!!!
At least, they turned up until it was adjourned, didn’t they?
KInteh Said
”Let’s come to our senses and reality. Whether the MOU is a gentleman agreement, or whether it is signed or not, is still subservient to the mandate voted for on the 1st December 2016.
The Gambian people voted for a 5 year term.”
Kinteh, You cannot deny that all the coalition partners knew that the constitutional term of office is 5 years yet they agreed on 3 years why ? that is not without a reason. They also informed the people about the agreement which they endorsed at the polls on 1st December even though they knew that what is in the constitution is five years. This is an undeniable fact.
You said…
”Whether a separate MOU between allies of parties on one hand should be honored or not depends on a range of factors. One factor is whether the president deems it fit to resign at the end of the 3 year period or complete the 5 term period. That is up to him- in an ideal situation he would reconvene the parties and layout his argument for going beyond 3 year period. But even that time is not yet here and the question premature.”
Mr Kinteh, this opinion that you expressed, don’t you think it should have been spelt-out in the agreement if he is not to be seen the same like the dictator that we all fought against ?
You Said…
”What is the benefit to stallholders championing sticking to the 3 year term agreement?”
That is because if one part of the agreement is accepted to be honored with disregard then what reason would there be for the whole agreement to be disregarded ?
You Said…
”I don’t see any electoral victory for pdois or GDC or Aprc at the end of a year period. So why the whole noise?
The noise you know very well is caused and made by Mr Ousainou Darboe in his effort refute those he claimed are accusing him of been power hungry and in the process attacked and challenged Mr Sallah [without any provocation from Sallah for that matter].
Mr Kinteh you continue to say…
”It beggars the question what are their motives other than to bring chaos and instability to a Govt they are not part of?
Pdois stance is the most baffling. A party to the coalition refused from onset to take ownership of the govt – thereby breaking the first cardinal pillars on which any MOU is built on.
Asking the govt to dance to your tune from outside the box is a stunning arrogance to me. If any, I would expect that Pdois in rejecting position in the cabinet, consequently abandon the MOU. I expect that that they say we are not in govt and thus the MOU is not binding on us anymore and we will prepare for the next election anytime it comes around not later than the mandated 5 year period.”
Mr Kinteh what is the first cardinal pillars on which all coalitions are built on which PDOIS has broken ed ? And which cabinet positions are they offered and they reject ?
That is up to pdois to answer if they were refused a position in the cabinet? But it is strange that all other signatories to the coalition took up cabinet positions. I think that would have been the good fight to fight because that was the start of undermining the MOU. If pdois felt wronged by darboe’s refusal to sign the MOU, then they should have come out with that in the public and publicly denounce the barrow govt and then proceed with a relentless opposition to his govt and agenda. But now wanting to rescue the MOU and heaping blame on Darboe, is to me, very simplistic. I would consider the MOU dead if I could not work with my partners in a executive cabinet level and would consequently pursue an independent course of action with aim of challenging the govt in other spheres other than askimg them to uphold the 3 year term!
It is public knowledge that when the Coalition parties got together to challenge Jammeh with a view to ousting him from power (which they eventually did successfully), they agreed on a platform backed by a written document. It mattered not whether that document was signed or not; they all acted on it in good faith. Darbo was in prison at the time and therefore not privy to what happened. My legal friends tell me that an agreement that is not signed but accepted and effectively approved and acted upon by the parties to it is as good as a written agreement, unless there is another written agreement contradicting it. They tell me further that the Constitution merely stipulates the term limit when a person may serve in the Office of President. In other words, one cannot serve more than 5 years after election to office. But one can serve for less than 5 years, as is the case where an incumbent decides to resign or dies or is incapacitated. But there is another dimension: the Constitution was founded on democratic principles. The Coalition members came together and fought together in unison on democratic principles to wrest power from a dictator and restore proper constitutional governance and the rule of law. There is nothing, therefore, that compels President Barrow to remain in office for 5 years. For him to insist on staying beyond the agreed 3 years, the basis on which his colleagues rallied around him to defeat Jammeh and install him as President, will be counter to democratic principles founded on honesty and integrity. He has a clear choice: he can listen to and follow the advice of Darbo and thereby end up embarrassing himself through a court process he may not win, or he can build a legacy of being an honest President who took The Gambia from the clutches of a dictator, kept his word to serve for a short transitional period and rebuilt the integrity of the Office of President for all Gambians. All Gambians will deeply respect him for the latter! Darbo can mount any legal challenge and make all manner of threats he wants; the courts are not there for him alone and not him alone is well-versed in the law. The ultimate sacrificial lamb in all of this unfortunate debate and what might follow will be none other than President Barrow himself. This issue is about The Gambia and Gambians; it is not about Ousainou, Halifa, OJ, Mai, Hamat, et al. Ultimately, the question we all should be asking ourselves is: when will our politicians behave decently and with integrity and put country first and not themselves and their cronies first?
You forget to mention that the same allied parties that came together to agree to 3-year term, are absolutely entitled to revise that earlier agreement and proceed with 5 instead of 3 years. This in the interest of continuity in light of the huge task at hand. All signing parties are in the govt except pdois. Should absence of pdois from the cabinet and executive tie the hand of all other allied parties from adapting the MOU to changing priorities and changing realities and use the full time allowed under the prevailing election law between now and 4 years to accomplish many areas in dire need of attention? What is the overiding factor here? National interest to put a framework in place or another round of elections in 2 years time? An election which would not produce a pdois govt! So why the whole unease?
”3. OPTION 2: – INDEPENDENT LED ALLIANCE/ COALITION THROUGH A TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENT
In presenting this proposal, UDP validates the notion that we put country before party and sacrifice before expediency. The proposal envisions a short consideration period not to exceed one week from initiation to vote of adoption and an affirmative rejection of any alternative coalition model that may be proposed as it is unlikely to garner the level of cross party support worthy of pursuit.
Going into coalition talks opening with our primary position of preferring a party led alliance/ coalition, in the event such proposal is being rejected by the prospective partners, the UDP would consider the need for the second option, to choose an independent candidate from a civil society group who is not affiliated to any political party and will be committed to staying in power in a transitional government of only two years.”
Is the UDP as party unmindful of the fact that the term for a president in our constitution is 5 years and not two when this idea was been conceived ?
I did not forget anything! You may be right that if the parties that agreed to the 3 year transition period collectively agree to extend that period within the ambit of the Constitution then they should be able to do so. But that is not the issue here. The real issue is what was agreed and acted upon. President Barrow, in his position as leader, should be taking the high moral ground of sticking to what was agreed, especially when there is no unanimity of all concerned about extending the agreed period beyond 3 years. It is not whether PDOIS can win an election in 3 years and, as I stated earlier, this is not about Halifa or any other political leader; it is about honesty and integrity and setting the tone for a political system in which agreements and rules are respected. Any government that reneges on agreements freely and lawfully entered into is not worth leading a nation. We can either face the facts and set the future of our country straight for current and future generations of Gambians yet unborn or we can burn it for selfish reasons. I prefer the former, for integrity and moral principles founded on decent and honest political leadership is what I believe can take our country far. The national interest dictates sticking to what was agreed and acted upon in the first place. Government is a continuum. President Barrow must do only what the 3 year period could allow him in terms of taking our country forward and trust future administrations to take up and continue where he would have left off. To use any ambitious development programme as justification for turning his back on what he agreed with his political colleagues to rid our country of a dictatorial menace will be the height of betrayal and unnecessary political fallout. Our country deserves better.
One thing to note is that for many years it was agreed that to form a coalition, would be the best way to oust Jammeh by democratic means/ But guess what? the two top politicians by reputation Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah were at loggerheads. So as each election came up, and division held the Opposition stymied>> Jammeh won by a landslide. No one dared even consider that Jammeh could lose an election. But with the help of Mama Kandeh’s 17% of the vote, the unthinkable happened and Jammeh lost by a very narrow and disputed margin. Then the coalition of small party leaders took up the key cabinet positions with a totally unknown Mr Barrow taking up the Presidential office on an agreed token 3 year transitional period. Mr Sallah declined to take any further part in the coalition for reasons unclear. The argument then became about running candidates for the National Assembly where by it was universally accepted that all Parties would run independent candidates. This was abandoned by Mr Darboe who ran own party candidates and filled the NA with UDP candidates who form the Majority Party in Parliament. There then followed much speculation and debate on whether the 3 year Presidential term was unconstitutional and it should be 5 years. Mr Sallah appeared to be uncontentious about this primary issue favouring 5 years, but with some minor reservations. This situation being a Constitutional one beggars the Question>> why did Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah {both being legally competent} promote the guarantee of a 3 year mandate when knowing what the were promoting was unconstitutional.? Now we have a serious crisis concerning the foundation document for all parties to form a coalition within an inclusive national agenda. The MOU. The historical political protagonists Halifa and Darboe again appear to have returned to the disagreement and arguing game that has frustrated the people for how many years ? You couldn’t make this up. We should have anticipated that old wounds would become new wounds with the only casualties being those who voted in the endless and seamless quagmire of useless, callous and egotistical self interested old men. I think the country would be best served if both men resigned and Barrow reconvened a Brand new election. Let the minor party leaders take their chance with the electorate and see how far they get when left as stand alone candidates. I think if a single party wins and forms a government with its own members, this would go a long way to finding progress and economic recovery, that the people can feel and see. To slog it out any further would only see one crisis followed by the next crisis forever and ever, simply because self interest has taken the place of National interest. Which Gambia and the Gambian people can not longer afford. But that is only an opinion.
This dispute between Sallah and Darboe is overrated. I think both gentlemen just embody the ethnic context of the Gambian political landscape. Maybe you need a crash course in the evolution of the Gambian independent political landscape. You would then realize that the two gentlemen may not even harbor reciprocal personal antipathy but rather mirror the ethnic sympathy lines. In the UK, the Scots and English remain at loggerheads till today and we assume that this is not affecting the working of the country. We should see Gambia in that lens too.
Having said that, my impression is that Sallah’s camp views command positive reception only in the Banjul st Mary region just as the political leverage of PS Njie (fisrt minister pre-independence) was limited in the same area. Jammeh exploited this divide in combination of extreme violence but as we all come to know turns out unsustainable. Jammeh’s downfall was inevitable with or without the coalition. The stage was set that he must go or plunge the country into civil strife. The death of Sandeng, the incarceration of Darboe and the threatening of the Mandinka tribe with extinction, laid the foundation of his demise. This is probably what UDP and the remaining parties in the cabinet/coalition know and pdois refuse to acknowledge and I am afraid that beyond Banjul, Pdois’s following will remain narrow one.
“Jammeh would have gone with or without coalition. This is what the UDP and others know, which PDOIS refuse to acknowledge”, you claim.
Kinteh (Kemo), without the non party led coalition, we would not be here. No other form of coalition would have defeated Jammeh. Stop kidding yourself.
Jammeh had effectively crushed the UDP street challenge and got Darboe exactly where he wanted him: behind bars.
That Action had far reaching effect and the consequences was seen at the polls- despite all his machines at work. You just need to go through district by district voting statistics to note that his Sandeng killing, Darboe incarceration and the Mandinka Insult combined dealt him the blow. This electoral statistics is available IEC-online for Review. What was possible is that without the coalition he would find it easy to steal the election and use the tribal Card to cast the mandinkas as trouble makers (which many in Gambia would undoubtedly be receptive to) and continue the crackdown. That too would not be sustainable!
Indeed, that action had far reaching consequences, but the question is: would that have been enough to overturn his (Jammeh’s) huge majority from the last vote and defeat him, without an all party coalition?
The records and the 2016 results don’t support your view that it was. Least we forget, Jammeh had insulted, jailed and killed many times before, (including the most influential APRC politician, Baba Jobe) and still won elections.
No disrespect to Solo and Darboe & co, but I don’t see any reason why anyone can claim that their case was different. And for the opposition parties, UDP especially, it was just a matter of time, if we know Yaya Jammeh. Folks can make all sorts of claims today, but if Jammeh had won 2016, (and he would have without the type of Coalition we had) the story would have been different today. There’s no doubt about that.
Enough with the Sing and Song Subterfuge. Mirrors and Smoke Screens of the Circus Maximus Dog and Pony Show is Embarrassing, Blisteringly Painful and Disturbing when One STOPS and THINK that those who Peddle this Insidious, Noxious Agenda may well be Advisers or Worst One Day be Leaders of the Gambia, if not Presently. As tempting as it seems, Might is Not Always Right. Modesty born of Self-sacrifice without an attendant deep ulterior motive is Devine and the opposite is Vice. Not many if any Gambian Voter who went to the Voting Centers would Swear to the Bible or the Quran Without Crossing their Fingers and praying for Allah/God’s Forgiveness for taking his/her name in vain, that their “Thoughts” on December 1st, 2016 Presidential Election Day were “Voting for the Expressed Purpose of a Five Year Term”. Few if any. You would only find such men and women among those with Callous and Insidious Intent and a “Plan DC”. “DC” for Double-Crossing their Perceived Political Enemies, instead of Loyal Opposition Party. Let us be Clear with Several Erroneous Narratives about the MOU AND COALITION ALLIANCE. Coalition Alliances and Governments by Definition are Formed when the “Normal” Process of Forming a Government in a Parliamentary Political System is not an Option or as in the Gambia’s Case, the Opposition Parties are not able to Achieve a Democractic Change as Separate Free Standing Parties. They therefore, Adopt a Mechanism Agreed Upon by the Parties to Coalesce as a Coalition or Alliance Party to Substantially increase their Chance of Winning an Election. The Instruments used for such Unity among otherwise Ideological and Philosophically Divergent Parties to Unite as One is, Usually a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU, that is, The Parties Memorialize Their Understanding in a Written Form and May or May not Signed it, but Nevertheless Legally Binding. THE MOU ALLOWS FOR A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT AMONG CONSENTING INTEREST GROUPS, ENTITY OR ADULTS TO AGREE TO JOIN FORCES FOR A SHORT OR LONG TERM ENDEAVOR OR TASK. IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO, NOR INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR MISSION STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, PARTY OR GOVERNMENT’S CONSTITUTION, AS THE DETRACTORS OF THE MOU WOULD WANT TO ARGUE AND ARE ARGUING NOW. The MOU is the Instrument Selected to Facilitate the Collective Fight to Remove Jammeh from Power. Gambians need to Know as well as Reassured that they did not Exchange one Despotic Regime with Another. For at least Twenty (20) years, The Various Groups both within the Gambia and the Diaspora; PDOIS, PPP, NCP, UDP, and Others tried everything including, some Party Leaders and Supporters inviting and inciting others to give the Ultimate Price by Demonstrating or Involving in Coup Plots to Remove former President Yaya Jammeh. Nothing worked. Prior Coalition attempts were not successful either. Ask Ousainou Darbo and Amat Bah. Their earlier Coalition did not Work. We might want to know why? However, that is for another time. Needless to say, the One Coalition Alliance that Worked and Survived to Dethrone former President Yaya Jammeh and the APRC Government Succeeded, I would Submit was because of the “Great” Compromises, and Patriotic Moral Courage Exhibited by those at the Table Who Signed the MOU, which in turn gave Birth to the Coalition Alliance and then a Coalition Alliance Candidate, Adama Barrow. He became President of the Gambia because of the MOU AND THE COALITION ALLIANCE. The MOU Must Not Be Assaulted, Bastardized, Corrupted, and Raped. Doing so, is an Assault and Rape of the Gambian Collective Interest and Desires for more Peaceful Co-exitence in the Gambia. The Assault on the MOU Bastardizes and Corrupts an Otherwise Proud and Exceptional Moment For the Gambia and Gambians. It was the best of Times at a Potential Worst of Times and Gambians and Gambia Survived it. Let’s hope that the Best in Gambia and Gambians Win over the Worst and Old Order of Doing things. No more Assault and Rape of Gambia’s and Gambians Magna Carta. Let’s Safe and Treasure it for Generations.
Why bother Sidi, aprc is not in the coalition. What is motive in asking for election within the next 2 1/2 years? I suspect you wish chaos so that the crimes of jammeh unaccounted for amid political acrimony in unending electoral circles. You are deceiving yourself.
As I said before, the participating parties in the coalition are free to decide whether to call new elections in 2 1/2 years time or exhaust the available time within the electoral mandated 5year term. Pdois is not part of the executive and by extension the govt and has the option of condemning this move or concentrate on their own electoral strategy for 2020. For aprc and gdc, let them put their house in order.
PDOIS’s position on this issue is very clear my brother, Kinteh. As was stated by our secretary general Mr Sallah in his concluding remarks at the recent press comfrence;
” The final decision is in the hands of President Adama Barrow to decide whether to respect the agreement or not, but for us, we will not protest to demand for his resignation.”
what is clearer than this ?
It’s may be OK if they goes by coalitions MOU, the reality is the constitution gave five years mandatory for every president, so three years is not a constitutional terms, this can even bring confusion in terms of elections year schedule, presidential elections are once in every five years.
“…..the UDP would consider the need for the second option, to choose an independent candidate from a civil society group who is not affiliated to any political party and will be committed to staying in power in a transitional government of only two years.”
The above is an extract from the statement issued by the UDP in September 2016, titled, “ROADMAP FOR 2016 ELECTIONS”. It can be observed that the term of flag bearer, according to this UDP proposal, should be for ONLY TWO YEARS, and this was to be contained in what they described as a “LEGALLY BINDING MOU”.
It is very difficult for a party that has proposed a shorter term of office for coalition flag bearer than the current MOU, to justify their rejection of a three year term limit. Such an attitude does not tell very well on the credibility of the UDP. The reluctance of a principled party like PDOIS to work with the UDP in Cabinet can be better understood, given such fluidity in their positions.
A Modest Message To My Friends in The Anti-MOU and Coalition Alliance. Do Not Cut Your Nose to Spite Your Face:
“A mind is a Terrible thing to Waste”. I am not a member of any Party in the Gambia. I am an Independent one would say. Though, I am more inclined to Support any Party that is Broad Based, Demonstrates a Leadership Quality and a Sustainable Socio-economic Development Plan For All Gambians and Regions. UDP may be Broad Based at the Middle but Top Heavy in Ethnic Group Based Politics and Regionalism of the Old Order. My advise to UDP and Ousainou Darbo Advisers or Enablers, is Not to make the mistake of the Old Order of the two “J” Presidents, that is, Jawara and Jammeh’s Regime’s of Co-option, Corruptive Practices of Divide and Dominate. It is Not a Sustainable Proposition or Formula of Good Governance. There is a finite point at which one can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. It is called Critical Mass. When the people who are Nolonger Fooled reach Critical Mass, No “Zembo” (Mandinka for Power), No “Mansaya” (King) or Election Time Dirty Politics of Supplying Rice, and Cooking Oil to Voters Will Do. UDP Party Members and Leadership would be Wise to not be “Full of themselves” and Develop a Sense of Superiority and Contempt for the Rest of the Other Gambians. I have heard UDP Supporters and Leadership state as a matter of fact, that the Mandinka put Yaya Jammeh in Power by Blessing and Supporting Yaya Jammeh’s APRC and Jammeh’s Candidacy as President for the 1996 Presidential Elections. I take their Statements at Face Value and make the following Observations and Analysis of the Consequences and Implications of their Assertions. If all can count and we can. We know that Yaya Jammeh took off his Military Fatigues to put on Civilian clothes and Contested the 1996 Presidential Elections. According to the “Majoritists” in the UDP and Some of the Mandinka narrative, Jammeh Won his Presidential Elections because of the Mandinka Support. He lost it, when he Turned his back Against them and they Turned their Support Against him, thus Defeating Jammeh in the 2016 Presidential Elections. So, the Narrative goes among a Significant number of UDP Supporters and even its Leadership. Earlier, we agreed that we can count. Well, Yaya Jammeh was in Power for how many years as President? The answer my Dear Fellow Gambians is at least 20 Years. Twenty years during which by all accounts, people were alleged to have been Arrested, Jailed, Tortured, Disappeared, and even Killed while the “Majority” that Sanctioned and Enabled Yaya Jammeh to Continue on his Rule was Cooperating and Colluding with him and his Government’s Apparacheecks for at least 20 Years. By the UDP’S LEADERSHIP and Supporters Own Narratives, “it is only when the Mandinka were INSULTED and Offended by former President Yaya Jammeh, when “they Rose up to Oppose him and get rid of him”. There is an Ethical and Moral Dilemma Presented in their Narrative. First, the narrative implies that as long as Yaya Jammeh’s Actions and Behavior is Not in Contravention of the UDP or Mandinka interest, Jammeh is Free to Continue on as President of the Gambia for his Natural life. Second, the Narrative implies that the interest and lives of the Other Gambians is less Compared to the interest and lives of the Majority Ethnic Group, the N
Mandinka. Third, the Combination of the two implications is Nothing to be Proud of or Celebrate in any way or form. The implications warrants an in-depth look at as well as Self-examination of Who we are as Gambians. Are we Fula or Peul, Jola, Mandinka, Manjak Serahule Serere or Wolof First and Gambian Second. When and what does it take for a Gambian or Gambians to Take a Stand Against Injustice? When your neighbor is Arrested, Assaulted Molested, Jailed Tortured Disappeared or even Killed? Or is it when they come for your family you, your Clan or Ethnic Group before you Protest, Resist the Injustice? These are Ethical, Moral and to some extent Philosophical questions that each of us, all Gambians may wish to Contemplate and come to their Own Answers and or Decisions. No one can or should make it for you. The dangers of “Majoritism” as a Form or Kind of Democracy had it’s Days and Continue to Bedevil many African countries in a Negative Disposition. The Disposition and Preposition that guarantees Majoritism and Self-Perpetuating Rule with Impunity. Fail State Status of many an African Country where the Citizens, the Voters, the People have been Subjected to Majoritism of Ethnic Group Based, Nativist, Political Ideology by those in Power to Self-Perpetuate and Maintain or Retain Political Power with little Democractic or Economic, Infrastructural and Social Development Dividend are until recently the Norm most of Africa. In Summary, the UDP Spin Masters need to think through the implications of their Statements, least Such Statements come to Hunt them when they least expected it. An Ethnic group cannot be responsible for “Giving” Gambians Yaya Jammeh as President and yet disown the “Consequences of his Presidency”. Furthermore, the same Cohort and or Ethnic Group cannot Persecute and or Prosecute Other Gambians who followed the Lead of the Majority Ethnic Group who Sanctioned and Perpetuated the Yaya Jammeh Regime, while Seemingly Selectively leaving their Own Ethnic Group Free and Unmolested. That is the Classical “Having your Cake and Eating it too”. We know that is a “Practical Impossibility”. So where do we go from here. First, we need to STOP the Delusional and Disturbing Characterization of “Majoritism” as a Term of Reference equal to Representative Democracy. It is Not Even Close. Second, we need to Come Clean with the Enabling and Co-opting Behavior as well as Opportunistic Fatalistic Tendencies in our Relationships and Transactions. Third, the Political Party need to be Constitutionally Required to be Proportionally Represented Ethically as far as the Executive and Constituancy Leadership Positions are Considered. This would Mitigate the Insanity of Ethnic Group Party Politics. It can only be Achieved by DETERMINED AND DEDICATED MATURE, SELF-LESS POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND A SUSTAINED CAMPAIGN INVOLVING ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE GAMBIA. That is, The People, the Politicians and the Media. Until then, the questions and the implications of the Role the MOU AND THE COALITION ALLIANCE Played in the Gambia’s Current Political Dispensation will be One of Forward Ten Steps, Backwards Ten Steps. In order words, Stagnant or Worst, Back Sliding into
Anarchy and Authoritarianism of an Empowered Despot or Group. Enough Already. Gambia is More than the Sum Total of One Ethnic Group or Region.
Sidi Bojang
Lies, lies, lies and more lies. You are nothing but a confused tribalist bigot who is bitter because of the fall of your corrupt and insidious empire. You ain’t independent but a branch of a backward clan who wants to see our country ruled by none other than the primitive bushmen of your clan.
SIMMER DOWN Natty Naughty. Who Rattled your Cage? Or is it a Hole? Ran out of Soap? Don’t worry, more on the way for your Foul Mouth.
Sidi Bojang
I am done with liars like you. How can i stay silent or diplomatic when idiots like you filled these pages with lies, innuendos, fabrications and outright hate? We defeated and banished your idiot in chief Yahya Arrogant Jackass Joker Jammeh, BABOITA MANSA and the same fate awaited you idiot haters down the line. The clean up has just begun and will continue till our soil is cleansed of the filth that is Yahya Jammeh and his idiot followers like you Sidi Village idiot Bojang.
Honestlyr Sallah was the one and the only one Who’s isn’t worrying about the office , I think 90 of the Coalition voters understand and votes for 3 year term otherwise Mr Darboe will still be there in M2 so thanks Allah everything is fine change has been done so let’s be honest and respect the population of the Gambia , I know none likes to quit from the office but yeah Mr president you can get back to the office without playing dirty games x
Another Strong Coalition is possible !!!
Go ahead and work on that now. 4 years goes fast. Put together pdois, aprc and Gdc. Maybe ppp would eventually join. I think that would be formidable and would at least take away the energy from trying to commit the govt to MOU mandated 3 year term contrary to the elected 5 year mandate.
Is it a MoU mandated three year term or a MoU agreed-upon three year transition period??
Folks at the NA, really, many of the fellow Gambians it may concern need some professional help to scour the lens of their old telescope super crystal clean and clear at least, for we may not be able to afford an upmarket one. It is high time you’re poised like doing the job you’re entrusted with.
Gambian voted for 3 year term proposed by the Coalition not Udp , anybody knows who’s gonna be next candidate by Udp? Barrow or Darboe there’s big war between
Devilish kind of =peace#,
Spreaders of rumours of war and unrest like you are at work. You are not willing to seek enlightenment, so you shall fall a fall without honor, in contemptuously spreading the rumours of a war of your desire. It is better to have an idea why one has disagreed or agreed to any given points in issues as such. But no, the evil won’t take heed to the latter.
Our views may converge on an issue but that doesn’t always mean we have the same perspective of that issue!
65. VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
Share
1. The office of President shall become vacant during the term of a Presidency-
1. a.on the death or resignation of President or
2. b.on the President ceasing to hold office under section 63, 66 or section 67.
2. Whenever the office of President becomes vacant in the circumstance set out in subsection (1), the Vice-President, or if there is no Vice-President in office at the time, the Speaker shall assume the office of President for the residue of the term of the former President.
3. Before assuming office under this section, the Vice- President or, as the case may be, the Speaker shall take the prescribed oaths for the office of President. On assuming the office of President, the Speaker shall vacate his or her office as Speaker and his or her seat in the National Assembly.
Could someone comfirm for me whether this part of the constitution is amended or not. If it is not amended then would it alone not be enough of a prove for those who argue that to honor the three year agreement will violet the constitution or that it is going to cost the country some money since it will meant going for election again ?
However the case there is no violation of the constitution here since the 3 years is less than the contitutional term of 5 years and there is nothing in the constitution saying that the president cannot resign before the end of his 5 year term. So the choice is for President Adama Barrow to decide whether to honor the agreement he signed or made and go down in history as a man of his words or otherwise as an untrustworthy person. If I were in his position, I will choose the former for with that I know that will have nothing to lose but everything to gain.
To what end would his stepping down in 3 years help the country? The passage you cited above from the constitution, hopefully enlighten you about the complications embedded in exchanging presidents mid-term. How long would the vice president or speaker be president until new elections are held? Can the successor complete the remaining tenue without election? Would she enjoy more legitimacy than having the democratically elected president finish the mandated term?
I hope you are as well cognizant to the fact that both the would be veep and the current speaker are politically aligned with the president and his political base. Why would you think exchanging him with one of them will change anything to the MOU or the country at large?
Even if he resign in 3 years time, what evidence is out there for you to think that his successor will not come from the dominant political force you are now vilifying for breaching the MOU? Non!
I fear your pleading with Barrow to step down, taking the MOU as the moral apostle, is not constructive.
Regardless of what each party said or signed on for, I have held the believe that one electoral circle in every 5 years is enough for an impoverished country like ours. People want political stability to settle down after divisive election periods and concentrate on the job at hand. The international community want to see progress and is not interested in any exchange of faces frequently disrupting the development policies. These are among factors that are primary now. We have a 5 year election mandate. We should exhaust these time with the democratically elected president if he is able to do it. If he is not capable, then that is another scenario to debate about. But exchanging him because the MOU of parties said so, to me is short-sighted.
The international community would probably also want to work with people they can trust, and so too should Gambians, if they’ve learnt anything from the past. But how could politicians who could not even be trusted to honour their own words and publicly declared agreements be trusted? And just to clarify, the question of how long the VP/Speaker holds office of President when it becomes vacant, can be addressed by a simple amendment of Section 65 (2b), and constitutional reform as well as holding a referendum are commitments in the MOU.
I don’t know what to make of “endless elections cycle” excuses, when folks never used to complain when petitions are lodged, after every election cycle (from 1996 to 2011), seeking annulment of results and holding of fresh elections.
”To what end would his stepping down in 3 years help the country?’
‘
It is to put and end to the culture of of impunity and self-perpetuating rule as captured in the introduction to the manifesto presented by Adama to IEC which reads..
”I have offered myself as an Independent Candidate who will serve for only three years at the head of a broad based and inclusive Coalition Government aimed at conducting Constitutional, institutional and administrative reforms that would establish the foundation of a democratic system of administration that would put an end to the culture of impunity and self-perpetuating rule and usher in an era for Gambians to enjoy liberty and prosperity under a system of government that is sensitive and responsive to the needs and aspirations of its citizenry .”
Kinteh, what are the complications embedded in exchanging presidents mid-term as indicated in the section of the constitution quoted above ?
The issue here is not which party come into power after Barrow but is to put an end to selfperpetuating rule and conduct Constitutional, institutional and administrative reforms that would establish the foundation of a democratic system of administration which will usher in an era for Gambians to enjoy liberty and prosperity under a system of government that is sensitive and responsive to the needs and aspirations of its citizenry.
If the section quoted above is not amended then there is not going to be anything like an election even if Barrow decided to resign after the 3 years.
And let me make it clear that we are not pleeding with him neither are we trying to pressure him into doing anything against his will. We are just expressing our opinions as to what we think is the right thing to do under this circumstances. It is left to him to decide how he want to go down in history.
I have never witnessed a debate where the issue has so many different opinions. The fact that the main issues pre-date the construction of the elusive MOU and before the last General Election, is confusing to say the least. I think I am as frustrated as Dr Sarr, who tends to conclude that what really matters is the dismal track record of the coalition government. It travels and exists at the taxpayers expense to make Gambia a better place to live. Yet it has been beset by tedious and open ended public disagreement. The debate though important can find no consensus which is no different to the those tasked to govern. The cause of all this confusion is the members of the coalition themselves, who constructed the ill fated agreement, never thinking they would succeed. Perhaps that is why the finished agreement was never finished to the high standard fit for the purpose it was intended for; The debate and all its contributors give their own interpretation of what is at issue, whilst the Coalition, Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah give their version of the objective was and is of the signed or unsigned MOU. Some say it doesn’t matter if the MOU does not exist while, your political leaders go into the fundamentals of its history its construction, its aims and ambitions, and who or why it was or was not signed by all the signatories. What is clear is that those signatories that did sign or did give assent to its existence, without prejudice took up cabinet positions. That is fair reward for being brave and unselfish to forge an agreement that ultimately contributed greatly to removing the incumbent. What does puzzle me somewhat is if Mr Darboe was not a signatory and protests his part in or out of this agreement, then how could he be granted a cabinet post ? He certainly did not adhere to that part of the agreement that said all parties would field independent candidates for The National Assembly. This decision ran separately to the rest of the coalition members and it was notable that OJ came out publicly to condemn Mr Darboe for cutting loose from the MOU to great effect, filling most of the National Assembly. This outrage from OJ now becomes explainable. We still don’t exactly know why Mr Sallah broke free from the Coalition, when without doubt, he was the major instigator of the MOU. While Mr Darboe was confined to prison. It is very unclear from Mr Darboe’s recent statements, whether he would have consented to the MOU. Mr Sallah now defends his very laudable and productive activity defending the MOU. So we now begin to understand the history of the MOU and the events that will pass into Gambian history in the days and months to come. I tend to think this eventful story is beginning to make some sense, thanks to the words and evidence the Jollof News commentators have produced. There are winners and losers in this passage of history. I have my opinion I am certain you will have yours.
But after 8 months, I tend to think this government is time lapsed in the past which it feels it must engage, whether it is the actions of the last government and Mr Jammeh and his assets, or the past bedeviled relationships of the Gambia’s opposition. Perhaps Gambia needs to deal with its past and its past relationships, before it can catch up to today, and tomorrow’s obligations. So a 3 year transitional period becomes to make some sense. That’s if President Barrow abides by the MOU and its contents. So in conclusion I tend to think the two sides of opinion which maybe subject to interpretation are closely linked to Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah. No doubt support for either may cloud the outcome for impartiality of view.
Just for your info, macky sall (senegal) promised voters 5 year mandate if he got elected. He went on to win against Wade in a coalition arrangement. The constitutional court then declared his 5 manifesto as null and void because at the time the valid constitution mandated 7 years term. The court degreed that any reforms will have effect on the next legislative period. An example of when in doubt, settle for continuity under prevailing frameworks. I again refute your claim that this interpretation is linked to darboe /Sallah scuffle.
Mike Scales, well summed up analysis of the Genesis and Opinions of the Proponents and Opponents of the MOU. As is the case in any Dispute, the Facts and Truth are in the Details of what is not Stated, and or Revealed. In a sense, the Devil is in the Details. The Detail in my Opinion is the Controlling Document, the MOU.Substantiative Questions Gambians Should ask and Demand an answer to is, What is the reason, rationale behind the Need for an MOU? Why a Coalition Party? Which Document (s) Legitimized the Coalition Party and by Extension the Candidacy of One Adama Barrow as the Coalition Party Candidate? Under what Party did Adama Barrow Register as a Presidential Candidate for the 2016 Presidential Elections and what Supporting Documents were Submitted to the Independent Elections Commission’s Official (s)? Who were the Signatories or Bearers of the Documents that were Submitted to the IEC as Required by Law or Act and thereby Legitimizing the Coalition Party as a Duely Constituted Gambian Political Party to Contest the December 1, 2016 Presidential Elections? These are questions that Gambians need to Advocate and Demand an answer to. I Submit, if those who were Previewed or Party to the Events and Process that gave Birth to the Current Gambian Regime Following the Election defeat of former President Yaya Jammeh and the Subsequent Swearing in of Adama Barrow as the Duely Elected President of the Gambia, are Deposed, Sworn and Immunized from Prosecution as long as they Testify to the Truth and Material Facts of the Genesis and Significance of the MOU AND THE COALITION PARTY, the Matter Before the Gambian People Court of Opinion would be Resolved. The Matter of the MOU AND COALITION PARTY is more than and above all the Principal Parties and their Interests. It is a National Interest. Some might say a National Emergency Matter of Concern and Should be Treated as such by the Remaining Two Legs of the Three Legged Branches of the Gambian Government. The Conflict and Sparing between the Principal Parties in the Legislative and a Member of the Executive Branch Need to be Mitigated without Favor or Equivocation. Agreements and Contracts Matter in the any Civilized Society. Without Prejudice or Malice to the Parties Involved in the MOU and Coalition Government, the Existence of an Agreement or Contract, is Not just to go through a mere Excercise or Process as a Formality or an End in itself. On the Contrary, it to Hold the Parties to the Agreement or Contract Liable. It Serves as Evidence as well as a Legally Binding Bond of the Parties to the Agreement or Contract. In Contract Law or Tort, a Distinction is made between an Agreement and a Contract. In it, an Agreement is a Verbal Consent to Terms Set between Parties Involved in a Transaction. A Contract on the other is, Similar but Written and in some cases Notarized for Good Measure. There are people who say, what does the MOU have to do with the daily Hardship of the Overwhelming Majority of Gambians? This is a fair and reasonable quary or question. The Non Diplomatic and Direct answer is, it Matters a lot. Would you knowingly elect an Untrustworthy and Unreliable Alcalde or Alkalo, Chief, Commissioner, Governor, NAM or President? I am not referring to Persons who are Untrustworthy or Unreliable only through Heresay and Gossip from, Secondary and Third Person Narratives or Reports. I am referring to Persons who Personally Betrayed and Rendered an Agreement with you Null and Void? I realize all such Decisions are Subjective and not Objective when Premised within the Context of the Affairs of Humans Beings. That is why the Common Good in the National Debate Should Transcend Narrow Clan, Nativist, Regional, Ethnic Group Based Politics. The Foundation on which the Current Gambian Government is Built on, is made of the Brick, Motar and Steel Fudged and Molded in Words and on Paper in the Form of the Memorandum of Understanding, the MOU that in Turn gave Birth to the Coalition Party and the Gambian Government of Today. Assaulting, Bullying and Minimizing it’s Significance may not be Criminal, but Definitely in the Broad Definition of Conspiracy on the part of those Subscribing to it’s Demise. Despots and Despotic Actions begin with small Drips and then a Flood, if not Checked or Stopped at its Infancy, which is Now. May Reason and Wisdom Prevail over Might and Naked Power. GAMBIA IS MORE THAN THE SUM TOTAL OF ONE ETHNIC GROUP OR REGION.
The British Parliamentary system has been consistent for nearly two hundred years. It creates divisive politics and tribalism, but works by enlarge very well and is insistent on being accessible to joe public. I have drawers full of letters from the Prime Minister’s secretary and Cabinet members, detailing their views on Yahya Jammeh, human rights and reactions to murder, torture and extrajudicial killings and all importantly Immigration issues concerning West African’s. This common access carried through My Member of Parliament,,,, who also expresses his opinion on these issues. The support for Gambia from the British government has been consistent and reliable from all parties. The process to become a member of Parliament is extensive, full of scrutiny and not for the faint hearted. Of course as is human nature, the occasional ” Bad Egg”gets through the system/ process, but that remains very rare indeed.
The Gambia process is oh so very different. It reminds me of P.E. time at school where the two best soccer players are asked to pick their own teams by a process of best friend or best player first. Mr Sallah has a very small party but an eminent reputation as an intelligent authority. Mr Darboe has the largest Party, community muscle and strength, but neither matched the presence the cult following or even the charisma of Yahya Jammeh. A man who played to his selective audience with a command of his presence and his words. Hence Mr Darboe and Mr Sallah appear to have been around for years. As minor and struggling and unelectable political figures. Is it not therefore very surprising that a government of minor unelectable party leaders and no hopers and the virtually unknown., should occupy the top seats in government. I ask who this process of selection for political leadership favours ? Does it favour anyone or everyone or no one ? Its appears to me that all you have to do to become a member of the Gambian cabinet, is to start a political party, with a handful of supporters, or be elected because you are unelectable, or be a convenient bystander with no danger to affect change in the existing status quo.
So it continues to be a situation where being in power is the endgame and the matter of improving the poorest in society is not so important. Hence the noise from Government is a confused and perpetual cloudy non responsive and ineffectual government of disagreements.
I am only asking ?
Good point. But then the curent occuppiers of downing street are also there for power sake -going into an unholy alliance with northern Ireland extremist settlers. And don’t forget that since David Cameron took office, UK has the weakest crop of leaders in years- with miserable results( Brexit, extremism). The heir to the throne is not much better nor elected. Indeed, the British system is better for they are crafting it since somewhere 1660. Gambia is crafting it since 1965 and then came the disruption. A disruption barely anyone in this forum is willing to acknowledge. Vast majority of Gambians are aware that the transition from jammeh’s havoc wouldn’t be easy and are aware of the limitations of the new leaders. Difference is, they are encouraging them and where necessary make constructive critic.
The level of undersupply in the British democracy today would represent an advanced stage of democracy in the Gambia. In other words, shortfalls in British politics are very much dissimilar to those of Gambian politics. Comparing the two is quite irrelevant for the fact that early elections in Britain never cost Britons a heart failure.
Furthermore, Senegal’s political affairs chronicle, is not an appropriate sample for the Gambia’s case study.
Brexit was nothing to do with Cameron or May>>>It was the democratic choice of the people. Jammeh was also the democratic choice of Gambians for 22 years. He barged into the Statehouse unopposed. Yes I made a bloody good point. Queen Liz has been someone aloof from Politics, who this country and most of the world respect for her life time devotion to duty. A significant role model to service and she pays taxes and wears nice dresses and hats.
….and so God saves her.
To ALL
I’m leaving for Holland tonight after 1 month 21 days. I’m leaving home very sad about the poor governance, irrational and continued abuse of power, the rising momentum of corruption, family and influence peddling, the rising prices of basic commodities, the poor state of our cities and towns, rising poverty, the uncared state of our farmers, the unfed and malnutrized children, the rising state of theft and insecurity and ALL THE VERY BAD AND IRRESPONSIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS.
While all economic and social conditions remain bleak and unattended, these IDIOTIC semi-illiterate man in presidential clothing left with all his bunch of STUPID administrators and family to perform “pilgrimage” on the tax payers’ expenses, a “pilgrimage” which ALLAH the Almighty (SWT) will NEVER accept. His religious fanfare/conscience is not our business. We need to haul our overall socio-economic conditions for a better livelihood.
I stayed 1 month 21 days to witness the most horrendous and ineffective moments in our day to day administration. It’s sad to have this illiterate at the helm of our affairs. VERY SAD indeed! Nothing absolutely has been achieved since these CORRUPT and SELFISH people took over in Januray. Time will tell all their blind-folded supporters that this rudimentary “government” will NEVER produce results. They are settling in to grap the most essential positions for families/buddies, waste our resources and eventually sink the country into GREED, MORE SELFISHNESS, HUNGER and ACUTE POVERTY!
I’ll take time to write more when I arrive.
The insidious prophet of doom and lies is coming back. Lets celebrate his imminent arrival, the arrogant pompous idiot who think the world revolve around him. How can President Barrow and his government be responsible for the state of affairs of our nation when they have been in power for only 8months. I guess the prophet of doom and lies was not following the proceedings at the commission looking into the financial malpractices of Jammeh and his cronies.
Looking forward to hear more lies and fabrications and more impish bravado of nothingness.
You see it alway goes like this>> I tell you the truth and the response is predictable.
Then,,,,,
all of a sudden the debate goes silent. Because the truth has no conflict. Why attack england when most of you are living here ?
..and yes God Save the Queen, she has nothing do with Gambia, she granted independence…and what did you do with it >?
Jawara 30 years, then who did he turn to for refuge, yes england. Then the killer Jammeh another 22 years. so who now ? Someone unknown who likes to fly away from Gambia>>> at your expense.
I don’t see Gambians wanting to return home soon except for a holiday with the tourists discounted filghts from where ? england.
The Gambia has become a tourist destination for Gambians; All Gambians would prefer living in western countries; The only people who will remain are those who can’t afford to move or are too old or sick…or YOUR politicians. The are the only ones who can afford to live. The rest are just tax paying cannon fodder. After 22 years of plunder Jammeh is now one of the richest men in Africa. Gambia remains one of the poorest heavily indebted nations, living on international welfare and donations.
Mike scales
It is ironic for such words to come from the mouth of an Englishman. Go back and study your tainted history, the people you enslaved, robed and raped their women and children with the bible in one hand, the gun in the other. Go back and study the partition of India and Pakistan or the creation of the state of Israel by destroying the Palestinian people. Who is selling the arms to the Saudis to bomb innocent women and children in Yemen? What about your war crimes in Iraq? in the Falkland islands.
Gambian nationals will stay in England as long as they want and if you English have problem with that then leave. You lived in our countries for 400 years and the only legacy you left behind is war and destruction. You imposed your rotten values on us for 400 years and now we are in your country to impose our values and if you don’t like it, please leave.
You went around the world uninvited, fucked the world and looked now, you are being fucked.
Sounds like we stopped your benefits mate; Sorry about that.
It’s comforting to read your true self- quitely quickly ! It took us 22 years to convince our people who Jammeh is and what his mindset is. An arduous task than in your case. Compliment to you!
Mike Scales
Natty Dread ain’t living in your crumbling empire and never will, so save your benefits for your British ”objects” cos i can’t call you subjects for a rainy day, when you become minority in your own country. The Africans, the West Indians, the Pakis and Indians are all coming in droves to reclaim the wealth you stole from them. Keep the benefits Mike! Keep them cos you gonna need them.
Yes we has a similar problem with the Romans in 50 AD>> and then the Normans in 1066>>> then we got pissed off and forced Bad King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede. Things got a little better until my direct ancestor Henry the 8th
{ 48 cousin removed} slaughtered 20, 000 from Pontefract to Carlisle hanged them all from trees, including children. Just because they protested for civil rights. Sorry for the slavery, but we did have Wilberforce’s injunction against slavery and from then on we protected West Africans with British naval frigates. Yes many Gambians on here have preferred colonialism to Jammeh saying things were much better. Sorry about letting you go your own way>>>but fighting Hitler bankrupted us. We owed our soul to the American’s and lease lend and war debts we paid back. That took us 50 years. When Jammeh was persecuting you, I ran a weekly correspondence run to The Minister of Immigration pleading several Gambian cases for asylum with some success. During 2000 to 2006 I contributed half a million pounds to good causes, in Gambia inc. school fees doctor and hospital bills and trade and sports. For which Gunjur made myself and Arsene Wenger an honorary citizen. No regrets my friend…God will repay me.
Not to mention the grave risk I took to help finance Freedom Newspaper and Jollof News….to engage Gambians to fight the despot. We won.
So you could voice your anger and make your point; So who’s the fucker here ?
So the fucker is a coward. So what’s fresh ?
Excellent contribution on Freedom Newspaper today from Dr Sarr. I couldn’t agree more my good doctor. Sorry Sidi Bojang for the distraction. I support your in depth analysis; I would only add, that as President Barrow is only a transitional leader of a conglomeration of minor singular parties all with different politics and political agenda’s, the agreed transitional Presidency period of 3 years or less, must not exceed the agreed maximum period in office. The coalition is now widely accepted to have been formed to oust the incumbent as it’s MOU.This was it’s prime objective. The second objective was to transfer from Dictatorship to Democracy, and given three years maximum to achieve that goal. The third objective was to agree the articles in a new Constitution. The fourth objective was to “clean” the Constitution of anti human rights and anti freedoms legislation. Any deviation from what the electorate voted for, would be a betrayal. It is very disagreeable that the fourth objective, has seen the transitional government chosen to use the same foul contentious legislation towards it’s own aims and against certain sections of the Gambian community. Therefore in my view, Mr Barrow should resign within the chosen period and new elections for President should be contested by the leaders of Gambia’s political parties, or by independent candidates to broaden the matter of choice from the electorate from what is the perpetual status quo. The gambian people at that stage may wish to thank Mr Barrow for his service to the common cause.
Mike Scales. fold up and let go.
IDIOTIC NASTY DREADFUL NATTY DREAD, the Mauritian Slave Trader,
Coming again to glorify/deify an IDIOTIC, ILLITERATE, CORRUPT, NEPOTIC, TRIBALIST, INCOMPETENT and DISGRACEFUL man in Presidential clothing! Come on!
You still talking about a moratorium period. 8 months! What a senseless and stupid paradox!
Eight months into their wasteful administration, this British Argos Watchman in Gambia’s “presidential” garment, assisted by his bunch of selfish collaborators had enough time to:
1) waste our resources by travelling to Senegal to see his Marabouts
2) travel to Congo Brazaville to receive more per diem incentives with his plane load of friends and buddies
3) travel to France to negotiate and unnegotiate deal to change our currency
4) institute his friends, family and buddies in key public offices,
5) go with his corrupt officials, family and buddies on pilgrim to Mecca (May Allah the Almighty(SWT) reject their pilgrimage)
6) use government resources to buy expensive vehicles to gain the loyalty of our ILLITERATE bunch of National Assembly Members (NAMs)
7) spend millions on his useless inauguration
8) spend millions on the upkeep of the invading Senegalese forces
9 spend millions at his hotel/office residence before moving to his present office
While he has time( 8 months) to divert our resources on these STUPID, FUTILE and NON-PROGRESSIVE activities, you are sitting on your ASS in Mauritius glorifying a completely dysfunctional administration.
Our social and economic development needs and priorities are all stagnant simply because we have an unresourceful person at the helm of our affairs. Unimaginative, uncreative, unproductive! It’s a disgrace we have this IDIOT who’s just wasting our time and resources.
What a STUPID sense of thought coming from an IDIOT like Nasty Dreadful Natty Dread! Still deifying an INEPT and INCOMPETENT bunch of selfish people.
An anecdote: Shortly before I came back, the sly corrupt Minister of Higher Education, Badara Joof, announced on GRTS that his Ministry had received over 600 scholarships for higher education in overseas universities. A week later he sent COLANUTS to mosques around his vicinity, Kombo Lamin, Kombo Banjul’Nding, Kombo Yundum for Muslims to pray for his children who had secured scholarships to study abroad. Nobody knows on which qualifications and from which scholarship package. It was later said that they got the scholarships from the packages he announced earlier.
You see, IDIOT Natty how your corrupt officials silently and shrewdly corrupt the system only for personal gains. If you think all is rosy with your bunch of incompetent people, you must be a blind-folded IDIOT!
After the very heavy rains, houses fell to rubbles, roads/streets filled with rain water, plastic bags littered all around; Banjul/Serrekunda/Brikama streets intransitable, waste dumpsites all around in Banjul, Serrekunda and Brikama; markets full of flies; undernourished children running all around bare-footed and in ragged clothes, hospitals without medicines, government functionaries striving more in corruption. While all these hazards prevail, your STUPID bunch of administrators had 8 months to prepare their trip to Mecca from the taxpayers’ coffers!
I’ll come up with more!
Babu Soli
Is that just coincidence that you haven’t mention anything from the ugly revelations at the commission looking into the financial malpractices of Jammeh and his cronies. May i please refer you to the testimonies of Jammeh’s own brother, the former MD of GPA and his assistant. You see Babu, talk is cheap, and if you want to become a credible commentator then you have to be balanced in your criticism of this government. What they had inherited is a total and absolute chaos, and credit is due to them for ending dictatorship in our beloved country.
You are just a bitter little man with a big mouth and little action. Gambian educated but brain-drained by the imperialist and the colonialist whose only interest is to make us subservient and vassals to their interests.
What is stopping you,with your education to effect changes in the areas you highlighted in your insult-filled, hate-filled and criticism-filled ramblings. We know big mouthed men like you and guess what happened to them, sent packing into exile.
Looking forward to read more bullshit from your corrupt and hateful mind.
FOOLISH NATTY,
With all that you call revelations at the corrupt COMMISSION, nothing tangible will be accounted for. After all, at the end of the sittings, the corrupt-bloated commission members will only file that President Jammeh had developed the Gambia with whatever resources he had. That’s where we are today with development in all areas.
I closely followed/continue to follow the corrupt commission’s deliberations and was highly disappointed that the money they are so adamantly trying to use as a ploy to thwart public opinion about President Jammeh were all resourcefully used to educated our youth, in and out of The Gambia and to ameliorated all our social and economic amenities.
They have absolutely NOTHING genuine to say, you FOOL! President Jammeh inherited a stagnant and dysfunctional government and elevated the country to the standard we are. That’s what the immense mayority are now saying. Our people are grossly disappointed at your inept administration.
In the Gambia nobody cares about the deliberations of the Commission. Our poor people are busy on their farms, trying to put their daily meals on their mats/tables, erecting their demolished houses, paying horrendous fees to teachers for useless summer classes, still paying heavy transport fares(after being fooled about insignificant fare reductions of D1, D2,D3 on tariffs), rising food prices(especially fish and meat), continuous shortage of electricity supplies……………..
Another anedote: Learned/progressive people in the Gambia (not the bunch of blind-folded IDIOTIC Barrow supporters in the diaspora) were immensely disappointed at Barrow’s refusal to accept the resignation of Justice Minister Tambedu. In which democratic/progressive country would a blood brother of a minister, who sit in the same chambers, allow his brother to sexually mess around with the wife of a person he’s prosecuting and go impuned? Prosecuting officer Sheriff Tambedu has long been tainted as a criminal not a lawyer, a womanizer, who once snatched a client’s wife. If this same man, acting on the orders of the government as a prosecutor sexually messes around with the wife of a prisoner he’s prosecuting, a woman whose information was recorded for the world to know, stays in office, what STUPID democracy are you interpreting?
What I mentioned to my friends while we were arguing the case in my house, was that fat-bellied illiterate Barrow doesn’t know what it entails by a minister resigning. After all, how can a watchman in “presidential” garments gauge the consequencies of such a very serious matter? Our situation is a SAD one. May the Almighty Allah(SWT) quickly kick this bunch of SELFISH, CORRUPT and INCOMPETENT IDIOTS from office. AMEEEEN!
I think it is a trait of Gambians that when cornered with truth, they reach for the first weapon of choice. Unfortunately that weapon is usually violence instead of reason. I do not believe that Jammeh killed anyone himself. But some Gambians did and they seemed to like it.The Jola’s were the first to die in protest. I am thinking Babu may just as well keep his former keeper. For Jola’s there is nothing in this new government. >>and yes keep up your attempts to silence your truth master. Your freedom of anything can never be selective or it must be called tyranny.
Gambians are anchored by their own history of failure.
Nutty Fred;; Please stick to the children’s paddling pool, Its supervised.
Certain notions here seem to imply there are participants in these forums who were deep down to their throats in the mess of Jammeh’s atrocities. How would I get convinced Jammeh didn’t personally kill anyone. Do every killer need to pull a trigger or stab someone in the heart themselves to be called a killer??
Answer; Because your Gambian atrocity His Excellency babil mansa bullshiter, made a very telling public statement;
” I will put you 6 feet under and go to sleep on the Law.”
A Barrister may argue that these words would strongly indicate that there is intention to kill, and that their was a way to kill that could have a defence in Law. One may also argue that these words do not in themselves confirm an intention to kill by the word sayer. But that does not rule out the strong possibility, that others would carry out the act/acts and be granted impunity under the Law. He also said ” I will kill 10,000 to save one million.” This highlights the logistic difficulty in killing 10,000 single handedly. It also suggests that others i.e.his army, would be involved and as this would be a Presidential decree….impunity would follow. So the correlation between legally killing and impunity, would seem to go hand in hand. However, there appears to be an agreement made between Ecowas Presidents and Mr Jammeh that grants him impunity and safe conduct. This agreement was said not to be signed by President in waiting Barrow. Another one of those ” I didn’t sign it” moments in UDP history. So thereby hangs the tail .Or is it tale ?