Dr Omar Janneh
In November 2016, seven opposition parties finally did the admirable thing which they could not do for some years. They came together and formed a coalition that ended some 22 years of Jammeh’s brutal regime.
Clearly there were a variety of very good reasons that resulted in the coalition 2016 agreement, but the negotiating team could not have struck a deal if they were not acutely aware of what failure to strike an agreement would mean– potential escalation and the continuation of heinous gross rights abuses, bad governance, deliberate adulteration of state and private sector institutions, rampant corruption, further isolation of the country and many other excesses/executive overreaches with their consequent wide-ranging terrible effects on us all.
Given the 22 years of brutality under the APRC regime, coalition 2016 produced a manifesto which was quite attractive to many voters and I think the promise that the coalition would be a transitional government for a period of 3 years, and the corrective programme of activities the coalition promised to implement during the transitional period may have proven particularly appealing to all Gambians. Indeed it may have been also quite reassuring to Gambians that the flagbearer affirmed his commitment and loyalty to the coalition 2016 agreement.
As a result, many individuals and civil society organisations came together and gave whatever they could to help the coalition win the 2016 elections. Thus, there was something quite beautiful about the Gambian character and the character of our politicians in 2016. The hopes of Gambians, after the 2016 elections, for a brighter and better future have been understandably high.
Disappointingly, as soon as they or some of the leadership of the coalition got into office, it seems that, in general, we and the politicians lost something– capacity to perform, integrity/morality? Did our judgement and desire to do good become clouded by the milk and honey that they or some of us started to benefit from the new administration?
Do we not know what public service is about? We now know that the flagbearer has changed his mind; he is no longer committed and loyal to the coalition agreement on grounds that the deal was apparently an unsigned gentlemen’s agreement. If such an utterance from any partner to an agreement is not an ungentlemanly and an unprecedented show of untrustworthiness and disappointingly deceiving and insulting, I do not know what is. I wonder if he is acting alone or did some lousy individual(s) poison his mind? Are we where we are because power has the obnoxious capacity to corrupt a weak, greedy, dishonest and unethical leader?
As we move closer to year three of President Adama Barrow’s presidency, the subject of whether he should remain committed and loyal to the coalition agreement and stay in office for only 3 years is a subject of much debate. Indeed anyone who follows Gambian politics, cannot fail to notice the differing views on the issue of whether the “coalition government”, should honour the coalition agreement– should it be 3 years or 5 years as per the 1997 constitution?
But as this debate goes on, one issue that has been on my mind for a long while is whether Jammeh could have banned the coalition from contesting in the 2016 presidential elections on constitutional grounds. You are probably saying that we do not have to worry about that now, but we must not forget that the current President is a Jammeh-like figure– he is learning all of the dirty tricks of the Jammeh regime. Jammeh told us that theirs was going to be brief and that they would go back to the barracks, yet it was everything (- too little good and very much bad) but short-lived. He worked with like-minded people to adulterate the constitution to, more generally, suit their desires at the detriment of Gambians. Some might opt for the usual default position that we were meant to go through some 22 years of brutality.
That come 2016, Jammeh could not think of any magic formula to help him win the elections and that the time had come for a new political dispensation. I get all of that, but let’s imagine if he had used the 1997 constitution to ban/frustrate the coalition from contesting the 2016 elections based on the transitional period of 3 years coalition 2016 campaigned on. And guess what he would say if we didn’t like it.
In general, most hold the view that good governance underpinned by trust, honesty, integrity, dynamism and much else are fundamental ingredients that sustain the survival and legacy of any leadership. Given the strong views expressed by some individuals about the need to uphold the 1997 constitution– which favours President Barrow’s stay in office for 5 years, against the coalition 2016 agreement of 3 years, I have wondered if there was ever any expressed views that queried the unconstitutionality of the coalition 2016 agreement of 3 years.
In other words, did anyone of us asked the coalition partners to go back to the negotiating room because the 3 years they agreed and put to us was unconstitutional? In my view, the 3 years promised by the coalition may have been quite attractive to the electorate to unseat the brutal APRC government. But, did the Jammeh-led government, confident of victory, forget to or could they have used the constitutional provision of 5 years to block the coalition from contesting the 2016 elections on constitutional grounds?
Would Jammeh’s application of such a strategy (close to the December 2016 elections) caused chaos and paralysis of the coalition negotiations and handed victory to the APRC if the coalition partners could not agree to a transitional period of 5 years? What could we have done about such an overreach if we did not like it? Going forward, is there any likelihood that any Gambian President with a similar disposition to Jammeh (such as President Barrow) ban a coalition(s) from contesting in elections if the term of office of the coalition(s) falls outside the provisions of the constitution?
It seems to me that through deliberate deception, gross selfishness, weakened moral compass, and calculated dishonesty, President Barrow and his supporters (or constitutionalists) are about to disregard the utility of a very effective formula that gave us the power to remove a brutal dictator, and through that mischievous and potentially calamitous strategy create a true Jammeh-like leader. Briefly, it appears to me that in November 2016, we seemingly failed to defend the “unconstitutionality of the 3 years” put to us by the coalition partners, yet through sheer political opportunism and political prostitution, some of us now appear very determined to defend– at any cost- that President Barrow should remain in office for 5 years on constitutional grounds, against the widely accepted, widely publicised and internationally-respected coalition agreement. Indeed after much positive publicity in regards to the way we used an effective tool (coalition) to uproot a brutal dictatorial regime, it seems to me that there is still something that needs to be deciphered about the characters of some Gambians and or Gambian politicians.
As we pave the way towards creating an untrustworthy, fundamentally clueless and dangerously hopeless and incompetent leader, the eyes of the world are on us– we seem to be dishonestly hiding under the cover of the provision of the 1997 constitution as if the 1997 constitution came after the coalition 2016 agreement or that the coalition partners were not familiar with the provisions of the 1997 constitution. Again, we did not publicly raise any objections to any aspects of the coalition 2016 agreement. What is wrong with the Gambian character?
While it is pleasing that Gambians take great interest in politics and the political process, the proliferation of political parties in the country seem to underscore the potential need for alliances/coalitions between the parties to help win an election. But then if we have learnt anything from the past, I think the negotiating parties are only likely to emerge with a deal if the partners can trust each other; so our word and trust are important; we have to mean what we say.
The coalition partners promised that during the transitional period, they would work on important wide-ranging reforms to help recalibrate and project the country’s image towards some semblance of normalcy and that the leadership of the coalition would prepare the country for fresh elections, but that the flagbearer will not seek for re-election.
The coalition shared this message and campaigned up and down the country that they would be in office for a transitional period of 3 years. It follows from that that of the many that voted for the coalition, they did so on the understanding that the coalition would stay in power for 3 and not 5 years. In fact upon winning the 2016 elections, Barrow can be heard reiterating the point, as per the Coalition 2016 agreement, that he would only in office for a transitional period- fast forward to 3.10-3.30mins of the clip.
Some individuals, e.g. the UDP leader, consider it appropriate to take the position that everyone who voted in the 2016 Presidential elections did so knowing that if any one of the President candidates won the elections, he would serve for 5 years as per the 1997 constitution. I think most individuals hold the alternative view that those that voted for the APRC and GDC in the 2016 elections did so knowing that if either party won the elections, they would be in office for 5 years. But I do not think that the same is true for the coalition because they campaigned on a transitional period of 3 years. In my view, those who (now) hold the view that the coalition government is to stay in power for 5 years may have shifted their position- since the elections- possibly because of their own interests or that they may be deliberately massaging the truth.
Most objectively-minded voters liked what the coalition offered: the vision, core objectives, and the corrective programme of activities of the coalition. In general, Gambians wanted to unseat the brutal APRC regime and replace it with a transitional leadership team that will seek to reset the vision of the country and once more restore the dignity of the people of The Gambia. Thus I hold the view that the leadership and supporters of both the APRC and GDC as well as those that voted for the coalition knew that a coalition-led government would serve for 3 and not 5 years.
To me at least, the following notions as grounds for the “coalition government” to default on the agreement seem flawed, dishonest and inexcusable: 1) that the coalition is no longer intact and therefore unenforceable; 2) that the coalition government is not able to actualise its objectives during its 3 years in office and so needs more time– that is because they are dangerously incompetent; 3) that there is no credible alternative to replace the current leadership- well there is time for “team saviour” to come forward, and 4) that the Independent Electoral Commission is not ready– on constitutional grounds or that it has unclear funding source to conduct elections in 2019.
I think we have to ask the following: When did President Barrow lose his moral compass? When did the leadership of the coalition lose the political will and their moral compass to continue to remain committed and loyal to the coalition agreement; and was any individual(s) responsible for its loss of commitment and loyalty to the agreed deal? From the outset, one wonders whether the leadership of the coalition had the political will and the moral compass to overcome any challenges and prepare for the unexpected in regards to fulfilling any of the objectives of the coalition agreement. What seems clear is that they are concentrating much of their political energies on principally self-development and on vanity projects that have, to a large part, by design or inadvertently distracted us/them as well as possibly reduced our productivity at a time when the country needs us to be very productive.
Clearly President Barrow has changed his mind and since we cannot rely on the NAMs to do their constitutional duties without fear or favour– as many of them are conflicted and dangerously ineffective-, time will tell who will blink first. Will it be President Barrow, the operation 3 years jotna campaign group or the Barrow for 5 years group? President Barrow and his team are moving on a very sticky surface; there are very good reasons why they must quickly find their moral compass and honour the coalition agreement to serve for three years.
Finally, here is a big ask which was expressed previously: While a political process is needed to settle the issue of whether President Barrow should stay in office for 3 or 5 years, I think there is probably some good grounds for the Constitutional Review Commission to measure public perception of how we navigate our way through a coalition agreement/coalition government with a view to including something on it in the new constitution so that the path to bringing about a change of government through a coalition can be smooth. This will minimise the potential for civil discord. I hope that we will be vigilant enough to never ever groom a leader like Yahya Jammeh.
“I hope that we will be vigilant enough to never ever groom a leader like Yahya Jammeh”, said Dr Omar Janneh.
In a few sentences, let us examine the similarities/differences between Yaya and Adama, to ascertain if we are already grooming one or not. But first, what type of a leader was Yaya? We knew him to be extremely brutal, erratic, self-centered, conning, corrupt, lying, murderous, psychopath, thieving, womanizing, rapist, egomaniac.
Yaya used gutless parliamentarians to concentrate power in his hands and lead with impunity. Adama also fleetingly relied on the NA to do his dirty work. Remember the constitutional amendments to remove the age limit from the books just to get FJT to be Vice President? This was when Ousainou was playing the part of the “godfather” in this post Jammeh political drama. One to one on that score.
Hundreds or even thousands of people were killed, tortured, maimed, disappeared in the name of “national security”, when in reality no single citizen was ever secure or safe, except Yaya Jammeh himself. In the name of maintaining peace, Aruna Jatta was gunned down in Kanilai. His only crime: taking part in a peaceful demonstration. In the same vein, three young lives were mercilessly cut short for defending their rights to their ancestral farmlands. One to one on that score too.
Yaya had a carte blanc to pilfer, steal or ñiapingkang our monies. He drained the coffers dry. Adama has access to some mysterious funds, which are after all not so mysterious, to tell us that at the end of his rein, we might find out that Gambia owes him money. He is taking bribes and kickbacks just as Yaya Jammeh was doing. Period!
I could go on and on and on.
Now back to Omar’s hope that we won’t be grooming a leader like Yaya. Am disappointed that the learned Dr PhD holder has not seen the obvious similarities between the two mis-leaders.
Jammeh could not have banned the coalition. This is why.
1. Our binding document does not prevent political opportunists from making a strategic political arrangement, contract or manifesto. They could agree to any “thrash”, makes no difference. It was politically expedient.
2. No laws were violated since the specific provision could be challenged if and when an aggrieved party so desire.
Less important legally but very important socially and psychologically:
1. The vote was NEVER a vote for UDP or Barrow. Adama was a nonentity, a persona non grata. This was a Gambian vote against tyranny. Gambians were simply tired of our miserable existence. We were poor and hopeless. Devoid of oxygen. Para “vivi mortuis” something had to give. Yahya must go. That simple!
But what exactly is the lesson here for Gambians.
Vigilance.
As much as Yahya bears full and absolute responsibility for the death of our beloved country, he did not do this alone. He was helped by many that served him. The Junta, The Junglers, The Green Boys, NIA, Police, Army, Politicians, Bureaucrats, Religious Leaders to name a few.
I have stated severally that Barrow will serve 5 years. No one should be surprised about this. It is of no concern to me. The time is not relevant. What is important is. What he does and how he does it. That can be determined by how we the citizens act. We can and must STOP him or any other politician form raping our daughters, stealing our money and killing us like sheep. How. By calling HIM or any of our leaders out when they are WRONG.
God Bless The Gambia.
….. A somewhat interesting piece.
I suppose when one’s time is up, one runs out of ideas an so Jammeh had fallen out with the Gods. I seem to recall that Jammeh frustrated NADD (National Alliance for Democratic Development; 5 membered party which I think later became 3; Halifa would remember. My memory sketchy here) and Gambians/partners could do little about it.
If he bannded the 2016 coalition from contesting, what next. He would have insulted us to all go to hell if we disliked his decision. Crazy man (oops!)
He couldn’t.
He had no options left at that point. The Gods were fed up with him and PMB was looking for someone to kill. Yahya Jammeh was in the crosshairs.
Exile or death. He chose exile.
A COWARD to the End.
Dr Sarr, Please do excuse my ignorance here. Are you talking about pre- or post-elections or you are putting both in the same box?
I just wonder what anyone (country or individual) could do if he said that the coalition couldn’t contest the elections as 3 years is not part of the 1997 constitution. I kind kind of see date I say, Dr Jannehs provocative argument. The timing of such a move could have made it difficult for the 7 wise opposition political parties in The Gambia.
Of course, when he lost, accepted defeat and then rejected his defeat (the wobble man), he was on a slippery slope down towards his country of exile, whether he liked it or not. The gods stopped praying for him. Here is what I dare think: If he hadn’t accepted defeat, he could have made life bloody difficult for Gambia. The guy’s crazy (oops again!)
Thanks may Allah bless us all.
I must confess to some inside information here.
The decision to dislodge Yahya Jammeh was made before the election. Jammeh made some crucial errors in 2015 and 2016. Our neighbors were already sick of him. All he did after the election was gave them an excuse to move on him and move him out.
Only thing that saved Jammeh was Alpha Conde who made it clear to him that PMB was looking for confrontation not dialogue. This information came directly from one Bola Tinubu who is a close political adviser to PMB. This Billionaire was a close friend of Conde. He loaned his private jet to get Yahya to Guinea and onwards to EG.
Unknown to most, The Nigeria 3rd marine commando was embedded in the first assault wave with KOS orders. Lucky bastard.
Sorry, “*I kind kind of see date I say,” I meant “I kind o see, dare I say,”
Thank you, Dr Touray!
I think you indirectly answered my question. Here is why I think you have: You seem to say that it was only after the elections, when Jammeh accepted defeat, then rejected the results (flip-flopped – laughs), that the neighours/international community had the “mandate” to dislode him – his desire to rule Gambia or a billion years (LAUGHS) CRASHED. Understandably I think many reasonable people were fed up with him…. Did I get you right?
I think it is fair to say that the international community/neighbours were fed up of him before the elections, but they could not come and pounce on him because they hated him. they had to wait for him to make a blunder and he sure did – accepted defeat and then rejected it – he had to go; he couldn’t make a mockery of the international order. But, and here is the big BUT, if his (Jammeh) gods had not turned their backs on him (Jammeh), he could have conceivably used the 1997 constitution to frustrate the coalition. I think the discussions happened in November 2016 and the elections were in December – they may run out of time to do much. You see, I would like to know if the coalition even considered the 5 years, but never agreed on it. To be in politics and as a leader, you have to want to lead (become president, right?). Anyhow, I wish someone from the 7 wise party leaders would tell me or us thatthey discussed the idea of a transitional period of 5 years, but could not agree and why not. But they shall not come here. They are probably developing policiy papers (fat chance) and much of drinking money and milk (borrowing from Dr Janneh, if I may), so do not have time for happenings on jollofnews – after all it is Friday- a rather unproductive day in The Gambia.
You must forgive me. I meant Sarr, not Dr Touray
Noted.
@Sandi. The decision to rid Gambia of Jammeh had nothing to do with post 2016 election shenanigans. Kind of. What I am saying is. PMB and the entire ECOWAS community decided in early 2015 that Yahya Jammeh is a liability, a nuisance, an embarrassment, a cancer that needs immediate excision. While some members just want him out of office. PMB and our neighbor on the other hand wants him killed. Part of the problem had to do with the idiot emissary that carries message back and forth between Banjul and Abuja.
Jammeh only gave the PMB needed excuse after the election.
Also Jammeh was not in position to cancel the election or overtly interfere with the coalition plan. He was aware at this point that the end was around the corner. The Gods are angry.
All the ECOWAS meetings were windows dressing. The die is cast.
One problem that we Gambians have is to look at things through a narrow lens as if it is a Gambia issue. Truth is those who determine our faith, our lives and our future most of the time are not on our soil.
Whoever holds the 5-year constitutional argument to keep the HOPELESS, SELFISH, CORRUPT, LIAR Barrow in office is just a chip of the same block; untrusthworthy and unpatriotic.
We are no longer condoning leaders who say one thing now and turn overnight to deny themselves. We are simply not accepting LIARS as leaders. LIARS are dangerous and cancerous. It is evidential how our meagre resources are being wasted because this is the modus operandi of a LIAR; divert public/individual attention to USELESS efforts.
In December, the Gambia will smother, unless the present LIARS, THIEVES relinquish power on their 2016 promise and pave way for a truly consolidated and incorruptible democratic dispensation.
Babu will be in The Gambia, In Shaa Allah, to join progressive forces like the 3-Year Jotnah, in the streets that might be tear-gased and bayoneted by the Gambian security forces and ECOMIG and Senegalese forces.
The 3-year deal will be honoured. It is constitutional. There is no need to go to a law school to know the veracity and legality of a verbal agreement. Most especially among eight parties. Those who deny the 3-year agreement are the real enemies of our electorate, the selfish, greedy and untruthful sycophants who want to see our country in flames.
@Babu Soli. You know we are too enlightened now for this tactic. Attempts by APRC members to sow a seed of discord cannot be taken seriously. For what it’s worth, the coalition agreement is DEAD. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Barrow has chosen his path as expected. I don’t agree with it, but that is neither germane nor relevant. Question is what is next. Who will waste their time and money to enforce this unconstitutional 3 year agreement.
The Citizens?
The UDP?
APRC?
PPP etc
I don’t believe any person or entity is stupid enough to do that.
Remember:
1. The coalition has imploded on herself. There is no coalition anymore.
2. The agreement itself is not consistent with our constitution.
3. Who is aggrieved. Citizens? A non existent coalition? Opportunists?
4. What is the remedy? Call for election? Impeach Barrow?
5. Most important we don’t have time to litigate the issue. By the time you get judgment if you do, 5 years will pass. What is the point?
So, stop being an Agent Provocateur. Don’t set the country you love so dearly on fire, by covertly enraging and encouraging citizens to action. It is much better to deploy your collective wisdom and ALL the Dalasi you guys stole from our central bank by APRC to find lasting solutions to the damage done to the fabric of our society by your leader – Yahya Jammeh and the Party. Just my thoughts Sir.
By the way before you ask me to look at what Barrow is doing. You may have a point. I think the answer is there for all Gambians to see.
My dear sister Sarr. You know or at least have the believe that I respect you a lot. However, you have lately been making a few unfounded statements. I wished I had a way to communicate with you privately but I do not. So here I am, not actually putting you on the spot but to correct one of a few errors that you and others including Bax and Dr. Janneh have been making. I have written about the topic and have been interviewed on radio about it. So what I am about to say is nothing new. Dr. Janneh’s latest article is dizzying to put it mildly. He got into the 3 years agreement and constitutional matters without ever talking about what constitutes a constitutional matter. Please let me put it another way. What must be present in a controversy to implication a constitutional provision? To elaborate, to constitute a contract issue, there must be a contract and every contract must have three components, namely: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. In other words, all three must be present to have a binding contract. So, before a person can talk about a contract, he or she must establish that all three: offer, acceptance and consideration are present; then and only then can it be decided whether the contract has been breached or not by looking at the terms of the contract. Back to Constitutional Law! To have a constitutional issue, the general rule is that, one of the parties in the controversy must be the state. Of course, there is an exception to the general rule. The exception is where a constitutional provision create a right for certain persons and states that those persons may sue in their individual capacities or as a group on constitutional ground if that right provided to them by the said constitutional provision is violated. This exception does NOT exist in The Gambia Constitution for all I know, but I stand corrected. Since there is no such exception, that only leaves us with the general rule that one of the parties to the controversy must the state or if you want, the government. If the state is NOT a party to the controversy, then it is NOT a constitutional matter. It is supposed to be as simple as that. Knowing this general principle, anyone can easily decide for him or herself whether the 3 years agreement is a constitutional matter or not. The obvious; because the coalition members entered into the agreement as individual parties and none of them was part of the government at the time they entered into their agreement, the requirement of having one of the parties be the state is NOT met and hence it is NOT a constitutional matter. Knowing the general rule and the exception, if you go back and read Dr. Janneh’s article, you will see how misguided and convoluted it is. Finally, the 3 years agreement must be interpreted as a contract matter and not as a constitutional matter because it does not meet the requirement of the general rule to make it a constitutional matter, but it does meet the requirements of a contract matter because there is present an offer, acceptance and consideration. I might add that every contract is an agreement, but not every agreement is a contract. However, binding agreements are interpreted using contract interpretation principles. Please forgive me sister, I mean no disrespect. Please consider this as pro bono to you, Bax and Dr. Janneh. If it was Mwalimu, the teacher, I am addressing, I will have charged him legal fees lol!! Have a great weekend everyone and God bless you all, including Mwalimu, of course lol!!
@ Sambu, You have lost me. I hope you ‘ve not missed what Dr Janneh was referring to in his piece. The position you have constructed may have benefitted the Coalition Partners. Did you raise these issues when the Coalition came out to sell their agreement to the electorate? If not why not? When did the said interview your held take place?
What I take from Dr Jennah’s article is that Jammeh, if he liked, could have banned the Coalition partners from contesting the elections on the basis that they are offering an attractive proposing to the voters which will end his rule. I think you and I would agree that Jammeh didn’t need anything to do what he liked and if we hated it, he would ask us to go to hell or kill. I take the piece to stir up debate, not necessarily to argue for the unconstitutionality of the 3 years, but of course Jammeh could have argued that line, but he didn’t need to. he didn’t because he’s confident and thought that he many clones would have voted for him
Sandi, Dr. Janneh’s argument assumes that the agreement the Coalition entered was not valid and hence he, Jammeh could have banned the Coalition. But the Coalition and its agreement were valid which makes Dr. Janneh’s argument ridiculous to put in bluntly. You seem to agree to an argument which you do not completely understand, but that’s your prerogative. Every sane person knows that Jammeh was way over his head and that was part of his undoing. That aside, do you think if Jammeh had the legal grounds to dismantle the Coalition and its agreement he would not have done so at its inception? How come the invalidity of the formation of the coalition or its agreement have never been raised by any opposition party? If I am to go by your reasoning, why was it necessary for the National Assembly to raise the registration fee for political parties since Jammeh had the power to banned all of them. You and most failed to see that where Jammeh could use the legislature or the courts to get his way, he almost never failed to do so. Furthermore, how come Jammeh did not kill all the people he ordered to be arrested? He certainly had the power to do so, if I am to go by your argument. You raised a very bad argument with all due respect. And what exactly do you mean by “Did you raise these issues when the Coalition came out to sell their agreement to the electorate.? Why would I have raised anything when the formation of the coalition was valid and the agreement binding? What exactly is your question? Do you understand what I wrote? The only persons who are trying to make the 3 years agreement not binding is Barrow and his bunch of fools and those who do not understand legally the real issue involved. You know what is sad about this matter; if this issue goes before the Supreme Court, unfortunately, it will likely rule in Barrow’s favor because the court is consist of a group of “legal prostitutes” who are as clueless as they come. You do not know this but the biggest disappointment since Barrow came to power has been the Supreme Court. Just take a look at the decisions in the Public Order Act, Sedition Act, Ya Kumba Janneh’s issue, and even the Yankuba Touray matter. All were wrongly decided. No Gambian to my knowledge knows the legal reasons for those decisions. No Gambian to my knowledge has held in his or her hands or read online the full and complete decision in each of those cases. When the highest court in the land makes a decision that affects citizens, that court has a duty to give the citizens a full and complete accounting of the legal reasonings that support its decisions. Two years in and no decision has been delivered. Of the three branches of a democratic government, only one can safeguard your rights given to you by your constitution- The Supreme Court. It is the job of the supreme court to make sure that constitutional rights are not violated, that the legislative branch and the executive do not give themselves more power than the constitution gives to each. If you have a specific question, you are free to bring it up.
“…Those who deny the 3-year agreement are the real enemies of our electorate, the selfish, greedy and untruthful sycophants who want to see our country in flames…”
Babu, for the truth, you for one & the aprc kanilai Evildom Devil cohorts aren’t part of this agreement; you & your likes are just doing as what “…a monkey will do with a match box…” (Manding Adage) “…to set the Bush alight…” in your devillings endeavours to ferment havoc & destruction to the little progress achieved so far; in your pretence to seem genuine amongst the true societal progression aspirants…?
@Babu and @others, I also share much of your sentiments. I don’t understand how one can enter an agreement knowing full well that one won’t honour it. That’s dishonesty and not a good hallmark of any leader.
Besides if any of the Coalition partners believe that it’s unconstitutional or not legally binding, why didn’t they opt for one that will be? Perhaps this is the Gambian character/character of our politicians that needs to be found. As Dr Janneh says the tool worked to uproot a dictator and we may need to use it again, soon or in the future. So why disregard what works?
@ Dr Sarr, your views seem to suggest that the neighbours would bring down Jammeh in 2016 even if he had won the elections – whether the coalition took part in it or not on the basis that he’s been a pain in their sides and also in the sides of some international leaders. If this is true, I think it’s a naive argument that lacks any merit and so I totally disagree with that notion. I am afraid our country is not one of those countries where other countries would send their soldiers to die- of course there would be casualties on either side.
But the game changed, simply because Jammeh accepted the defeat and then changed his mind. That was a big mistake on his part and the world won’t sit by and accept that. You see, Jammeh tortured, abused and killed a lot of people, but he did not start that straight away. Gambians and non-Gambians alike tasted his heinous: Ghana didn’t come and remove him. Under this leadership we have witnessed some crimes; of course not in the same level as in the Jammeh years, but I think one might say that the future looks bleak.
If the coalition is no more, I am afraid it may have to be the citizens who would have to bring them to their senses. Which other leaders would promise such a thing and renege on their word? What works for others has to work for us to. If that leads to some upheaval, then that is what it would have to take. People have to be honest; it’s the lack of honesty that has held us back for so long- Janneh did it and Barrow is also trying to do the same and his supporters or those who may not be quite away of the dangers posed by his continued leadership would wish to see him continue. I would not wish to see us waste our time on the legal route. The courts are as dysfunctional as the leaders.
Quote@Sandi: ” Besides if any of the Coalition partners believe that it’s unconstitutional or not legally binding, why didn’t they opt for one that will be? ”
Observation: Forgive me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that you are blaming the entire coalition members for the dishonesty and departure from the coalition MOU that has created the current political situation. If I am right, I would urge you to look back, reflect on the political situation that confronted the opposition (& the nation) at the time, and consider ALL factors that were at play, including past experiences of attempts to form grand opposition coalitions. Perhaps, you will see why we arrived at the type of arrangement we did with Coalition 2016.
In the mean time, let’s remember a few things:
1. That we faced a situation of total opposition defeat at the hands of the APRC barely 3 months before elections;
2. That there was widespread loss of faith in the electoral process and the ability of the opposition to defeat the APRC;
3. That the prospect of another 5 year term for Yaya Jammeh could be the final straw that broke the camel’s back (meaning the country could go into flames anytime);
4. That given the above, the situation was desperate and called for desperate measures, thus the rush to create an arrangement that could bring all together under one candidate, hence the MOU.
The MOU established the basis and framework that allowed different parties, with different ideas on how to govern, to collaborate to achieve stated goals if elected.
The MOU’s 3 Year Transition Term, contrary to claims, is NOT unconstitutional, as the constitution does not state a minimum term of office for the presidency; it only established a maximum term of 5 years. A President can decide to step down 24 hours after assuming office and that will not be unconstitutional.
As for going for an agreement that was legally binding, there are things that should be considered:
1. With barely 3 months to elections, there was no time to agree to a legally binding document;
2. The men and women who were involved in the negotiations were supposedly, trustworthy, God fearing and honest people who were seeking political office. One can understand why the need to even sign the MOU was not an urgent priority.
The blame should be laid at the doorsteps of Ousainou Darboe, Adama Barrow, Mai Fatty and Ahmad Bah. That’s my view.
@Bax, I totally agree with that eloquent analysis and I have total, absolutely total regard for it. The men and women had good faith in each other.
Dr Janneh may have used the same brush to characterise the Coalition partners, but it’s quite obvious that not all of the partners can be blamed for where we are at present. To be fair his piece does point to that in some way. Hon. Halifa and co. are not on the Coalition for whatever reason, may be they saw this untrustworthy attitude coming miles away. Sadly they (Halifa and co) operate a civilised form of politics which I think they need to change – this has to be contact sports. So they have to come out and criticise Barrow, Bah, Fatty and most especially Darboe. I for one put the blame squarely on him. He was in jail at the time of the agreement and all of a sudden he assumes to know all about how things should have been. I wonder if he thinks that the partners are ignorant of the provisions of the constitution at the time of the negotiations.
I get the idea too that to get the agreement legally binding in court or whatever you are referring to could have created unnecessary delay which we didn’t need. And why would that be necessary? I also think that the 3 years was quite attractive to the electorate and it worked. Why undo what works? Dishonesty will kill politics in the country and make it harder to change a government.
Janneh’s piece is deeply provocative…..
Thanks you, Bax.
Dr Isatou Sarr,
As a medical doctor, which patient has ever died in your hands dying with his NAME, WORDS and DEEDS? Death may take away the physical body and perhaps the soul but never one’s name, words and deeds.
If the coaltion is dead, fine. But the coalition’s agreements in words are still alive. Those wordings affect every Gambian including Babu Soli, who is deliberately being excluded from the Gambian scene by Bajaw.
We were not part of the coalition but the agreement which was sold to the Gambian electorate and accepted by the mayority is the constitutional ruling that rightly affects all of us as citizens of the Gambia. Therefore, we’ll work on principles. That is Barrow to uphold the agreement, organize elections, relinquish power and never contest or put the country in flames.
Money is abundant to organize elections, time is sufficient and there is every electoral infrastructure if the WILL to organize elections is alive.
The 3-Year Jotnah Movement is just telling the GREEDY and ARROGANT Barrow that the product he sold to the Gambian people has ripen. Simple language.
The President Jammeh discourses, analogues,blames and arguments have no place here. We want a fullfilment of the promise made to our people. NO MORE LEADERS WHO TELL LIES!
Listen to Sierra Leone’s President MaadaBio, and shed tears. He spoke about fulfilling promises for national development. The complete contrast of IDIOTIC Adama Barrow who said he owns the Gambian security forces, ECOMIG, the SENEGALESE invaders and all the money in our banks.
“Whether they like it or not, I’ll be here till 2021”, he shouted at the Brikama gathering. What an illiterate and childish rhetoric from a ‘leader’.
At least, he’s not claiming owning an account in Allah’s Central Bank or going to rule for a billion years!!!! (Laughs). Barrow has faults, but these are miniscule compared to Yaya Jammeh, your hero…And No, the discourse on Yaya Jammeh must not cease but continue, as it is still relevant to us.
@Bax, not yet… but he might or perhaps he does not need to (laughs). Think of the FBB Foundation and the BYM and some of the shaddy dealings. Remember too that Jammeh did not claim to have Allah’s Central bank so soon after forcefully taking power….
@Babu, @Bax, “Whether they like it or not, I’ll be here till 2021”, he shouted at the Brikama gathering. What an illiterate and childish rhetoric from a ‘leader’. Very soon Barrow will be telling us that whether we like it or not, if Allah wills, he will rule Gambia for a billion years. He has learnt Yahya Jammeh’s ways so very early on his presidency. He wants us to trust that he would be there until 2021, but he wont keep his promise to honour the Coalition deal. What a lousy fellow. He has to be flushed out; that is the language his type understands.
….. anyone who wishes to blame the citizens for fulfilling their responsibility when the politicians have abandoned theirs must be experiencing life of a different form.
The argument that the Coalition is no more does not give anyone the licence to abandon what’s agreed. Last time I checked, people who tell people one thing and do another are called liars. No one needs such individual(s) as a leader(s). In the case of Mr Barrow he is simply telling us not to believe whatever comes out of his mouth, i am afraid, it’s that simple. And don’t tell me that it’s only 2 years and we should wait and it’s not worth setting the country on fire. If that happens, it’s the failure of leadership and Barrow is to blame. He is just greedy. And the notion that there is much to do is quite simply foolish and lousy. There is much to do because he hasn’t started it yet. If he/they would do what’s agreed in the Coalition agreement, much would have been achieved. And that involves preparing for elections. They are inefficient and foolish and we won’t buy their selfish excuses. The Gambia is for them alone, she is for us all.
I have no other choice than to close ranks with people like Sandi and Babu Soli to make sure Adama leaves office after serving his three year MoU agreed mandate.
We are doing nothing other than keeping our eyes on politicians to deliver what they promise. If they can’t deliver they should step aside. If they will not step aside, we will take over the streets, the offices and every gaddamm institution and chase them out of office like we did to Jammeh. In the end and with hindsight, we will investigate them for any minute wrongdoing. Those found wanting will be prosecuted vehemently and sent to jail.
We don’t fear their water canons, boots, barrels and truncheons.
We will safeguard our rights to assemble peacefully and freely. That’s a god given right!
Amat Bah, Henry Gomez and Ebrima Mbalow, we will be on high alert to record any deed that resembles the threat you morons issued in Brikama. We will prove cases of criminal culpability and accomplishes to murder against you wastes of human cells.
Viva Gambia ✊!
Kind observation Mwalimu: I respect your rights to occupy the streets and attempt to force Barrow out, but I just want to point out two things:
1. Adama is wrong to renege on an agreement he sold to the electorate, but I think we must also be careful how we react to the situation, and I cannot agree that confrontation is the best option available to us.
2. We did chase Yaya Jammeh out, but it was not done by occupying the streets. We patiently waited for him at the polls and defeated him with the might of our votes. We can do the same to Mr Barrow, without a volley of water cannon fired, come 2021.
The unpredictability of the outcome of a confrontation, and the attendant risks, given the volatility of the region and proximity to conflict areas like Cassamance, Bissau and even Mali, is what should worry all of us.
Gambians certainly want democracy and sensible leadership, but we should be wary of changing an imperfect leadership for a leaderless and lawless society; a potential outcome of any confrontational approach, as seen in Libya and other places.
Babu, I’m not excluding you or anybody else for the Gambia belongs to all equally…
But the only time you identify with the eternal truth is when it has something potentially to embroil Gambia in conflict to destroy the little societal progression so far achieved after the chasing away of the EVIL kanilai Murderer…
For the rest of us all, below is an article lifted from Foroyaa newspaper, what sense do we make out of the discuss?
Foroyaa – Does The Author Of The Following Opinion Understand The Issues Regarding Three Year Term Presidential Candidate?
by
Editor
on
July 18, 2019
Facebook Twitter
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Kawsu wrote the following:
“Even if Adama Barrow is to resign today. The 1997 constitution has expressly stated as to who will step up and occupy the office of the presidency. This can be seen under section 65 of the said condition. The coalition leaders should have done better , most especially those that purports to have a good understanding of the constitution.
If Adama barrow resign today, someone will automatically assume the office of Presidency until the five years mandate expires.
“The issue of constitutional amendment proposed by the coalition members will not deter the presidency to be in power until the end of the five years mandate. If there comes a new constitution that will reduce or presidential term limit, it will in not in any way affect the five years mandate.
“There is a principle called “retroactivity of laws” in the case of Gambia, laws cannot be back dated to corrected wrongs doing in the past. Case in point, Sabally V the State.
If you read the said case, you will understand that, even if the coalition government amends section 63 to reduce the presidential term limit, it will not affect this case in point.
It is my view, that all those that took formation of the 2016 coalition document should not be taken serious thus they are not ready to govern
This is what Gambians should be told and not otherwise!”
This opinion confirms that many Gambians are yet to fully understand the issue surrounding the three year term for the coalition presidential candidate. Hence the need for this medium which has access to facts to carry out its duty to convey the truth in good faith in the national interest. The first point to note is that the coalition did not talk about introducing a constitutional provision that would limit the term of a coalition president to three years. Section 63 of the constitution gives an elected president a term of five years. This is known to all Gambians. This is why we have been having elections every five years. What brought about a three year mandate for the presidential candidate for the coalition? We have explained that the 2016 coalition was not a party led coalition nor a personality driven coalition. It was a coalition of necessity not a coalition of convenience. The aim was to put an end to self-perpetuating rule which threatened to lead to civil war.
Since no single party or personality had the clout to ensure a change of government, a strategy for regime change was introduced whose objective was to empower the Gambian people and create a level ground for multi-party contest that would give rise to the undiluted choice of the people. Hence the agenda was created that would humble the presidency and leave no trace of incumbency in the next following election. The presidency was therefore expected to preside over a nonpartisan cabinet,
work with a nonpartisan national assembly, remedy past injustices and promote the spirit of national reconciliation and conduct constitutional, civil service, security sector and other financial institutional reforms that would provide a solid base of a democratic, accountable, transparent, sensitive and responsive people centred government, which would be inherited by any post transitional administration. All hands were to be on deck to build such architecture to give The Gambia a new start in genuine democratic dispensation. This is precisely the reason why the criteria were set before the convention was held to determine a presidential candidate. That is the first point that every Gambian should note.
The criteria for selecting a coalition presidential candidate was set before a convention was held to select a presidential candidate. Only those who subscribed to the criteria set had a right to participate in the convention. Those who disagreed with the criteria and method of selecting a presidential candidate to the convention such as the current Vice President and the GDC leader abandoned the negotiation. The criteria set to ensure that election following the transition period will be on a level ground and will witness a definitive end to self-perpetuating rule constituted the following: acceptance of a reduced term of three years, declaration not to participate in the election following the transition, declaration not to support any candidate during such an election.
Hence the coalition sought to have a presidential candidate whose major role would be that of a reformer espousing the virtues of self-abnegation, independence, impartiality and a great determination to be a force of example so that self-perpetuating rule would never again raise its ugly head over the Gambia. This was the objective of the coalition. There were no ulterior motives. There was unanimous argument in good faith in the public interest.
The question now arises: Did the criterion of accepting a three year term violate any provision of the constitution? Was there any need for constitutional amendment to enable a coalition president to serve a five-year term? The answers to these questions are in the negative.
Section 65 of the constitution provides for the resignation of the President before the end of the five-year term. This is the provision that the coalition anticipated to be relied on by a president who is committed to a reduced mandate to end his or her term.
One may now ask: What amendment of the constitution did the coalition envisage to accompany the reduction of the five-year term to three years by simply resigning under section 65 of the constitution? The amendment proposed is for election to the office of President to take place within 90 days of resignation or the existence of vacancy by virtue of death or other reason. Does this need to have retroaction application? Even though laws can be made to have retroactive application under section 100(2)(c) which states among other things that “the National Assembly may pass Bills designed to have effect” as long as it does not deprive a person retroactively of vested or acquired rights or alter the decision or judgment of a court to the prejudice of any party, the coalition did not call for any amendment that needs to have retroactive effect, just as section 62(1)(b) of the constitution was amended to remove the 65 years bar to presidential candidature, thus enabling two people who were above 65 to eventually occupy the position of Vice President.
The coalition anticipated that section 65(2) would be amended for elections to take place within 90 days for the president if the position becomes vacant. If it was the mind of cabinet when it was first considered to honour the coalition agreement, the first amendment which would have been proposed would have been the amendment of section 65(2) which is for the election to take place within 90 days of the resignation of the coalition president.
This is the hard fact that all Gambians must learn to chew and swallow before proffering an opinion that should be respected. We repeat again, that as it stands, section 65(2) categorically states that should the office of president become vacant by virtue of resignation, death, etc., the vice president shall assume the office of president for the residue of the term of the office of the former president. Where there is no vice president, the speaker shall assume the office of the former president for the residue of the term.
Hence the point to note is that the coalition agenda was not designed to be confrontational. It was designed to be restorative in espousing democratic principles underpinned by institutional reform embodying an inclusive transitional agenda. The fact that the stakeholders had one way or another departed from the original architecture has created the current situation where people are calling for three years, but are not saying under which section of the constitution if Barrow were to adhere to the three-year call. Instead of accepting that the original agenda of the coalition had been abandoned, they are trying to convince public opinion that the original idea was misconceived. Instead of accepting that new reality has emerged and promote objective debate on what the way forward is under the constitution, they are still calling for a three year mandate without explaining what would happen under the current constitution if the three year mandate is adhered to. Yet they are blaming people of being ignorant of the constitution. We will continue to clarify matters as long as others continue to muddle the issue.
Bajaw, I think the Foroyaa Editorial has adequately dealt with the issue. Everyone should understand that the 3 Year Term envisaged the elected flag bearer/President to voluntarily resign after 3 years.
And as explained by Foroyaa, all that was needed was a simple constitutional amendment to require elections to be held within 90days when a vacancy occurs at the presidency, rather than having the VP or Speaker completing the rest of the president’s term.
The coalition agreement was well thought out and we could have the best transitiona, if we had chosen to adhere to it.
@Bax, I agree that the Coalition agreement was well thought out. It so happened that the Partners put their trust in a greedy, untrustworthy and unprincipled individul – the wron person to be leader. Perhaps some pschometric/behavioural tests would be need to be performed on any candidate who aspires to lead a political party/compete in a coalition. That way we may find the character of Gambian politicans (laughs). But whether we will ever be able to trust each other to go into Coalition again remains to be seen.
Bajaw, Dr Isatou Sarr, Bax & Co Legionnaires of the 5-Year Barrow Advocacy.
We are just disappointed with all of you. Why defend a LIAR?
Forget about Old Pa Babu Soli. I am over 65 and worked my way through the white man’s world for a period above my childhood and youthful ages in my Gambia. I’m gracefully retired and the white man’s system, being sincere and fair, accorded me lucrative financial benefits for the rest of my life. I am enjoying that back home from November, In Shaa Allah.
Honestly I don’t WANT a position in any public office, but I want that better livelihood where all of us and generations to come can graciously benefit from. I will spend the rest of my life seeking that without fear, right in the heart of my place of birth. I will spend the resources I earn on those noble tasks to see that my people are treated equally and fairly. I don’t care the hurdles I might face, ’cause I will face a lot. The Black man’s administration never condons the truth and we cannot live peacefully without maintaining the truth.
Isn’t The Prophet Ibrahim being truthful to his son by telling him Allah’s ordenation and his(Ibrahim’s)promise to fulfill by offering to slaughter his son? We celebrate Eid El Adha shortly based on the fulfilment of promises.
Why do you take unfulfilment of promises so lightly? It is ungodly and inhuman. A friend, a relative, a husband, a wife, a boss, an employee, a fianceé who holds that attitude of unfulfilling promises should be rejected and never trusted. Much more a leader. Be aware of people who fail to accomplish promises. They are not Muslims, not Christians, not aethists. They are absolutely nothing! They are just LIARS and LIARS are hypocrites. Barrow falls into that category.
The constitution is not a divine document from the heavens ike the Qu’ran. It contains the will of a people thus susceptible to modifications. Why was the age clause modified at the dictates of Mai Fatty and Tambedou to facilitate F.Tambajang’s Vice Presidency? There are countries without written constitutions and their leaders don’t dare to tell LIES.
The decision made by the Gambian electorate which took Barrow to state house transcends any clause/article in the constitution. That decision is binding. Barrow either accomplishes it or falls out with the people.
Days are over when our glorified servants (Mansa Kelu) will walk over our heads and go scot free. By telling lies and making false promises.
We are only asking him to organize elections now (not when he wants), hand over the mantle of power to the next generation of enlightened leaders himself, step aside and live a glorious life as a retired president. That’s if he respects the will of the people and avoids being dishonoured.
WE ARE NOT CREATING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY. LET HIM PREPARE AND OVERSEE THE ELECTIONS HIMSELF AS PRESIDENT AND HAND OVER TO THE WINNING PARTY(ties). NOW, not in 2021!
For the record, I am not a supporter of any politician. I have said often that politicians are opportunist, liars, crooks and given the chance they will show their true colors. I don’t support any person or entity that do not keep their word and this President is no exception. He has proven to the nation he cannot be relied on, nor can he be trusted. The Gambia electorate will have the final say on how history will judge Barrow.
That aside, I simply point out the problems in the coalition agreement and the fact that we the people have been screwed once again, and sadly there is nothing we can do about it
Prediction:
1. Barrow will cling to power.
2. He will run for re-election in 5 years.
3. Our smiling citizens will accept and some will support him.
The lesson here:
You cannot trust politicians. ALL of them. Gambians must remain vigilant, realistic and be proactive in our political discuss. We are often too gullible. We tend to take things at face value.
@Babu congratulations. Look forward to you contributing your quota to our national development.
Finally the framers of the coalition agreement meant well for the country, but they were naive and have little understanding of a basic human instinct of
GREED.
DECEPTION and
BETRAYAL.
God Protect The Gambia from Evil Men and Women.
Well here, I would say pulling a draw between Jammeh and Barrow is creeping towards endorsing the grooming of a beast out of Barrow. Or even for the worst; exonerating him (Jammeh) of the magnitude and gravity of his well documented and witnessed humans rights abuses.
Others may be right also in saying that, rhetoric like: ‘I’ll be here whether they like it or not’, ‘the national security belongs to me’ and etc., are idiotic and childish. Barrow should have learnt his lessons from rhetoric like: ‘I’ll rule for a billion years’, ‘if people don’t vote for me, the jinn will’ or ‘I don’t know what they think your are. But just try annoying me on my Mansa seat. I’ll will slaughter you all. You will all die even before you get anywhere’. Barrow should learn his lessons or get doomed for sure like Yaya the schizophrenic evil.
The the kids and world heard about a coalition with a 3year transition government plan fixed. I guess no constitution should be sacred or formidable enough to be holding citizens in bondage down the road lunacy and ignorance. The coalition was formed to oust a status quo and cleanse that prostituted constitution that rights corruption and abuse of power.
We simply have to stop being crooks in order to get ourselves thinking right. The latter is not in anyway implying that 2.5m people should be of the same opinion. Citizens opinions may differ but they are usually reconcilable for a national interest when those opinions are not held onto in our crooked minds, with creepy and gluttonous agendas. There are a lot of wicked and greedy crooks in that small country! We just have to get over the problem of having many very hideous and evil characters in the country’s public affairs and politics before we would ever be able to realise a leap ahead in an Africa of challenges.
@Bajaw
I would like to seek your indulgence for a clarification here.
Do you mean those of us calling for Adama to step down after three years have a motive to see The Gambia plunged into conflict should Adama dig in his heels and refuse to step down?
Best regards
Nope, not at all Mwalimu; those genuine calls for the Coalition MOU to be honoured have good reason to do so and Bajaw as the originator of the 3-year agreement suggestion
proposal is certainly one of them; but there’s certainly no doubt that there’re many others blended among these callers with ulterior motivation who necessarily aren’t genuinely interested in the common public agenda; these sect of individuals will try at any levels playing the devil’s to ferment strife while embedded amongst the genuine citizens in their pretences; the likes of Babu Soli for obvious reasons & Ousainou Darboe, for example, who himself is the very destroyer of the MOU agreement are the hidden instigators among many behind the 3-years jotna noises…
I suggested the 3-year proposal as a conflict resolution (management) manoeuvre to harmonise & unite the Gambian opposition, after observing the opposition on poles apart; to temporarily unite & salvage the country from the part of destruction we were at the time headed towards without my consulting the Constitution in tandem at all…
It came to prove after that there’re shortsights (shortcomings) in finalising the MOU agreement to be legally binding by appendage signatures; as well as the contradiction to the Gambian Constitutional provisions (as in the article lifted from the Foroyaa newspaper)….
I’m sure, there are other alternatives to teach Adama Barrow a lesson for dishonesty than the path the ulterior motivators are ensuing…
Hope I’m clear…
Thank you…
Bajaw,
Please avoid misconstrued judgements about Babu. I honestly do not have any ulterior motives for advocating the 3-year agreement.
Look, I have been estranged from APRC for some time because the party is neither advocating the 3-year claim nor denying Barrow’s claim to stay till 2021. The APRC Executive and most party rank and file see the whole episode as a UDP business that does not concern them.
I am at serious loggerheads with them on that stance. And I think you know, Bajaw, that Babu will never support UDP.
So you may guess my quest for Barrow’s exit. It’s a national cause. For you, the younger generation.
I would like future leaders to be truthful and sincere in all their deliberations. That’s the only way our country/continent can move forward for any
meaningful and sustainable development. That’s the only way we can eject dishonest, corrupt and disrespecful leaders with their henchmen from our midst.
It’s either now or we’ll continue to breed laissez faire leaders who’ll continue to threaten us with bayonets, water canons, batons, arrests and illegal detentions.
Let Barrow start organizing elections or face the full force of street power.
The 3-year agreement does not oblige him to initiate development task. He was elected to oversee good standards during the transition period. His NDP is a scrap.
I think we have better brains to gear our country than this Humpty Dumpty with his club of nonentities.
True Bax; the MOU could’ve simply been seen to if we had everyone involved sincerely committed to the agreement; the selective Constitutional amendment which saw the age limitations removed, if not used as ploy, could also have included the amendments for elections after the 3-years transition arrangement to have the Coalition government replaced…
Until the UDP fallout, the age limits amendment was actually for Ousainou Darboe’s benefits purely but Mrs Fstoumata Tambajang was initially selected to deviate (divert) attention only to be fired for Ousainou to assume the position after when the dust is settled…
The whole issue is dishonest political manoeuvres as politics is & shall always remain dirty games with majority of politicians everywhere…
Babu, the whole 3-year jotna issue is a “monkey’s found match box” for one like you to capitalise on; to ensue your agenda…
Your pathetic aprc Devilish affiliation cum-party are rather occupied in attempts to get Adama Barrow to pardon the Evil kanilai Devil in exchange for their unconditional support; which is just their wishful thoughts; for Adama Barrow won’t dare, more so attempt to do so without consequences…
Let the Evil kanilai Devil come to face the TRRC & the innocent Gambian people on it’s own accord…
@Bax
I understand and respect your concerns about a total breakdown of order that potentially could emanate from massive demonstrations in the streets of Banjul, Serrekunda, Brikama and their surroundings. To avoid such a scenario, it will be more apt for all Gambians to raise their voices high against self perpetuation which has become a permanent fix in our political life since gaining “independence”. The onus lies on Adama and his henchmen to make sure peaceful protesters are not vilified and or threatened with brutish armed men and women. From the combined rule of Dawda and Yaya, the one thing that is consistent is the suppression of rights. Right to free speech, right to assemble, right to dissent , right to peaceful demonstrations, right to petition the government, right to choice without inducement or intimidation, right to recall from elected office, and so on and so forth. The change of government has never brought with it an expansion of freedoms and rights. That’s about to end come December/January.
Mind you Bax, there is no one in the 3 yrs Jotna movement who uses the word “confrontation or violence” in any manner, form or shape. Mass peace demonstrations all over the country, should Adama not step down, is what they are calling for. I support that without question.
Now, we have heard that side of the story. What is oblivious to us is how the “security” goons are going to act. If we have learned anything, it’s probably going to get ugly. Hindsight taught us that these men and women are reactionary and mentally ill prepared to act based on good conscience and not to obey illegal commands.
The solution: it’s so clear that I can touch it. Adama should step down as foreseen in the MoU. We should start signing petitions and Gambians living abroad should start building pressure groups, write to international institutions that matter to stop funding Gambia government projects and generally turning the financial taps off.
Waiting for 2021 is no option. Why? That is not what he and the coalition partners promised to us. By holding him accountable to his words, Gambia will be setting a precedence in keeping leaders true to their words. Besides, I believe Adama and his entourage should be punished for deviating completely from the coalition agenda and manifesto which was the bedrock that brought them to power.
Second, by the time elections are organized, he will become too entrenched to remove from office. Bear in mind the man is suppose to be a transitional president. For three years for heavens shake. Why we are even talking about five years is baffling to me. The issue is not about the constitution since in the beginning. It’s about greed, hunger for more power and wealth, nepotism and fear of life after the presidency.
By next election, he will claim that his first term does not count because the “new constitution” has not come into effect. Then we will be looking at a fifteen years rule from a person who was in fact suppose to oversee a transition period of three years. Should such a liar be reward with the privilege to continue to be the head of state for the next two years? That’s a question for you comrade Bax.
Who should replace Adama? I would say the Foroyaa article as a resource has dealt with that question very well.
@Bajaw: I have a totally different motive and approach to making sure Adama leaves power come January 2020. And I have no personal interest in supporting efforts to that end.
Ousainou is political flippant just like the UDP itself. His inconsistency is beyond my comprehension. But I can tell you, he is loosing credibility day by day because of his unreliability in sticking it out to the bitter end on policy issues. But let me say this; I cannot read people’s minds to understand their ulterior motives. Just like in the coalition building, many are called, but only a very few, like PDOIS, remained steadfast to the principle of never to immortality usurp power behind the people.
Tnx
Bajaw,
Those back home and in the diaspora who have seen an easy manouevable and greedy- for-money-to-get-rich Barrow would advocate for 5 years.
Billions of dalasis have already been squandered in less than three years.
From the over 20 million dalasis in Barrow’s STUPID inauguration in 2017, to millions in his hotel office at SeneGambia, to millions in his Fajara residences/office, to millions in private jet hirings to UN meetings, to millions given to Senegalese marabouts, to millions stolen by Fatou Bah (whom I refer to as 1st Thief), to millions given to corrupt would-be supporters, to millions in his MankaMang residence and VIP suites and storey buildings, it is unprecedent waste of our resources never seen in the previous administrations in just under three years.
Worst of all, all the waste is accompanied with the most deplorable economic and social conditions.
Who in his sane mind should allow such a THIEF to stay in office? Just because he belonged to a defunct coalition of eight parties that defeated President Jammeh? What a defeatish, silly and unpatriotic mindset.
Bajaw, if you single out Babu Soli to having ulterior motives in his claims, what about the hundreds of thousands of Gambian people who are ready to die for the 3-Year Jotnah?
Even if I keep quiet, that movement is already on the threshold and nothing can stop that. In Shaa Allah.
Not even Barrow’s marabouts in Sare Mansa in Senegal Oriental, off Bureng.
If the APRC wants to align with Barrow to win President Jammeh’s pardon, that’s the game in politics.
Mind you I have been a big nuisance when APRC NAMs accepted Barrow’s Pick-Up vehicles as gifts. That was the worst political indiscipline ever perpetrated by an opposition member. I disagreed with it. The turning point of my differences with some members. I work on principles, Bajaw.
Barrow promised, accepted the 3-year deal. He either accomplishes his promise or be ejected with the full force of street power. Babu will indeed be there, In Shaa Allah.
“Mwalimu, the teacher, I am addressing, I will have charged him legal fees lol!! Have a great weekend everyone and God bless you all, including Mwalimu, of course lol!!” Samba wrote.
Mwalimu says: I wish you a very fruitful and pleasant week ahead.
I might need your service in December if am rounded up at the demonstrations though.
Am taking with me a pen, extra ink and a few email addresses. They will be my only weapon against a buffoon gone drunk on power and wealth. Save this message. Grins
Mwalimu, the teacher, if the Supreme Court did not botched the case attacking the constitutionality of the Public Order Act you will not need an idiot attorney like myself to defend you. Unfortunately, with the exception of Lawyer Lamin Darbo, who I called Na koto, even though I do not know him personally, appears to be the only Gambian lawyer I know, who have demonstrated that he knows the majority of the constitutional issues facing The Gambia. You have a bunch of so-called Gambian lawyers who appear on tv and talk about things that they do not really know at all. And one even claimed to teach constitutional law at the University of Gambia. Of all that is written about Pa Essa Faal, the lead counsel of the TRRC, the only obvious mistake he has never made to my knowledge involved when Yanks invoked the immunity clause. On that one, my brother, Essa’s position was not sound at all. I know him personally. We attended the same high school like Mia Fatty and YOUR president lol!! Essa and Mai were in the same class, not classroom. He and Mai were one year ahead of me. I was in the same class as Muhammed Jah, owner of Qcell. I was the primary rebel without a clue. I was the one who was supposed to turn out to be nothing. I was at the bottom of the pile and I still am! Hence, the reason why I keep my identity anonymous. Those who exalt themselves will be humbled and those who humble themselves will be exalted. I am well aware of the fact that the 3 years agreement is the hot issue right now, but make no mistake about it, there is nothing more important than the CRC. I personally wrote an email to the chairman of the CRC and asked him a few questions about The Gambia Constitution. The first and most important question I asked him was this: ” What is the fundamental flaw in The Gambia Constitution?” He was non-responsive; meaning he said something without answering my question. I have also asked this same question in an article I wrote a while back and no one has came forward to answer the question. What is so funny is that, at one point Halaki or Haleki, Bax’s in-law once said something that actual is part of the answer to that fundamental question. The bottom-line is this, the CRC is wasting money until it can answer that question. It is my believe that The Gambia we all dreamed of will never exists in our lifetime. I know it is a sad thing to say, but it is true. I have put you in spot before but that was never meant to disrespect you. I took issue with how you attacked my dear sister, Dr. Sarr and hence my reaction. You still need to apologize to her. Be a man lol! I have no issue with anyone when reason is used to attack what another has said. I take issue when another is attacked personally. On another note, I do not know as much as I appear to you guys. Here is my secret, before I read anything especially the Scriptures, I go down on my knees and pray to the Most Holy Spirit to guide me discover what is true and say it to enlighten others. Another secret, today is your lucky day Mwalimu lol! Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote this prayer before he started studying law and this very prayer is scripted on a bronze plaque at my law school. Here is Dr. Johnson’s prayer: Almighty God, the giver of wisdom, without whose help resolutions are vain, without whose blessings study is ineffectual, enable me if it be thy will to attain such knowledge as may qualify me to direct the doubtful and instruct the ignorant; to prevent wrongs and terminate contentions, and grant that I may use that knowledge which I shall attain to thy glory, and my own salvation, for Jesus christ’s sake, Amen.” I am telling you all these to show you that, when I challenged you, it was not mean-spirited as you may have thought. lol! One more thing, since I have already told you that I am an attorney, I am a prosecutor! Blessing to you all!
sorry for the few typos, I was in a hurry! In fact, I always write in a hurry when I whenever I write something here! Please forgive me!
Samba, I don’t know why you want to cajole a confession and an apology out of me for something someone else is responsible for. She insulted me and my two dear parents with a vengeance the like of which is hardly seen on this platform. I kept quiet and ignored the thread entirely. Why did I do that? Insults are not mine especially for women. She is the only woman (as far as I can tell) on this platform and for me that is a representation of a significant demographic group in terms of participation in shaping public opinion and discourse. I have realized that we both have different lenses on, when it comes to perceiving the realities of our country, Afrikka and our people in general. I respect that. I don’t have to cozy up to her or anyone else on this platform for that matter. Just where there is a meeting of minds do we have to gyrate towards each other like it has become between me and Tilli Bo, to some extent.
Let me cut it short. It’s all water under the bridge, so let it pass. grins
Bax,
You mean 33 years of “democracy”. What a joke of democracy.
A government that was internationally respected, recognized and financed in 33 years but couldn’t construct the four walls of a single HIGH SCHOOL classroon is not a democratic administration.
A university graduate with a distinctive degree in veterinary science who cannot construct the four walls of a university faculty is not democratic.
Only the July 22nd Green Revolution made these and many progressive sustainable developments possible.
July 22nd is therefore worth celebrating!!!
Nothing can eclipse those achievements.
I agreed with almost everything that Dr.Janneh pointed out in his commentary. I agree that the former president was just very confident of a victory and that was why he didn’t think of ways to create confusion among the coalition partners. As Dr. Jannah said, a mere mentioning by him that a 3-year agreement is unconstitutional could have caused a pandemonium among them or the electorate to a point that they might not have come to an agreement. Since all that was in the past we should focus on the present and the future. I have always been supportive of the 3-year gentleman agreement that the coalition sold to the electorate. Words do matter, especially in a situation like The Gambia where the opposition has tried many times to form a coalition but failed. I was once told that the main reason why so many attempts at forming a coalition have failed in the past was because there was this suspicion that the eventual flagbearer might not honor his/her words. That is exactly what happened here. President Barrow has now created a precedent where it will be difficult for us as Gambians to trust one another should we see ourselves in another dictatorship, God forbids.
Now the question is, what should we do? I agree with Bax that we should come up with ideas and visions to defeat him at the polls instead of creating a situation that may breed violence or disorder in the country. Violence or things of that nature never solves anything. We should be very careful with what we wish for. Early on, the people who should have sounded the bells calling for this 3-year agreement louder refused to do so due to their personal interests, and now those same people are saying otherwise. How could they say Barrow should go for 5-years at first and now when things don’t materialize the way they wanted they come back to say it should be 3-year? That is like saying two things. Again I STRONGLY believe that he should have honored the 3-year gentleman agreement (or whatever name they gave to it). Even if Barrow resigns in December as some of these 3-year advocates are saying, who will take his place before the election? When will the election be held? Is he going to hand power over to his vice president or the speaker? I guess those are the logical options. Are the logistics to hold an election within that short period in place? I think 2021 is almost here and what the political parties should do is prepare their platforms and tell the people what they intend to do for them. President Barrow has failed us in many way ways since he came to power. A good political leader with credible visions will find it easy to point out all his flaws to the electorate, thus making his defeat at the polls easier. That is the best way for our country and we don’t need any scenario that may bring more division and possibly violence that we will all live to regret. Gambia is very fragile at this time, and there abound opportunists who would like to take advantage of that fragility in order to wreak havoc on our citizens.
Another thing that Dr. Janneh touched on was the 1997 constitution. I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to know anything about the law, but I have some questions that bother me every time I think about The Gambian situation. How long does it take to prepare a country’s constitution? Why are our leaders cherry-picking the 1997 constitution to satisfy only their goals? Why can’t that whole constitution be thrown into the garbage bin since it has been deemed flawed by many and new one be made as soon as possible? If they could remove the age limit for one to contest as a presidential candidate as enshrined in the 1997 constitution, why did they wait to remove all those sections that are problematic. We have all seen that some of those areas are now causing causing problems to even the TRRC.
@Mama Jankey Wally, I think the problem with allowing Barrow to go on for fear of causing unrest in the country is that it sets a nasty precedent. Barrow and his supporters need to know that it is unacceptable break the trust of the people.
If he/they (the coalition partners) had any desire to respect and observe the coalition deal, they had all the time to follow it for elections to happen as set out in the coalition agreement. Please read the agreement in Dr Janneh’s article; and I think the post by Bax also made reference to it.
I am not in favour of trouble in the country, and I believe strongly that the 3 years Jotna group have no interest in causing trouble. It is Barrow and his team who are prepared to use force to intimidate peaceful demonstrations against his desire to hang on to power beyond the agreed 3 years. We have to prepared to use reasonable means at out disposal to bring some sanity into the our politicians. The maslaha business has never worked and we know it never works. It may work between individuals, but when it comes to parties, organisations, coalitions, institutions, etc. Individuals that sign up to be part of such institutions have a duty to observe and respect the rules and agreements that govern the functioning of the organisation.
@Samba, I understand the article by Dr Janneh differently. You see Jammeh does not need any permission to throw a huge spanner in the works of the Coalition’s agreement and hand himself victory. I seriously do not think any country would come and remove him from office, let’s not kid ourselves. He has done many, many excesses and no one came to remove him.
The point is that should Jammeh chose to make any case to throw the coalition’s agreement into chaos, he could have said, a-3 year term limit is not in the constitution. This is what I understand from Dr Jennah’s article; but Jammeh needs not say that. If the Coalition challenges Jammeh’s decision in court, they would be wasting their time and besides the coalition did not have any time to conduct a legal fight with Jammeh, a fight he (Jammeh) would win hands down.
To you, me and I think I read here a post by Bax, the constitution is not prescriptive in that the President can resign from office 24hrs after coming into power, so on that basis, it is reasonable to suppose that anyone can fight for the elections to stay in office for 24hrs (ridiculous, I know), 2-5 years and some may even stretch it to stay in office – sure that they will win each time – to 2 terms or a rule for a billion years, if Allah wills.
And here is another thing that I find fascinating about the piece by Dr Jennah: if Barrow and his supporters wish to use the unconstitutionality of 3 years or that the agreement was only a gentleman’s agreement – unsigned or whatever, again, could Jammeh not have used the same lousy excuses to hang on to power. I’m glad that we do not have to worry about Jammeh (yet), but we have to do what we can to restore the dignity in the senses of our elected leaders. the way to do that is not to play maslaha with them; if they break promises, we must do what we can to remove them, so I think the peaceful demonstration being planned by the 3 years jotna movement is in order. It is not my desired option, but we must not take it off the table. It must be used and sustained to the fullest until the desired outcome is achieved
Hey Samba!
I read somewhere that you stated we erred in viewing the 3 Year Transition term of office as a Constitutional matter (and you brilliantly explained when a Constitutional matter may arise), but I can’t remember saying any such thing, and certainly don’t hold that view. It is definitely an error on my part, if I did ever make such a claim, as I steer away from legal arguments for lack of knowledge in legal matters.
I have always held the view that the MOU is a “gentleman’s agreement “, whose fulfilment and implementation entirely depended on the goodwill of the partners and players, particularly Mr Barrow (Who is /was the chief player). As far as I am concerned, if he decides to renege on the agreement, as he clearly seems to signal, then that’s the end of the matter for me. All that’s left is for The Gambian electorate to show that we are serious with Nation building and remove Barrow when his Constitutionally mandated 5 Year Term ends in 2021. For surely, a people serious with their national development efforts will NEVER entrust an untrustworthy person with their destiny, and Mr Barrow would have shown the whole world that he is a special type of untrustworthy person, if he reneged on an internationally publicised agreement.
That said, I do recognise the rights of citizens to take actions, including the widely mentioned peaceful demonstrations in December 2019, that seek to put pressure on Mr Barrow to honour the agreement, which also doubles up as a Manifesto pledge in 2016, and step down after 3 Years.
My reservation with the proposed peaceful demonstrations, which I believe will be confrontational even if the proponents and organisers don’t intend it to be, is whether the time is right for such actions. It is my view that The Gambia is not ready for the use of mass demonstrations as a political pressure tool, and despite being dubbed peaceful, any mass actions in our country right now will be anything but peaceful, especially when those against whom the action is directed have not hidden their readiness for confrontation.
I also have my doubts whether the reason(s) advanced by the proponents of the 3 Year jotna campaigned (ie force President Barrow to honour his 3 Year pledge) is good enough and justified for such mass actions to end his Constitutionally mandated term of 5 Years.
Why do I hold this view? It’s simple: have our elected politicians ever honoured their manifesto pledges? Who can name me one elected politician (holders of the presidency, in this case) that has ever honoured all his or her manifesto pledges? In fact, as a general rule, it is widely accepted that politicians say one thing, and do a different thing; meaning they NEVER honour their pledges, and The Gambia to date, has not proved to be an exception and is unlikely to do so anytime soon. Ask my sister Dr I. Sarr, if you doubt me (lol). That is why, in addition to the potential security risks that mass demonstrations can present, it is my view that the best, realistic and most democratic option to deal with Mr Barrow (and any future leaders who renege on their manifesto pledges) is to patiently wait for him at the polls and defeat him mercilessly.
To conclude, I think it is unrealistic and frankly, anti-developmental and anti-democratic to hold the view that the people should always rise up and remove a government anytime it reneged on a Manifesto pledge. Believe me, that would get us a special place in the Guiness Record Book in no time, because politicians will always be politicians, as a general rule, with few exceptions.
It is a great piece. Personally, I don’t think the 1997 so called Constitution of Yahya should dictate how our country is to be run. It was enacted to give cover to the Junta. It was the same Constitution Yankuba Touray was hiding behind at the TRRC. It was a fraud!
It is disingenuous to compare Adama Barrow to Yahya Jammeh, unless if one did not watch the TRRC testimonies of the Junglers, Omar Jallow and Malick Jatta.
Tafel,
I can easily read the notorious Gambian attitude in you. That’s hate, despise and criminalise someone without prior knowledge of the person. That way you don’t listen to what the person says nor read what he writes.
You don’t read what I write that’s why you asked me to give my opinions on the deliberations at the USELESS TRRC.
I have emphatically reiterated that I don’t recognise that institution as credible neither do I recognise its corrupt conflicted commissioners. I don’t listen to the deliberations so I don’t give my opinion.
Please refrain from asking me about the TRRC.