(JollofNews) – The Gambia Bar Association has accused the government of President Adama Barrow of eerily mimicking the familiar acts of former President Yahya Jammeh.
In a statement issued to the media and authored by its vice president, Yassin Senghore, the group said since assuming office in January, Mr Barrow’s government has acted just like it’s predecessor by issuing directives that are contrary to the country’s constitution.
It reminded the government that one of the directive principles set down under the constitution, which should guide its actions towards the common good is that it should endeavour to secure and promote a society founded on the principles of freedom, equality, justice, tolerance, probity and accountability.
Read the full statement below:
On the 12th day of December, 2016, Mr. Sheriff M. Tambadou, the then Interim President of the Gambia Bar Association stood on the steps outside the Conference Hall at the Coco Ocean Hotel and read out a statement on behalf of the Gambia Bar Association.
In this statement the Gambia Bar Association condemned the Former President of The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh’s attempts to subvert the will of the Gambian people as demonstrated in the Presidential elections of 1st December, 2016. This statement by the GBA set off a catalogue of condemnations by other civil society organisations and demonstrated that the change can be achieved by peaceful means. What it further demonstrated is that true power lies in the hands of the people. That, if every one of us comes together to challenge authoritarian rule, we can succeed.
Following the impasse and the events which took place at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017, it is clear that there is a need to really consider the role that the Gambia Bar Association should play in the emerging democracy that is The Gambia.
We need to consider the challenges that we face and create a roadmap of how to overcome the challenges.
It is generally accepted that lawyers should be heard and should contribute to the development of legislation and government policy, not because lawyers should be afforded a privileged position in public debate or because we are more important than other professions. We should be heard on these issues because it is an extension of our duties to our clients and to society to get involved in the questions which relate to the formulation of law and its broader application to all citizens.
Without access to competent and independent legal practitioners, individuals are often unaware of or unable to exercise their rights effectively. The laws that are passed then become inconsequential and meaningless.
Part of the obligation of the GBA is therefore to foster the independence of legal practitioners to provide a robust defence for the people. We must also ensure that the honour and the dignity of the profession is maintained. This can only be done by ensuring that each lawyer understands and abides by the highest professional and ethical standards.
Another role that the GBA should have is to scrutinize the actions of the government. The experience of the last Twenty Two years have confirmed that if illegal and wrongful actions and decisions by the government remain unchecked, its officials will become emboldened to continue to flout law and procedure. We moved from a leader who came into power in 1994 talking about accountability and transparency and ended up with a megalomaniac who had no regard for the constitution or any law. We as a people cannot afford to relive this nightmare again. We therefore all have an obligation to scream at the top of our lungs whenever any of the three arms of government fail to adhere to the provisions of our constitution and other laws.
We need to understand that “the sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of the government are to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution.” These are powerful words. We, as a people should realize that ultimately any government derives its legitimacy from us.
Government officials are our servants. They work for us and everything that they do should ultimately be in our best interest. To choose to become a public servant is to choose to carry the weight of the expectations of the people on your shoulders. This is a heavy burden and so we must commend those who make this choice and give them the support they need to carry their burden. In the same vein we must critically analyse their actions and draw them back when they fail to meet to expectations of the people or to comply with the provisions of the constitution and other laws.
We have watched and continue to watch the new Government since they took over the Presidency on the 19th of January, 2017. We appreciate that they took over power at a tumultuous time in our history. We understand that the transition that ought to have happened did not and could not take place. We have given them the benefit of the doubt and have given them sufficient time to get settled in.
We therefore remained silent when the President issued a press release on the 31st of January, 2017 purporting to change the name of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to the State Intelligence Agency (SIS). The change of name was purportedly effected by Presidential decree.
The change of name of the NIA cannot be effected without an amendment to Section 191 of the Constitution. We believed that the announcement was made out of inexperience and expected that it would be remedied. To date, no attempt to amend the Constitution has been made but the Government persists in referring to the NIA as the SIS.
Whilst this might seem like a minor issue, we need to remember that The Gambia was suddenly made an Islamic State by Presidential decree despite the provisions of the Constitution making it clear that The Gambia is a secular state and that even the National Assembly did not have the power to pass a Bill to establish any religion as a state religion. Such a decision could only be made by the people through a referendum. By ignoring the attempt to change the name of the NIA to SIS through Presidential decree, we might be sending the message that such actions are acceptable. As stated earlier, we cannot afford to take such issues for granted.
We cannot afford to remain silent when the provisions of the law are not complied with, even for the most minor of issues.
A further derogation from the Constitution was the announcement made on behalf the President of The Gambia, Adama Barrow on the 23rd of January, 2017. The announcement was to the effect that His Excellency the President had appointed the Honourable Mrs Fatoumatta Jallow Tambajang as the Vice President of the Republic of The Gambia.
What followed this announcement was a public discussion as to whether Mrs Tambajang was qualified to be appointed Vice President under the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1997. Section 70(2) of the Constitution provides that “a person shall be qualified to be appointed as Vice-President if he or she has the qualifications required for the election of the President under Section 62”. Section 62 (1) (b) provides that a person shall be qualified for election as President if “he or she has attained the minimum age of thirty years but not more than sixty-five years.”
The controversy arose as to the age of Mrs Tambajang. This controversy was acknowledged and the Spokesperson for the President in a subsequent press statement said that the attention of the President had been drawn to the constitutional provisions. He stated further that whilst Mrs Tambajang is well suited for the job, the provisions of the Constitution will be respected.
The public was informed that the matter was being looked into and the people of The Gambia will be informed subsequently. In the interim, Mrs Tambajang took over the functions of the Vice President. She represented the country at Regional meetings and attended public functions as the Vice President of The Gambia.
On Monday the 27th day of February, 2017, there was a press release published in the newspapers stating that the National Assembly was convening a second extra ordinary meeting of the National Assembly in the 2017 Legislative year to consider the “1997 Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 2017” and “The Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2017”. These Bills were debated on the 28th of February, 2017 and passed by the National Assembly.
The 1997 Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 2017 sought to amend the age requirement under Section 62 (1) of the Constitution by deleting the maximum age of sixty-five set by the Constitution. There was a huge outcry following the purporting passing of the Bill. The Honorable Attorney General subsequently gave a press conference admitting that the process of the amendment was not in accordance with the Constitution.
The President had on the 22nd of February, 2017 announced that that Mrs. Jallow Tambajang was appointed as the Minster of Women’s Affairs and the Overseer of the Office of the Vice President. To date, there has been no announcement clarifying the age of Mrs Jallow Tambajang. This is despite the fact that the President had on the 28th of January, 2017 given a press conference in which he said that Mrs Jallow Tambajang is not above the age of 65 and that proof of this would be presented to the people. To date no such proof has been presented. Rather, what followed was the abortive attempt to amend the Constitution.
Despite the outcry that followed the abortive attempt to amend the Constitution, it seems that the government is determined to persist on its attempt to amend the Constitution to remove the upper age limit for holding office as President of the Republic of The Gambia thereby paving the way for the appointment of Mrs Jallow Tambajang as Vice President. On the 13th of April, 2017, there was a gazette announcement of that it is intended to introduce a Bill to the National Assembly “to amend the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1997 to revise the compulsory age of a judge of a Superior Court, to remove the upper age limit for holding office as President of the Republic of The Gambia and for connected matters.”
The Bill was debated and passed by the National Assembly in its sitting of the 25th of July, 2017. This is an issue of concern. Firstly, it raises the question of whether the amendment to the Constitution is solely in order to regularize the appointment of Mrs Tambajang as Vice President. It would seem so particularly taking into consideration the fact that seven months into this government, the President has still not appointed a Vice President. This is of concern because it would suggest that the Government, instead of acting in accordance with the law, is rather amending the law to legitimize decisions already made.
This reminds us of the case of SABALLY v INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (1997-2001) GR 878. That case follows the events of the protests which took place on the 10th April, 2000. Sabally sued the Inspector General of Police for injuries occasioned on him by State Security Personnel. Whilst the case was pending, the Government passed the Indemnity (Amendment) Act, 2001 which sought to indemnify security agents against all claims in respect of actions taken during a period of public emergency.
Whilst the facts of that case can be distinguished from the present case, in both cases, the Government rather than conforming its actions within the confines of the law, has instead chosen to alter the law to legitimize actions already taken. The government that sought to introduce the Indemnity (Amendment) Act, 2001 was an authoritarian government. This government was elected on the promise of respect for the rule of law and democratic principles. The similarities in the response by these two governments should be an issue of great concern to every Gambian. The laws of our land particularly the provisions of the Constitution are not written in pencil to be erased to suit the interest of one individual.
Whilst there are good arguments for the removal of the upper age limit for holding office as President, is this an issue of such urgency that it cannot await the comprehensive review of the Constitution which we are told is in the pipeline? We have not heard any arguments put forward by the Government on this issue. We will reserve our opinion on this point for now. It should be emphasized however that there are provisions in the Constitution which require urgent consideration.
Section 18 (3) provides that “the National Assembly shall within ten years from the date of coming into force of this Constitution review the desirability or otherwise of the total abolition of the death penalty in The Gambia.” Twenty years, later, this issue has yet to be considered by the National Assembly. Is the removal of the upper age limit for President a more urgent issue than the decision as to whether or not we want the death penalty to be part of our laws? This is a question which the Government must answer if they want us to believe that the proposed amendment was not designed solely to pave the way for the appointment of Mrs Jallow Tambajang as the Vice President.
Ultimately, the Government must realize that the honeymoon has ended and the realities of everyday life have set in. We do not see what effect a change of name of the NIA has if the same operatives who had no consideration of the principles of rule of law are the same operatives working for the so called SIS. It is naïve to believe that a change of name of one of the most feared institutions under the Jammeh regime will cause a change in the perception of the general public of that institution. The change of name has not led to a change of perception. The manner in which the change of name was done has only led to a feeling of déjà vu.
The experience of déjà vu is repeated on a daily basis by Gambian motorists who are forced to yield to the familiar unmarked, speeding and menacingly tinted government vehicles. While Section 8 of the Motor Traffic Act clearly makes it illegal for any vehicle apart from the vehicle of the President to be unmarked; this Government has happily slipped into the shoes of the latter. Our liberators are now eerily mimicking the familiar acts of the former dictator.
On the 13th of July 2017 the Ministry of Interior issued a press release stating that tinted glass permits for non-factory tints would be banned for all vehicles except an exclusive few including the top echelons of Government and curiously …. “Bank Heads”. No reasons were given. In the first place the requirement for tint clearances are illegal. This author has not found any Regulation issued by the Minister of Interior under the Motor Traffic Act requiring tint clearances. Without such regulations the requirement for tint clearances are illegal and an abuse of power.
Instead of reversing this, the new Minister of Interior has sought to tighten the noose. The public may have found such an announcement palatable if security reasons were given for the protection of civil servants. However it is evident that the exclusive list contains no security officials. Why are “Bank Heads” privileged above the average Gambian? Is anyone of managerial level in a Bank entitled to a national VIP status? Why must the servants of the public who are bound to transparency hide behind tinted glasses while tax paying Gambians who fought for freedom cannot freely tint their cars within the limits of roadworthiness.
The trend is disturbing and it is escalating. This Government must recognize that it leads, subject always to the good graces of The Gambian people. The people yearn for freedom and change. And while change may have come for the privileged few, we the majority grow ever more impatient.
We remind the Government that one of the directive principles set down under our Constitution, which should guide its actions towards the common good is that it should endeavour to secure and promote a society founded on the principles of freedom, equality, justice, tolerance, probity and accountability. This is more reason why our public officials should not hide behind heavily tinted windows in cars paid for by hard working tax payers.
6 months is a short honeymoon, considering the new government was facing bankruptcy, and serious threats from Jammeh sympathisers, in the army and elsewhere. The need for Ecowas forces to remain is testimony to that. No one doubts Ms Tambajang is the right person for Vice President. The President has refrained from acting on this, due to The Constitutional provision for an age limit. The age limit is ridiculous anyway and is discriminatory against age. People are living much longer and are working past 70 anyway. The GBA fail to mention discrimination in the workplace. I would suggest tinted glass in transporting officials especially bank CEO’s is proportionate at this time, seeing as evidence given over embezzlement, is a very risky occupation, just now until court proceedings are completed. I agree that changing the name of the NIA to SIS is cosmetic, seeing as the name NIA is synonymous with acts of depravity. The need for “intelligence” is something that the new government needed immediately they took power. Nothing wrong in employing experienced personnel. Provided the same personnel, have proven unblemished records and have given an oath of loyalty to the nation, and The President. Gambia employs only Gambians in the Judiciary now. The mercenary Judges have left. The road map the GBA aspires to know has been clearly set out by The President and The Minister of Justice.
I suppose it is encouraging that the GBA have now found their voice. But the timing of this ” proclamation of intent” is a little bemusing if not amusing. Not all honeymoon’s are successful. One hopes this doesn’t mean separate rooms ?
Mike, please carry out your research again. The NIA operatives who have been abducting innocent Gambians in the middle of the nights are still active, now working for the SIS. Even GAF is still actively arresting people. The Nigerian prosecutors and judges who have been roasting (not cocking) charges against innocent Gambians and jailing them are still at the Ministry of Justice. The manipulation of the laws of the country is still going on. All these should have been stopped from day one. There is nothing that can justify its continuity.
… no one doubts Ms Tambajang is the right person for the Vice Presidency, IS That TRULY SO?
… my belly says you’re mistaking, Mike
too many things are … wrong
we are who WE are, aren’t WE
Who feels it knows it. Thanks GBA.
Good piece Mike Scales
Yassin Senghore thanks for raising these concerns. I have recently asked a senior civil servant if their recent acts of throwing their weight around is the case of old habits proving hard to die or a harbinger of things to come. His answers left me very disappointed. I raised amongst others the issuing of ‘directives’ that take away the rights of citizens with the flimsiest of excuses. Take the announcement of ‘set-setal’ if people want to complement efforts of local authorities fine, but taking away our rights to go about our businesses without harassment is clearly wrong. Mind you, we have already paid for the council to keep the places clean and must NOT be force off the roads with a diktat however well intended.
Then the tint issue, Gambians have for reasons best known to them elevated tinted cars with status. I know many cars in Florida are tinted including ‘Hantas’ ( old cars) generally to help protect people from the intense sun rays and to protect the vehicle upholstery . But back to the point, instead of police and policy markers coming up with legal standards that make tints safe for everyone ( I have driven cars in Gambia so heavily tinted you can’t see at night putting other motorist and pedestrians at risk) they turned it into status symbol. The stealth tax ( yearly exemption fee) and undue harassment tinted car owners faced is wrong and I believe the GBA should take cases such as these to the courts to defend the rights of the citizens. The security argument is lame. If there is REASONABLE SUSPICION that persons or citizens in a tinted car poses a threat why not stop and search. What is the yearly tax or exemption fee used for as a police slush fund no one knows.
The GBA’s voice is one that needs to be heard frequently on matters of the Constitution and adherence to the rule of law. I hope the government takes the views expressed in good faith and avoid any future mimicries. This is a very positive sign for the new Gambia.
On a completely different note, I wish to appeal to the Editors of this wonderful medium to include sports reportage in their coverage. I’m sure many sports enthusiasts, especially football fans, would like to have a voice on the state of the national game on the international scene. We (home based Scorpions) have just be walloped 4-0 by Mali, whilst the senior squad lost to Benin in the 2019 CAN qualifiers. Let’s have a voice in the football inquisitions along side the political ones. Does anyone agree?
Surprised??? Do not expect anything better from a buddy government and poor quality government a government run from Senegal x
I deliberately set my comment to canvass opinions; The opinions expressed are my education. But my updated opinion asks why did the GBA go public on their concerns ?>>and not directly to The Office of The President. Notwithstanding it would be very damaging to President Barrow and his government, to divert their concerns, from a working association, to one of public disquiet. The government have set out the amelioration and remedies, of the GBA and all other concerns regarding the need for a New Constitution, but have rightly refrained from giving a time frame for completion and ready for the public vote of approval. This amongst other pressing national issues, of of enormous complexity. I don’t think this proclamation of dissatisfaction, is timely or of assistance to the Government, but of course the GBA are entitled to their opinion. The other issue is one of government opposition. Does the GBA now consider itself in the position of the “Opposition” ?
If so I feel it would be wrong if the GBA now wish to enter into the political arena.
This would raise my concern towards impartiality, which is the universal password of the worlds practising Judicial and legal system.
Separate rooms is not an option, Better to resolve these issues privately and sincerely before bedtime.
From what I can gather, the GBA is deeply divided between those who are the buddies of lawyer Ousainou Darboe and those seen as his opponents. Why the current GBA president is not adding her voice on the matter? I think Ms. Senhore is speaking for herself and not in anyway representing the views of the Bar.
Interesting.
Give the devil it’s due.These people needed time and opinions from the professional fraternity. If the GBA is divided,they need to put their house in order.We have been in it together and I support Mr Scales idea that they as a very noble institution should have take up the matter with the executive first and then resort to fight as the last alternative.
The records of the new authorities in their work life has undoubtedly relieved many people in the country as they are without or indeed very limited ills.
I think Ms Bojang and Mr Camara add knowledge and wisdom to this debate; In ten years of association with the media, I find it very interesting that post the acceptance of democracy, so many Gambians have risen to make opinion pieces online and to the media. All commending their own authority on the right way forward. But this situation, to my mind is in some cases,being used as a “shop window” to forward their own interests and not necessarily to advance the best guidance to the nation. Whilst at times I have been critical of the tardy nature of the Barrow government, I fully recognise the difficult “hand” they were dealt by the mess they inherited. There are many online that would like { for their own selfish aims} wish to see this government fail. They attack with various themes, from tribalism, to the “secret ambitions” of Ousainou Darboe, or to the ordinary background of Adama Barrow, or the vagaries of the much tampered with Constitution. Would that a wave of a magic wand would put everything right tomorrow. But myself, I think we are looking at 10 years for this Journey to reach its intended destination. So in conclusion, I think to criticize is fine, but to be realistic is better. In any case Ms Senghore { who may be a relative of mine} will not be arrested or disappeared or tortured, for being outspoken>>>and for the time being that’s the true comparison between the Jammeh brand of governance and the Barrow government>>> and not the one she claims as being the same as the terrible last government. At that, progress is an inevitability and not a wishful pipe dream.
Let us deal in probabilities and not confused inabilities. Gambia will be just fine.
Her excellence Tambajang is back door Vp she’s fit to be called Vp but if there are age limit for workers why not for politicians? Nigeria is planning to fix age limit as Buhari isn’t fit to run the country honestly he should retire and give chance to young people Gambia is on right side , age limit for all politicians as civilian we should have same right
Any Laws made by man that induce discrimination, only limits the honourable ambitions of us all.
=peace#, this age limit issue will come to haunt them. I thought Fatoumata Tambajang was to forward her birth certificate through president Barrow. . FJT’s is more important than everything else. After all, the ideal person for the VP position should be someone with good legal background to help Barrow in avoiding any more violations of the constitution.
It is very bad manners to enquire the age of a Lady. Especially the one who chased a monster out of town.
Lawmakers are just mafias why no retirement plan for everyone no matter what’s your professional certificate but as a person and citizens we should have se right , Old daddy’s uncle’s please go home you time is over let young talent people improve they carer having president over 70 just a mess nonsense and use of power let’s learn from Nigeria having useless president because of his age if you no fit for the place give chance please x
Congrats Barrister
My thoughts inform me that Ms. Senghor is on to a Significant, Troubling and Continued “Enabling” Behavior of Impunity AND “VIP” DEMOCRACY in the Gambia. Unfortunately, the troubling Developments are not of the Economic and Infrastructural kind. They are of the “Rules Don’t Apply To Me”. The “VIP” interpret their Civil Service as Self-Service and therefore, Entitled to all the “VIP” STATUS, which in this parts mean, “Voted And Immunized Person”. I am more hard on Civilian Presidents because I expect more from them. They are like me. Not trained in the Art of War not Killing. We are hopefully, Experienced or Knowledgeable in the Art of Governance and Diplomacy. If we make a mistake of Selecting or Electing a Civilian who is lacking in these qualities, the Fault and Blame lies in us or those we choose to represent us in the Selection or Decision Making. The way or manner by which the Two Regimes came to Power and the way they Choose to Govern is all the more relevant to Ms. Senghor’s Reasonable, Well Informed and Objective Account of Mis-steps that the Adama Barrow Government has Engaged in for the past Six Months. Isolated as one Case or Incident, the Cases and or Incidents Ms. Senghor Cites may be seen as as inconsequential and may be Dismissed off hand. However, put together and viewed from a Legal Minds Point of view of “Precedents” and Case Law, the Actions and Behavior of a Duely Elected Government that Promised and Tounts Democracy and the Rule of Law, is Alarming and Disturbing indeed. Yes, Six Months is Not a Year Make. However, it is the Priorities, coupled with the Unilateralist Decisions made that are Clearly in Contravention of the Constitution that is Repugnant and Disturbing. Not to rationalise the APRC Regime’s Failures with reference to “Human Rights Abuses” as alleged, I am of the opinion that a Duely Elected Civilian Government Should distinguish itself from the “run of the mill” Military governments whose leaders and Leadership originated from a Military background. Soldiers are trained to follow Orders with little question if any. This is to Maintain Discipline and Order required to Perform as a Well “Oiled Fighting Force”. They are not known for their Law and Order Credentials regardless of what Clothes they wear. Soldiers are not for Law and Order. They are for Defense and or Offensive Action depending on Circumstance. The Police on the other hand are for Law and Order and the Keeping of Internal Peace and Security. Elected Civilians on other hand, are expected to be the Beacons of Laws and Order, Civic Duty and Democractic Constitutionalism of the Republican Kind. Murder, Torture and any and all Human Rights Violations are to be Treated and Prosecuted Equally. However, allowing our selves to “race to the bottom” by comparing the Acts of Soldiers who Usurped the Constitution by Staging a Coup is missing a Significant and an Important Difference. That of the Guns VS. Ballots, in the Gambia’s case, the Marbles. We need to Expect and Demand more from those Civilians Duely Elected by a Plurality of the the Voters to be Beholding to the “Social Contract” of John Locke. It Stipulates that Governments are to Serve the Needs of the governed and that the people have the right to remove or Change the Government when the Government fails to Fulfill the “Social Contract”. How does one do that when you dealing Soldiers Turned Civilian Rulers? The Voters May be put in the Proverbial “Who will Bell the Cat” in a World of Rats….This is where the Judiciary Branch of which Ms. Senghor is a Significant member of comes in. She and her third leg of the Three legged Branches of Government (the Executive, the Legislative and Judiciary) Branch Have a Duty, a Privilege and Yes, Right to Express their Opinion in Matters Concerning the Constitution and how it is been Impacted Negatively or Positively. In her Subject matter at hand, she Outlined the Violations or Ursurping of Certain Sections of the Constitution of 1997. Ms. Senghor should be Collectively Supported and Encouraged instead of been seen as a Partisan or worse, without any evidence. Let us create a Space for Differing opinions, especially those who are Pointing out Anomalies and Ursurping of the Constitution and the Rule of Law which are the Hall Mark of Representative Democracy. Sister Senghor, thank you for your Contribution toward a more “The People” Drived Governance.
GBA gives a break!For how long you failed Gambians and quiet,during the impasse whether you weigh in or not Yaya was finished.
They should not have amended the upper age limit. As she is saying this is just a cover up for their pass actions and this reminds us of the Jammeh era. A more important amendment would have being restricting the term limit for the presidency to two, the nonsensical issue of nominated members to parliament from amongst whom the Speaker and the deputy must be selected. Why would an un-elected persons head the National assembly.
Again why take up these issues with the Barrow government. During the political impasse they were making statement directly to the public without consulting the Jammeh Government and they were commended for this then.
This government should know that the honey moon is over and they should stop making unnecessary mistakes/blunders every now and then.
We want them to succeed and to make some positive impact on our lives but this should not give them a leeway to be messing up all the way.