(JollofNews) – In what could be described as perhaps his most daring move, President Adama Barrow of the Gambia Friday sacked his coalition partners from his cabinet.
Tourism minister Hamat Bah of the National Reconciliation Party (NRP) and Agriculture minister Omar Jallow of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), were all sacked with immediate effect and replaced with members of Mr Barrow’s United Democratic Party.
Mr Barrow’s Party leader and political mentor Ousainou Darboe who was serving as Foreign minister has been named Vice President.
According to a press release from the office of the president, Vice President Fatoumata Tambajang has been redeployed to the Foreign Service, while Henry Gomez another coalition partner is now Special Youth Adviser to the President of the Republic.
Veteran journalist Demba Jawo has also been pushed and replaced with Ebrima Sillah, director of the state owned Gambia Radio and Television Services.
At the time of writing this report no reason has been given for the president’s decision.
Below is the list of the new cabinet:
- Vice President of the Republic – Hon. Ousainou Darboe
- Ministry of Information and Communication Infrastructure – Ebrima Sillah
- Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs – Mambury Njie
- Ministry of Agriculture – Lamin N. Dibba
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Gambians Abroad – Momodou Tangara
- Ministry of Lands and Regional Government – Musa Drammeh
- Ministry of Trade and Regional Integration – Amadou Sanneh
- Ministry of Youths and Sports – Hadrammeh Sidibeh
- Minstry of Health and Social Welfare – Dr. Isatou Touray
We will keep you updated as more details unfold.
It’s abnormal for a Facebook post to precede a formal press release. Proper research should be conducted as due diligence for authentication of the story before publishing.
Ebou,
I commented on Monday, 5 days ago, that Lawyer Darboe should be VP.
With Tangara and Mambury there we now have a SOLID unified Govt. Let’s get it on.
It us a UDP Govt. and Opposition will rally against them, but VP Darboe has serious “ALLIANCE” plans.
The information is being corroborated by other networks and channels, including Kaironews, so its most likely authentic. Its no surprise for many keen observers of The Gambia’s political scene. The UDP did not insist on a UDP led coalition all those years for nothing. It was only a matter of time before they elbow coalition partners out.
Now, like the Mandinka proverbial excreta of a hyena (sulo bowo finntaleh barri naa metaa, aka koileh), a decison that has been unclear, baffling and confusing to many, has become crystal clear to all: PDOIS’ refusal to accept cabinet positions. This is a true indication of the wisdom and foresight of the PDOIS Leadership.
Now that they’ve got what they have always coveted, they should settle down and deliver their programmes. They will be held to account at every stage of the process, without doubt.
Now that they’ve got what they have always coveted….. (refers to the UDP; not PDOIS; which could be implied. My apologies)
O J just gave an interview that he will “remain part of the Coalition and active to ensure that Gambia does not go the wrong way”.
So, Bax, expect some serious opposition to the Government IF, and a big IF, Mama Kandeh, OJ, Halifa, Fatoumatta and Mai Fatty should form a strong NEW COALITION. Mama has something like 20% of the electorate, PDOIS around 8%, OJ 2% and Mai Fatty 0%. Fatoumatta could captures some votes but I don’t think she will remain in politics.
I still think APRC is more likely to go into alliance with UDP & NRP. With UDP on something like 45% and NRP 5%. The critical factor for the next election will be the APRC’s voter base … and whether Hamat Bah will raise his game and eat into Mama Kandeh’s voter base.
Luntango, can you shed light on both statements that you offered below? In light of SAMBA’s commentary on one-liners.
“With Tangara and Mambury there we now have a SOLID unified Govt. Let’s get it on.
It us a UDP Govt. and Opposition will rally against them, but VP Darboe has serious “ALLIANCE” plans”.
Bajaw, Luntango Felleh A Beh Jaato Senneh Kang. Abeh Tucho Leh Norma DEH!!
Bajaw will help with the translation. He’s been too quiet lately.
And Luntango, I’d say Fat Chance to a coalition between OJ, Mai, Mama and Fatmata.
Mama Kandeh is fully aware that he’s riding on what I’d label, “the sympathy vote” and he’s not gonna let anything water that down. Take a good look at where Mama draws his power base plus votes cast in his favor in the last national polls.
It is clear that Mai, Fatmata and OJ don’t have a following or a solid power base to trade for an asset!
PS, Hamat Bah, Mai and OJ are spoilers that couldn’t be counted on for coalition partners. True that politics makes strange bedfellows but not in our brand of Gambian politics!
LOL! “Bajaw, Luntango Felleh A Beh Jaato Senneh Kang. Abeh Tucho Leh Norma DEH!!” – I can’t respond to that until Bajaw translates!
In hindsight, Darboe has done the right thing in ensuring that UDP, as a party, is independent of the fluctuations of power dynamics, by making sure the party is represented well in the parliament and recently at the local gov’t level.
The hard fact is that the constitution gave the president wide powers. And these powers can only be limited by a party with considerable power in parliament and at local gov’t level. Otherwise, I think Darboe and co would have also got the firing letter today or earlier.
The recent incidents and miscommunications plaquing the gov’t has shown that Barrow is not entirely in grasp of the situation and many socalled “advisers” have positioned themselves to take advantage of the situation. Clearly, Barrow was given a choice to make. He apparently choose UDP as his partner in whatever future he is planning. And UDP in effect dug in. In the eyes of the coalition, this is bad.
But back then many, including myself, lamented about the dismissal of Fatty but that sacking was welcomed by many pundits especially from the PPP and APRC corner, who saw a need to weaken an insurgent group of socalled tribal “adherents”.
Today, by all indications, realpolitik has taken over.
“Bajaw will help with the translation. He’s been too quiet lately.”
Andrew, Bajaw is in shock & still in mourning; yet to recover from the Faraba village protest massacres; my heart is bleeding blood…..
I hear you Bajaw.
Alimaa E Laa Jangolu Soneyaa La.
I mourn with you Bajaw. The horrible event could have been avoided.
Kemo you said,
“The hard fact is that the constitution gave the president wide powers. And these powers can only be limited by a party with considerable power in parliament and at local gov’t level. Otherwise, I think Darboe and co would have also got the firing letter today or earlier”.
Really Kemo? And you expect us to buy into that narrative?
Where’s the Jalo whose Singo Beh Forango to in all of this?
I’d fall back on a Krio adage to say, We Go School En We Learn Book! Go figure!
The last 3 days were very tense. A line was drawn in the sand. Barrow blinked and Darboe won. UDP is now effectively the ruling party and Darboe will make Barrow honor the 3 year coalition agreement. We can expect to have President Darboe in 2019. We can expect UDP to control the NA. We can expect more political intrigues, back stabbing and infighting.
Winners:
Darboe, UDP
Loosers:
Barrow, VP, Coalition Members.
Overall the current political paradigm shift is better for the country, NOT BEST. The Executive branch is stronger and slightly more competent. Time will tell what the ROI will be for us.
God Bless The Gambia.
Dr, remember what I wrote here when Bensouda was elected KMC Mayor?
I said:
President Barrow 2017 – 2022
President Darboe 2023 – 2028
President Bensouda (either!) 2029 – 2039.
Now, how is that for a prediction!!!
Dida you are off by 2 years. But may be right on succession, but for Bensouda. Some of us can’t see Darboe waiting until 2023. Age and Health. I see a possibility of recycling Barrow if he is a good boy.
On a separate issue. Darboe should have fired the Interior Minister today.
It’s not a typo. This is Darboe’s play.
I hope there will be no more IDIOTC politicking to cover up CORRUPTION OR CORRUPTIBLE ACTS, our society’s diseases that are eroding our very existence as a people. I hope these new technocrats will live up to the Gambian people’s expectations/aspirations to ensure that the unfinished works under President Jammeh are immediately embarked upon and completed, diligently.
I’m VERY GLAD that:
1) Omar Jallow (OJ) the WOMANIZER and most CORRUPT and HOPELESS man is sacked
2) Fatumatta Tambajang, the septigenarian TRIBALIST, CORRUPT; SLY and highly-affected influence peddler is sacked
3) Hamat Bah, the clownish corrupt minister without an iota of thinking capacity/idea to rejuvenate the Tourist industry is sacked
4) Henry Gomez who cannot present a single programme for the over 68% of our youth population is sacked
5) Very little do I know of Demba Jawo as minister except that he was an outspoken an frank analyst while we were students at the then Yundum College. He was my junior. I wonder why he was replaced. If it’s for the good of our country, well and fine.
What are Mballow, Amadou Sanneh, Badara Joof and Dr Isatou Touray doing as ministers? They are CORRUPT.
Andy, MZEE Babu Soli is OLDER than both of us!!! Here is the evidence “Demba Jawo … while we were students at the then Yundum College. He was my junior.”
Babu as evidence shown in your Comment that Mr jawo is younger than if i don’t misunderstood or is that by seniority not Age? Because to me Age Doesn’t matter when it comes to education,and Please don’t tell me that you are older than Mr jawo After the Rain of salty words with the whole World because i won’t only gambia. Am sorry i dont want to offend you as i always said i don’t believe in people who insults and be critic of other Tribes by Framing them all Sorts of names. Have a nice weekend
The cabinet reshuffle has Ousainou’s finger print smeared all over it. Now the age limit constitutional amendment can be seen as a disingenuous ploy not to get Fatoumatta to be the VP but to elevate Ousainou to a higher echelon. This is just the first act of the drama that has just begun to unfold in Ousainous hunger for power and privileges. At least we now know who is in charge of our state affairs.
Relieving (sacking, firing, booting) all the coalition actors except those from the UDP is also meant to consolidate their grip on power and dominate the political landscape of The Gambia as obtained under Dawda Jawara the docile imperialist and Yaya Jammeh the murderer and thief.
The Gambian state has sunk to another low of becoming a political party instead of a government that rules through democratic and efficient institutions.
Whilst the country and it’s people get poorer with no end in sight, coupled with the daily curtailing of freedoms and liberties, the same political elitism continues to mar our progress as a people. Recycling same old political operatives (Momodou Tangara and Mambury Njie) as if no other Gambians are qualified to hold these positions is insulting. This is the kind of political cronyism that has bred many ills in the African continent. A Terri Kafoo is building up before own our eyes and it seems we the people are powerless to do anything about it.
Firing ministers and giving no reasons is not a presidential constitution prerogative. It is an intransparent practice meant to mystify governance in a society already primed for such. Is it all doom and gloom for us? Only the Gambian citizenry will be able to answer that question with their voices and non violent means of resistance.
Yours in the service of The Gambia and the Black Nation, I remain.
Pjalo, like many, I have no access to the internal workings of this gov’t. Egal (regardless) of the person you have president, there are people all over the place who try to take advantage of the situation. I would conclude that Darboe, aware of the dynamics of power and it’s unpredictable use, saw it essential to stick to his party and consolidate it’s power base.
My observation recently is that factions within the gov’t started to surface and it was only a matter of time before there were casualties and winners. The casualty camp here is Madam Tambajang-Jallow, Omar Jallow, Mr. Jawo and probably Mballow. There was a lot of talk and impression about this camp’s overreach. Sadly, lack of a political base make their sidelining less risky for the president as the other alternative. They have relied and weighted the power of Barrow to much failing to realise that Barrow did not come to power through the barrel of the gun. The effective political force in the country matters and the party with considerable following stands the chance of dictating the policies of the president. That is called Realpolitik! Becuase power reside with the voters.
Kemo, being a luntango I have difficult understanding intracacies of Gambian politics. You mention “camp” here, but I am at a loss to understand what they have in common to be a “camp”. Please help!
Kemo wrote:- “The casualty camp here is Madam Tambajang-Jallow, Omar Jallow, Mr. Jawo and probably Mballow”.
I think the commonness here is that they all either belong to an insignificant political party(ppp) or are independent technocrats with significant important political contested portfolios. I also hear that due to this difficulty compounding them, they have become a fraternity in need. So you can imagine how the jostling for power and relevancy quickly turned into factional fighting. Just for your info: last time FTJ delivered an address, she attacked(literally) the ethnic undertones of party politicking during the recent local gov’t election. Food for thought! I didn’t expect that blunt attack knowing that mostly UDP is the target audience for such scorn! Actually, I thought then that was the start of a open split between President Barrow and UDP. Surprisingly it turned out vice versa.
Kemo, you indulged in Mwalimuisc subliminal mystification intransparent practice before you gave me the answer I was seeking! Thanks.
Kinteh (Kemo)….
1. I think it is highly condescending to view any coalition partner as “insignificant”. The political environment we are enjoying today is the result of a collective effort.
And least we conveniently forget, prior to Coalition 2016, we were ALL agreed (except those who had their heads in cloud 9) that NO SINGLE PARTY had the resources and the support to dislodge Jammeh and the APRC from power.
I know there are those who want to put forth this idea that the UDP would have done it with or without the coalition. I hope you are not implying that here, because that is absolutely dilusional.
2. The picture of “factional fighting” and “fraternity in need” association (in Cabinet/Government ) you painted is very disturbing and if true, it would be a betrayal of everything Coalition 2016 was supposed to stand for, but at the same time, telling us a lot about the hunger for position and influence of those in power today.
3. Whatever the dynamics of power, and whatever the level of “jostling for power and relevancy” (to try and “take advantage of the situation”), I do NOT agree that Ousainou was right to use that as an opportunity to consolidate his power base. I think that will be as equally selfish as those jostling for power and relevancy.
A politician of his standing, if he was genuine and selfless, as he is presented to be, should have used every trick in his book to abort that unhealthy situation and bring togetherness and oneness in government. And if he failed, then as a matter of principle, he should step down from government and use his influence and position to bring about a speedy end to the administration. In our case today, holding coalition partners to the 3 Year Coalition Agreement would have sufficed.
4. So, FTJ publickly attacked the ethnic undertone of party politicking and this is perceived as a “blunt attack” of the UDP!!!! and probably lost her the VP position.
Well, you know that Mandinka Proverb about KUMO (word) and “NIISIRINGO” (calf). That’s what seem to apply here, from my observation.
Mwalimu wrote “Firing ministers and giving no reasons is not a presidential constitutional prerogative.” That is inaccurate. “It is an intransparent practice meant to mystify governance of a society already primed for such.” I have no idea what Mwalimu is talking about here. As the head of the Executive branch, the President can fire any cabinet member for cause or not. The cabinet members were appointed with the President’s approval and he can fire them with his approval even if cabinet appointments were to go through a nomination process. There is no requirement that the President has to give reason for firing any cabinet member. It is not in the Constitution as far as I know, but I stand to be corrected. Have a blessed day everyone.
It is not in the constitution but unfairly dismissals could lead to legal challenge in some cases. It is very important to check your legal stand before taking any action , these laws can be very mitigated and severely challenge, the out come unpredictable.
Please read the comment I directed at you.
Indeed Samba! Mwalimu, this sounds like some serious high-level subliminal mystification that is completely over the heads of ordinary people like Samba and Luntango. Simplify please! ” “It is an intransparent practice meant to mystify governance of a society already primed for such.”
Please read the comment I directed at you.
Kemo, the manufactured rift between Barrow and his Bwana Kubwa (Big Man), Ousainou, was the result of mere mortals attempting to read too much into their own imaginations.
Barrow has, from day one, made it clear that he was holding water for the man he calls Nna Kebaa.
So we shouldn’t be surprised if Barrow was to step down sooner to offer that long overdue space for his mentor and Luntango’s Mandela!
We must also go back to ask why Barrow was offered a place in the UDP executive body! On hindsight, it becomes clear that Barrow had little to offer the executive other than his allegiance to the Big Man.
So why the cherrypicking and the urgency/rush to amend the age limit for the Vice Presidency? Any takeaways?
Time is of the essence here while I stand to be corrected.
I was talking ahead of myself there. So here I clarify.
Yes the president is at liberty to fire ministers without publicly giving any reason. But he is also at liberty to tell the populace why a particular minister has been removed from office, which will be a best practice standard in my opinion.
_______________________
@Luntango: the distance between power (government, institutions, personalities etc) over the years has created mysteries around the functions of the state all because transparency is not given due space. That makes Gambia and Gambians prime to accept more of the same thing.
Is the meaning of the sentence now more or less clear?
Thank you Mwalimu. Andy, keep sneering at “Luntango’s Mandela” and you will soon be PNGed!
No one questions the President’s liberty to tell Gambians what he believes they need to know. “Firing ministers and giving no reasons is not a presidential constitutional prerogative.” I believe you do not understand what your statement means. Your initial statement denies the President the prerogative to fire ministers without giving any reason for his action. Now you are saying the President has the liberty to “tell the populace why a particular minister has been removed from office…” and your reasoning now is that it will be “… a best practice standard in your opinion.” When should the President tell the populace the reason why he fired a certain minister? All the time? Sometimes? And if it is sometimes, then what times should he and what time should he not? If a minister has personal failings, for example, committed adultery and the President fires him for that as not fit for a ministerial office, would you want the President to tell the populace that he fired the minister because he or she is an adulterer? Would you also want the President to tell the populace the reason he fired a minister whom he fired because he hates that person?Something like, my fellow Gambians, the reason why I fired that minister is because i hate that person. Is that presidential? Or in such circumstances, would prefer the President to just say, myself and that minister I let go did not see eye to eye on the direction I believe the country should be heading. He certainly can do that and that would be diplomatic, but that may not be true if the real reason that minister was fired was totally different from what he told the populace then. And how will Gambians feel about their president if later they come to find out the real reason why that minister was fired? Then fingers will be pointed at him as a liar. It may be your opinion that the president should tell the populace why a particular minister has been removed from office and you stated your reason why. Opinions, however, can be wrong, and your opinion on this issue, is wrong. The issue here is a limited one. It is limited to the president’s prerogative to fire any minister and not give a reason why. Other issues that do not concern the president’s prerogative to fire any minister without giving a reason is beyond what I am saying.
Samba; you sounds like you are condoning dictatorship, yet still the president has to come out and explained why he made such a move in the interest of transparency ,accountability and democracy, public are still wondering why, you cannot say that is no bodies business whilst they are the public figures. Is up the president how he is going lay down his move to ensure public understand. If you are trying to tell us that firing can be done without questions I disagree, and this could hunt him down the road people don’t just jump out of the blue and sack your minister like that, something could go wrong or it is officially time for reshuffle, that’s called major shake up, which mean every one be ready.
Tafel, there are many places where the President may have to explain things to Gambians. This one is just not one of them. I am only talking about hiring and firing a member or members of his cabinet. So please do not extend it to any other action by the president.
You still don’t get me mr samba, example in the US if a president sack a an important members of state department, white house will make a press conference and questions will be ask and answers. In UK downing street will come up with statement for any concern that leads to the circumstances of sack member of the cabinet. Right now things are quite no one knows why ?.
Luntango & Baba,
Yes,Babu is not a kid. Non of my age group is working in The Gambia, except for those who went into politics. On holidays, when we get together they deplore the system that allows me to work at my age.
The truth I’m telling you is that Babu left The Gambia with a passport that did not reflect my true age at birth. Birth certificates were not relevant at our birth in those days especially kids from the rural areas . So our dates of birth were calculated on what district/national event/catastrophe occured.
Take Babu as Koto Babu, Pa Babu or just Babu and seek advice from him.
Baba, I mean DA Jawo was my junior at the Yundum College at age and class. I graduated at his 1st year.
Ousainou Darbo was responsible to oversee my class as prefect. He was at Lower 5 when I was at Form 1. I was in Form 2 when he was reading his GCSE at Upper 5, Saint Augustine’s. Babu is not a kid. Soon you’ll be hearing from him in The Gambia and only on sporadic occasions in Holland. Time to say finally BYE to Europe is just around the corner. In Sha Allah.
I am glad Babu is considering going back home. I see a very caring man under that APRC die hard exterior. Deep down Babu loves and cares deeply about everything Gambia. You are loyal to a fault in support of what you believe. Your contributions will no doubt help a grateful nation.
But stop all that thrash talking, it’s not befitting of a respectable Gambian older gentleman. I got the same advice from Dida when I was going ballistic on Lamin. Looking forward to our boxing match.
Lamin’s name is now Mwalimu doctor; do you know what happened to the man who insisted on calling Muhammad Ali “Cassius”? Just Youtube “What’s my name”!
May be some have attacked Babu Soli’s person on this forum, but I have not. Now that Babu have revealed a little bit about himself, the narrative or view of him has somehow changed or shifted a little bit on the softer side. Very interesting. This is a public forum where anyone can join in and speak his or her mind. A person’s age or qualifications should not carry any sway but whether that person said something that is reasonable or not. Whether I am older than Babu or he is older than me is not the point at all. By the way, he is much older than me. The focus should his positions in debates about Gambian affairs. At one point Babu was for the government because of the man in charge. Now he is against the government because of the man in charge. That is a fact that should not change because we now know how old he is. Between Jammeh and Barrow, the facts speak for themselves. It is not a debate and if it were, it won’t be close who have done more damage to Gambia. Now that is not to say this government may not catch up if they were to stay as long as Jammeh did. Babu have all the rights in the world to attack this government and I do not think anyone questions that. Most of use are for Gambia regardless of who is president. Babu cannot the same the same thing. At least if we are to go by history and there is enough of that to support my position. Have happy Sunday everyone.
Thanks pa babu cos i know Now that, you can be my Father and thanks again for your time and the quick respond and i hope you can understand me the reasons why i hate to exchange Foul words with people i have never Met and even not knowing how old is he/she and moreover people of country, i appreciate your quick respond and from the Deep of my heart i wish you all the best of health and just a little advice Please Please when you reach the time for Pension go Enjoy your hard working money and Stay away from politics and Stop the unneccessary Arguments on h
The Forums,you’ve earn my respect, and i wish you all the best in life and Let bygone
Be bygone and forget about past and pray for each other long life, good healthy and Prosperity.
Dr and Mwalimu kiss and make up; Babu and Babu shake hands and make up … smiles … let me know, Andy & Bax, next time the Luntango is needed.
Babu Soli is a die hard supporter of the APRC. I share his passion for Africa and black people though.
He has some very compelling arguments against the enept administration of Ousainou. However, his numerous attempts to defend Yaya the maniac has tainted his superb standing for me.
I wish him all the best and perhaps we will one day get to see each other for a cup of green tea up country or wherever feasible.
_______________________
@ Kunkiling Taala: you are on a peace mission. I love African transformative justice norms. How much are you getting for it? lol in good humor.
Making up is necessary where there is antagonism. From my part there is none. Am not out here to personalize stuff because our engagements, whether we accept it or not, serve a bigger purpose. I know a bunch of people who come on this platform just to read the comments. That’s why am strategic with what I put out for consumption.
Besides, when we have never seen eye to eye and our mode of communication is entire dependent on letters and words, it’s obviously apt not to cross some lines. These are all generalities, but next I narrow it down to me and Dr. Isatou.
_______________________
Isatou has many times accused me of toxic masculinity directed at her. But that’s not the case. I only feel Black discourse is very often dominated by a white narrative. And that hurts, especially if it’s coming from a highly educated black woman we should be proud of and hold to higher ideals. Don’t forget, black women ended slavery and colonialism and they are at the forefront of our transformations. So I attack those views with a vengeance that comes deep down from my black psyche.
Do I hold any grudges against her for the tirade of insults? Evidently not.
But all the same, I hereby extend a handshake to Dr. Isatou.
Sorry for the mistakes i Never go back to what i wrote but i hope you guys understands what i mean,not me but phone is make some spellings errors.
@Samba: I think you just want to engage in a frivolous exchange here with Mwalimu.
I did not deny that the president is at liberty (his prerogative) to take any course he deems fit. Or are you insinuating that he has no choice but one?
The first line of what I wrote from my last posting “No one questions the President’s liberty to tell Gambians what he believes they need to know.” The key being “what he believes they need to know.” After all, the president also have freedom of speech rights. To answer the question you raised, yes the president have a choice, but is it his to make and he chose not to make it and you guys are questioning that as if he has broken Gambian law. If you did not believe that, then why did you initially made reference to “presidential constitutional prerogative”?
Did you actually considered the scenarios I brought up? They are both very possible right? Did you ignored them because they did not fit into what you said? That shows the weakness of your position. As you can see, that was not a philosophical argument at all. It is amazing how much you miss most of what I write. Sometimes, I specifically use certain words or sentences and expect them to catch your attention so that you can ask further questions but you do not catch them and hence you do not ask questions. I see you extended a hand to Dr. Sarr. That’s great. To make an apology is never a sign of weakness. Nobody said you cannot be passionate with your views. I know I did not. You went way out of line and I pointed that out to you. The beauty of reason is that, one can always reflect on things said and done and make amends. Back to the topic. I ask again, when should the president make known to the public the reason(s) why he fires a cabinet member(s)? All the time or sometimes. If it is sometimes, then what times are those? Take yourself as an example, there are many things you know about other people in your community but you do not say it but keep it to yourself. I hope this last statement helps!
Young Samba, you have been in America too long and forget our living African cultures that respect the elderly and in turn expect the elderly to respect the young. Now that we know your age, I have no doubt that the Elders on this forum such as Babu, Bax, Andy and Luntango will extend to Young Samba the respect due. And for that we go to the Late Great Nelson Madiba Mandela himslef:-
The TRICKY BBC shoved the microphone disrespectfully into our Madiba’s face at Soweto Stadium and asked: “Mr Mandela, how can you have racial harmony when your Youth Leader has just said ‘One Settler, One Bullet’?”. Madiba smiled into the BBC cameras and said: “He is a young man”.
Write on Young Samba, your Elders will be here to back you all the way.
You need to stop making assumptions about me. You can ask me questions directly and if I feel like it, I will answer. This is a public forum where we debate issues of the day. I never disrespected anyone here. I have never attacked anyone’s person here. Questioning a person’s position on an issue or pointing out a position that someone has taken is not not respecting that person; if you want you can use the word disrespecting instead of not not respecting. You need to stop twisting what I say. And you do not know my age. To say that Babu is much older than me does not mean you know my age. Since you claimed to know my age, what is it? If Babu is older than me by more than ten years, then he is much older than me but that does not mean I am a young person either. In a debate, it is not who said what that is important, but what is said.
Bax: Here is the great Halifa in 2013, discussing the Raleigh Conference:
Halifa Sallah: 29th May 2013
“All forces should just rally behind one independent candidate to remove the incumbent and preside over a one term transition”.
That is what we have and we should all prepare HARMONIUSLY to compete, harmoniously, in the elctions after the “one-term transition”.
I don’t think serving a full term is an issue with Coalition Partners. Though PDOIS has never left anyone in doubt about their preferred adherence to the 3 year AGREED Transitional Term, they have also indicated that the 5 year term is not an issue with them. That’s entirely up to President Barrow, as far as Halifa and PDOIS are concerned.
But recent actions of the president affecting his cabinet composition and hints from Kinteh (Kemo) of “factional fighting” and “jostling for power and relevance”, does seem to suggest that there is NO HARMONY there. Given the levels of dissatisfaction in the country, the rising number of demonstrations by disillusioned young people and the fragile security situation, perhaps curtailing the term of this administration to the agreed 3 year term is in the best interest of the country.
“The YOUTH QUESTION” is the big question in politics Bax, I agree. While Jammeh was in power I wanted to write that this would be the biggest challenge for the new rulers – but for the obivious reason that we simply wanted to get rid of murderous Jammeh I didn’t.
The problem with Gambia specifically is that while approx. 20% of the population can be provided for by employment in or related to Govt. service, the other 80% have to fend for themselves … similar to the ideas base around the PARETO PRINCIPLES 80/20 distribution. In Gambia it is naked capitalism without the cushion of Social Welfare that we have in UK, for example.
So here is the problem:
1. Roughly 20% of the Gambia’s population are OK and they support whichever government is in power;
2. Roughly 80% are struggling;
Of this 80%:-
3. 40% are parents, mature adults with children and elderly – and are at peace with their circumstances of hand to mouth existence (if things are bad they fill the mosques);
4. 40% are unemployed and potentially alienated youth who have to be pacified to avoid serious disturbances … and it is this group that have the potential to lead rebellions and a change of Government as happened in Burkina Faso. It is also from this group that political parties recruit their “Youth Wings” and “militants” to fight for or against “the system” … the best and most CYNICAL example being what RAILA did in Kenya during and after he lost the 2018 elections: when alienated from the RULING PARTY, these youth wings can become a serious revolutionary force … Ethiopia’s recent overthrow of the Prime Minister and installing of a new “popular” one being an example.
BACK TO GAMBIA’s case:-
1. Jammeh created his Green Boys out of the alienated and dispossessed youth – and made them believe that THEY had power and privileges through his leadership; Jammeh also used his Green Boys to intimidate others.
2. Jammeh then used brute police/military force and torture to cow and control the youths that hated him and his APRC.
3. So, under Jammeh, the youths either backed Jammeh, suffered in silence or risked migration through the merciless and unforgiving Sahara and across the treacherous waters of the Med. Sea.
NOW, WE HAVE A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT, A LISTENING GOVERNMENT, FACED WITH THE “YOUTH QUESTION”.
Tafel, the fact that the firings have been announced that the president have sacked certain members of “his” cabinet is not good enough for you. How did we know about the sackings if they were not made known? The examples you gave do not support your position. When the press secretary in the US goes to brief the media and through them the public and she is asked whether a cabinet member has been fired, he can easily answer yes or no. She never goes into the reason(s) behind the firing. I am guessing that may be the case in the UK too, but I stand to be corrected on the UK part. The Gambia government has done what governments traditional do, i.e., make announcements that a change or changes have been made in the cabinet. They never go as far as to say, here is the reason(s) why such and such got fired. Where have you seen that before? And if you have, that is not the norm. Tafel, please do not make this thing complicated because it is not. This is not about moral standards. It has nothing to do with morality. You obviously seem to have high moral and ethical standards and that is great, but this is not about that. You mentioned “dictatorship” in your penultimate posting and I did not say anything about that. Just because a president fires a cabinet member or some cabinet members does not mean dictatorship. And I am not condoning dictatorship either contrary to your assumption. Right now, as far as I know, there is no dictatorship in The Gambia. Chill Tafel, the firing is nothing new or strange at all. I see your point but you are unwilling to see my mine.
Ok mr samba, that’s kool peace out. and also I am a concern Gambian we must say something if we felt concern, enjoy your weekend.
You should always say how you feel about your country. You owe it to yourself and your country. This will pass. There are serous issues ahead. A legal fight is in the horizon. Let’s see if the few courageous Gambians will take it head on. Enjoy your weekend too.
Samba,
“There are serous issues ahead. A legal fight is in the horizon.”
Samba, I’ve read your warnings of a looming legal fight on the horizon,
What are these serious issues?
And how do you see the outcome (end result) of the legal fight?
Tilly Bo, any “member” of the “Coalition” has “standing” to challenge the president on the three years agreement. I mean any member of the Coalition can go to court and enforce the agreement and should win. The other serious issues range from when a challenge is successful, when does campaigning starts; who is qualified to run; what will be the rules of participation? It will be a situation that Gambia has never experienced before. And don’t forget, UDP will do anything it can to stay in power. What they will do, we will find out when a challenge to the three years starts. Also what would happen if the Supreme Court sides with UPD’s position in violation of the three years agreement. Here is the lame argument you will hear, if you have not already heard about it: UDP and its supporters will say the constitution says the term for the presidency is five years. Nobody denies that. The question is not how long the term of the presidency is but whether the agreement the Coalition member agreed on is binding. And the answer is, yes, it is binding. I will make this point clear to you, this is NOT a constitutional law issue. When I have time, I will write a full length article about it. I cannot get into it here on the commentary forum. Have a blessed day.
The Constitution of the country takes precedence over and above any private agreement. Pure and simple. It is one thing to say Barrow should abide by an agreement between the parties. Many agree. But it is wishful thinking to argue that the Supreme Court would over-ride the 5-year Constitutional provision because ofa mere private agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court will do not such thing. Guaranteed.
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about. No matter how many times you want to bring the five years term for the presidency as an issue, it is not the issue. No matter how many times you want to make this a constitutional law issue, it is not. The issue is not about the supremacy of the Constitution. You need to first answer the question what constitutes a constitutional law case before you start making ill advised statements. May be next time you write, you should enlighten us on what constitutes a constitutional law case. Will I be surprised if a Supreme Court decision go against a challenger to the three years agreement, absolutely not. This Supreme Court has decided cases without telling Gambians the reasonings of those decisions. You are yet to read a single “official opinion” of this Supreme Court.
Samba,
Yes, I understand what you are saying it’s a binding contract/agreement.
Could this challenge be taken to the supreme court of the African union, If the challenger fails at The Gambian supreme court?
No it cannot be taken to the Supreme Court of the African Union. This is an agreement among private persons when it was made. I do not believe that court has jurisdiction over private agreements. Plus, there is a political flavor to it too. Gambian politics within the jurisdiction of The Gambia. So Gambian Courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. If there is a challenge, it will not be a particular law being challenged, but whether the three years agreement is binding on the coalition members and like I said, it is binding. Before someone like Mr. Halake raises a constitutional issue about this matter, he needs to first tell us what constitutes a constitutional law case. If not, he is then building a house without foundation. You know what would happen to that house right! It will fall just like his argument fails until less he tells us what constitutes a constitutional law case then we will see if this issue meets that requirement. The ball is on his court!
1. Samba: “You need to first answer the question what constitutes a constitutional law case before you start making ill advised statements”.
Luntango: “Who is to occupy the highest office in the land, the Presidency, is completely and absolutely “a constitutional law case”.
2. Samba: “This is an agreement among private persons when it was made … So Gambian Courts have jurisdiction to hear the case”.
Luntango: Sure, as a “private law” case but absolutely with NO IMPACT as to who occupies the Office of the President. If OJ wants to go to the Gambian courts to claim damages for the distress and any financial loss caused to him because he can no longer campaign for the Presidency as a PPP candidate in three years as he thought, fine: OJ may get 10 million dalasis in damages for distress etc. BUT THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DO WITH BARROW’s OCCUPANCY of STATE HOUSE for FIVE YEARS – that is GUARANTEED to Barrow by the Constitution and only a Constitutional Court can deal with that (and the Court will decide that Barrow can occupy the Office of the Presidency for 5-years as stipulated by the Constitution).
SAMBA DOES STATE THAT A RULING OF THE COURTS on the 3-year agreement, CAN GET BARROW OUT OF OFFICE! ABSOLUTELY NOT SO!!
Samba says above: … ‘any “member” of the “Coalition” has “standing” to challenge the president on the three years agreement. I mean any member of the Coalition can go to court and enforce the agreement and should win. The other serious issues range from when a challenge is successful, when does campaigning starts; who is qualified to run; what will be the rules of participation? It will be a situation that Gambia has never experienced before.’
Now we will see if we have a “New Gambia” or the same “Old Gambia”
If there is a challenge.
These are the real kind of test that give real answers.
Out of curiousity do you think there will be a challenge to the 3 year agreement and who(from the sacked coalition members) do you think would make that first challenge?
Tilly, the arguments are as follows:
………………………………………………..
Mr Samba thinks as follows:-
1. Sure that there will be a challenge tp Barrow’s Presidency based on the 3-year coalition agreement;
2. Barrow will loose the court case and as a result
3. Barrow will be out of office after his 3-year term.
……………………………………………..
Mr. Halake thinks as follows:-
1. Unlikely to be a legal challenge based on the 3-year agreement;
2. Even if there was a challenge and Barrow loses, it will have no effect whatsoever on Barrow’s term of office as President;
3. Barrow will serve his constitutional mandate 5-year term (unless he decides to resign for reasons that have nothing to do with the private 3-year agreement).
……………………………………………..
What do Tilly Bo, Dr, Andy, Mwalimu, Bax, Babu, Baba, etc think?
Not you or me, but anyone who was a member of the coalition when the agreement was entered into. If I were to file a challenge, my case will be and should be thrown out unless I demonstrate that I have a “standing” to enforce the agreement and which I d not have. I hope you are reading the bad arguments Mr. Halake have been raising. I know where he is going with his argument, but he is clueless of what I am saying. His argument is that the three years agreement if enforced will violate the constitution because the constitution says five years per term for the presidency. Now, if the coalition members extended the term of five years more than what the constitution says, he will be correct. He fails to grasp that the constitution sets a ceiling per term but not a floor. The ceiling being five years per term which cannot be passed as the constitution is right now. But the floor, as in, less than five years, that the parties to the agreement agreed on, that does not violate the constitution one bit. And, I do not expect Mr. Halake to see that, because he has not demonstrated any reason for me to think otherwise.
Luntango: “Who is to occupy the highest office in the land, the Presidency, is completely and absolutely “a constitutional law case”. Are you saying that if a challenger goes to court, the question presented will be, to quote you “Who is to occupy the highest office in the land …”? And not whether the three years agreement is binding or not? When was the last time the question, “who is to occupy the highest office in the land was raised”? The last time that question came up was after the last elections results were announced. Talk about missing the issue by a long shot. Your issue spotting is terrible. And you still did not answer the question what constitutes a constitutional law case? Let me help: When a person commits a public wrong, the case is primarily criminal law: prosecutor (the state) v. defendant. When a person commits a private wrong, the case is primarily a tort: plaintiff v. defendant. When a person breached a legally binding agreement, the case is primarily contractual in nature: plaintiff v. defendant. Now what should happen for there to be a constitutional law case? Instead of dancing around the question, this is what you need to answer. As far I know, there are only two situations. What are those, Mr. Halake?
Mr. Samba, the issues in this particular 3-year agreement case is clear:-
………………………………………………..
Mr Samba thinks as follows:
1. Sure that there will be a challenge tp Barrow’s Presidency based on the 3-year coalition agreement;
2. Barrow will loose the court case and as a result
3. Barrow will be out of office after his 3-year term.
……………………………………………..
Mr. Halake thinks as follows:
1. Unlikely to be a legal challenge based on the 3-year agreement;
2. Even if there was a challenge and Barrow loses, it will have no effect whatsoever on Barrow’s term of office as President;
3. Barrow will serve his constitutional mandate 5-year term (unless he decides to resign for reasons that have nothing to do with the private 3-year agreement).
……………………………………………..
HALAKE RESTS YOUR HONOUR!
Mr. Samba says: Halake’s “argument is that the three years agreement if enforced will violate the constitution because the constitution says five years per term for the presidency”.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Halake’s argument is that there is absolutely no chance of the 3-year agreement being “ENFORCED” … as far as the Office of the President is concerned! No “ifs”, no buts! Zilch! Zero!
ANYTHING to do with the Office of the President is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter for the Supreme Court.
The A4 paper 3-year agreement can go to the magistrates court … and stay there!
Are you serious? The case may be initially filed at the magistrate level if it has jurisdiction and if it does not, it will be filed at the High Court. If a party loses at the High Court, he or she can appeal at the Appeals Courts and the person who loses there can file a petition at the Supreme Court. of course, the Supreme Court may exercise its jurisdiction and request that the case be brought before it without going through the normal procedure. Wrong issue, bad argument! And still no answer to what constitutions a constitutional case.
You said: “ANYTHING to do with the Office of the President is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter for the Supreme Court.” What would happen if the president is accused of rape or bribery or mudered someone in cool blood, would that be a constitutional matter too? If the president’s actions are of the official type, then it has constitutional implications, but unofficial actions do not. Less you forgot, when the president entered into the agreement, he was not president but a private citizen. The president cannot be shield away from agreements he entered before he became president just because he is now president. Well, unless if you believe he is above the law.
I meant what constitutes a constitutional case.
Has anyone seen this agreement.
Sister Dr. Sarr, you need not look far. It is enough if Barrow has acknowledged the agreement and which he has. That acknowledge will be come into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule called “statement of a party opponent.”
acknowledgment , I meant to say.
Understood, but as a practical matter. Does it make sense. If we assume Barrow decide to stay for 5 years, a big if. The case will crawl in our courts for the next 2 years before it sees the light of day. It most likely will not be adjudicated until after Barrow or Darboe is done with 1st term.
So let us ask ourselves.
Which of these men and women will sue and with what money and to what end. I think those coalition partners have been out maneuvered by a very shrewd political mind. Uncle Lawyer……..
I rest.
Sister Sarr, I am not sure if Mr. Darbo out maneuvered them. He was in jail when they entered into the agreement. Here is an issue that Mr. Halake is avoiding because he cannot answer it. Every member of the Coalition knew what the term is for the presidency, right, then they chose three years, on their own volition, instead of five years as stated in the constitution. They did not woke up and said we are going to agree on three years and not the five years as stated in the constitution? Which suggests that they discussed it. Why did they chose three and not five? That’s the elephant in the room. Let’s say no number was agreed to, then by default the five years term kicks in because it will be assumed that they knew of the five years terms as stated in the constitution. Did they knew about the five years term? They certainly did, but chose to agree on three. They should then be held to the terms of the agreement that they agreed to be bound by unless someone can explain otherwise. If Mr. Halake has attended law school, he either was sleeping during his contract classes or he skipped most of them. I think I can safely say the same thing about his understanding of constitutional law. The time to file the case is now and let the Supreme Court rule on the case. If Barrow loses, and he should based on the terms of the agreement then, IEC will have to make announcements about registration and all of those other stuff. Let’s say Barrow wins again, then there should be no question about a five year term. Even the U.S Ambassador at one time acknowledged that there exists an agreement. I am avoiding using certain legal language to make this understandable not to you but to others. Certain principles of law are at issue here. I am arguing from those principles and as usual, Mr. Halake is not arguing from any principle of law but those he has invented. When a case comes before a court and there is no precedent to follow, the court goes to settled legal principles not as mandatory authority but a persuasive authority. Or the court may look at cases from other jurisdictions that may have tackled a similar matter.
Will the court hear the case when there is no breach.
What will the plaintiffs be asking the court to do. To decide if there is a valid contract. Let’s assume there is one and the court agrees with the plaintiffs. Then what? They still have to wait and see what Barrow does after 3 years. That still brings up the question of remedy. Assume the court rules in the plaintiffs favor, they still will not ascend power by litigation. I find it impossible and impractical.
Am I missing something here.
I think Dida and Samba are talking cross purpose. Not on same page.
I understand Dida point to be the entire coalition agreement has an unconstitutional condition, therefore is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Samba is saying in law, it is a valid contract between several parties that is binding and can be litigated and enforced.
Am I totally lost. Help.
Well, Samba, if you are correct about something hitting Gambians like nothing before, we have certainly had a taste this evening.
Samba,
I understand the 3 years contract has nothing to do with the 5 years contract
Luntango,
I understanding you also.
But an agreement whether verbal/contractual/handshake is an agreement.
And if that can not be honoured, that shows the calibre of people we are dealing with.
Tilly Bo, I agree. A “gentleman’s agreement”, even a handshake, should be honoured. But this is politics.
Samba: “What would happen if the president is accused of rape or bribery or mudered someone in cool blood, would that be a constitutional matter too?”.
Halake: YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! Time for IMPEACHMENT at the National Assembly … and then the ex-President, now an ordinary citizen, can be tried as a common criminal.
PS: LEBRON @ LAKERS … GOODBYE Gay State Warriors!
Mr. Halake, yes you are right on impeachment in that scenario. Impeachment is like an indictment and it alone does not kick someone out of office. After impeachment then comes the trial in the legislative body, and in the case of United States, presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the judge. Impeachment is so because The Gambia Constitution says so. Five years term of the Presidency is so because The Gambia Constitution says so. Agreement for a number of years less than the stated five years, the constitution says nothing. However, if the coalition members were to agree to a number of years longer than the five years as stated in the constitutions, who would agree that the would be legal. Here is another point, the constitution sets the floor for how old a Gambian must be before he or she can run for the office of the presidency, but it originally never set the ceiling until Jammeh changed it and which was not long ago changed to allow Fatoumata Tambang to assume the office of the Vice-President and also as a consequence, Darbo has a shot if he chooses to run for the office. So, on the term of years for the office of the presidency the constitution sets the ceiling and on how old a person must be before he or she can run for office of the presidency it sets the floor. This means the five years term cannot be extended by private agreement. It also means the age requirement to run for the office of the presidency cannot be lowered by private agreement. If the coalition members were to agree that if they win the person to be president can be lower in age than the floor limit, that would be unconstitutional. Just like extending the five years term would be unconstitutional. It would be a non-issue if the coalition members agreed that if they win, whoever will be president must be at least fifty years old because then those who are younger than that age cannot go to court to argue because they new what the age requirement was and the agreed to the have it raised in their agreement. Just like they knew about the five years terms and they agreed to lower it. Get it!
Mr samba; there will be a legal battle in this case and supreme court ruling will be final, currently every one is saying your opinion, what if barrow decided to step down allowed another election to be held ? Well i’m just suggesting, these 3years, 5years thing likely supreme court will conduct a verdict on this matters.
Tafel, then there is no case. lawyers call that the case is then moot.
Sister, a declaratory judgement that the agreement is bounding. Plaintiff(s) will argue that they are enforcing the terms of their agreement. please read my penultimate postings. Thanks.
binding, I meant to say.
And if plaintiff(s) wins then the IEC will have some announcements to make. And no, if plaintiffs wins they cannot just assume the office. It means elections will be around the corner. Mr. Halake does not argue from any principle of law.
Stop the politicking and look at our dire needs with youthful zeal and determination to solve our problems. Only you the young educated ones can redeem our nation. Not the Darbo, or Barrow, or any of those VERY OLD cadre of INEPT, and TRIBALIST bunch of unpatriotic people who are still thriving on the patriachic methods of ruling our people will succeed. We’ll NEVER triumph with them in spite of applying all democratic tools to flush them out.
Be serious with your advocacies and make sure these people don’t stay long in power. They are a waste.
You see, I always get angry at your conformist politics with all the excellent quality of education. I wonder how our educated youth can allow such a disastrous administration to continue. If I were what I am today in the Jawara era, I would have been at the vanguard of the struggle to emancipate our country, her culture, politico-social and economic situations from neocolonialist reactionaries. However, my role now is to sensitize our over 68% youth population on their role as redeemers.
I have started packing from today. My family and I are leaving on Thursday 5th July till August 29th. So, I invite you all to the BANNA SALI LEYANG SUBO; YAPI TOBASKI, In Sha Allah.
Dr Isatou Sarr, there is no need for you to box me down. Just add some more meat on my diet!!
Bax, Luntango, Andy Pjalo, Tafel, Baba, Lamin, Mwalimu, Tilly Bo, Samba and all the nice folks here, I hope to join you any time I’m free at home. I may contribute before going but remember the dead and wounded youth of Kombo Faraba Banta!!!
There is a UK bank account I was sent. They are asking for assistance to help the families of those killed in Kombo Faraba Banta. If interested, I’ll slot the number t’morrow.
Babu, Bon Voyage … I am jealous.
“There is a UK bank account I was sent. They are asking for assistance to help the families of those killed in Kombo Faraba Banta”.
How do we know the bank account is genuine? Here in Notting Hill three “I am a victim of Grenfell Tower tragedy” fraudsters have been jailed (we humans are odious sometimes bro.!)
My-in-law…
I don’t know if there are any grounds for legal actions against Mr Barrow to honour the 3 Year Agreement, but between the two of you, I am inclined towards Samba’s line of arguments, for obvious reasons. I don’t think anyone would go to court and I hope no one does.
Now that President Barrow has hinted at serving his full 5 year term at Faraba, I think coalition partners will be within their rights to re-examine their relation with Coalition 2016 and take appropriate decisions. The rest of us should just focus on the jobs at hand and look forward to 2021/22.
“The rest of us should just focus on the jobs at hand and look forward to 2021/22” AGREE.
Babu Soli,
Safe journey,
Salute you.
But all this legal talk, without dismissing its significance, is masking the real issue, in my view. And that’s the issue of TRUST. Let’s remember that the 3 year agreement was reached through a well published and well funded process of meetings and negotiations. Many people, at home and abroad, contributed financially and materially towards the cause, believing that whatever agreement was reached will be honoured by ALL signatories and supported by ALL interested to see change. As far as I know, atleast FOUR coalition members have openly attested to the 3 Year Agreement, including the man at the centre, President Adama Barrow. The others are OJ, Hamat & Halifa.
Do we still need a signed agreement to hold them to account? Isn’t it true that the politician (Ousainou Darboe) asking for the signed agreement/document is trying to confuse people because he is a lawyer? If a politician cannot be trusted to honour a simple agreement, how can we possibility trust such a person with our national wealth? Is this how a people serious about development react to their dishonesty and fraud?
Receiving monies from people on a false pretense is FRAUD, isn’t it? These people solicited/received funds and campaigned across the country on a THREE YEAR pledge. If any of them wants to renege on that pledge and commitment, they should fall within the definition of fraudsters, because they would duped ALL Coalition 2016 donors.
And whoever elects and empowers a fraudster would deserve everything they get from him/her.
Bax, preferably an agreement that cannot be performed for more than one year has to be in writing. That is the general rule. You know where this is going right; yes there are exceptions. Most binding agreements including contracts can be either written or oral. A oral agreement is as binding as a written agreement or contract. The major difference being a written and signed one makes proving it easier. That’s it. I am avoiding getting into technicalities here. If a legally binding agreement is not written and signed, circumstantial evidence including the parties’ conduct, things they said and done regarding the agreement can be allowed into evidence to prove the existence of the agreement. Barrow’s admittance that there was in fact an agreement will come. It come in through an exception to the hearsay rule. I do not believe the issue really is whether an agreement exists but whether it is binding on the parties and my position is that it is binding. Your in-law takes the position that it is not binding because the constitution won’t allow it and that is false. this has nothing to do with the constitution as such. I base my arguments on legal principles and he basis his on his own principle. He thinks it a constitutional law case and I said no it is not. You see are certain things must be present to make a case a constitutional one. I have asked him over and over to say what does things are and he could not name a single one. What is a man to do :)? He completely ignores the fact that when the agreement was entered into the members of the coalition were private citizens. And Barrow cannot be shield from an agreement he entered when he was a privately citizen simply because he is now president. That is saying he is above the law. May he is after all. No one is arguing about the five years term for the office of the precedency. If you read my earlier postings, you see that I have explained this as best as I could in this forum. You seem worried about trust, but you should not be because if this case is pursued it will expose the administration more than enough as not being trustworthy. I have raised questions in my earlier posting today that UDP including Darbo cannot answer. I call your attention to the elephant in the room. Why did they agree to the three years transition period knowing that the constitution specifically states that the term for the office of the presidency is five years? Your man, Halifah may choose not to file a petition to pursue the matter and that would be his prerogative. But other members of the coalition can. I do not believe the agreement says any where that in order to enforce the terms of the agreement all members or majority of the members must agree to do so. I am not a politician. I do not belong to any party even here in the U.S. I am assuming that your man does not have a legal team in place, so my unsolicited advice is that, he needs to have a legal team in place not because of this issue but because having one is a necessity for any political party that wants to govern. Your man may be very familiar with The Gambia constitution but when a case goes before a court, the rules are different. Mr. Ousainou Darbo uses that to his advantage. Let me make a disclaimer, I am not endorsing any political party with my advice. Just a silly observation of mine. Have great evening everyone.
Very enlightening @Samba. I think my-in-law knows he is clutching at draws. Perhaps, OJ might consider legal action because, as far as I know, PDOIS has stated that it is not an issue with them. President Barrow can decide to serve his full term, if that’s what he wants to do.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I am looking at this whole Coalition issue from the trust angle because I think if we aren’t scared of, or at least worried about the UDP, then we haven’t learnt much from the past. No Gambian or friends of The Gambia who participated or followed the coalition building process, was in any doubt about what was being proposed and eventually agreed upon: A 3 YEAR, NON PARTISAN TRANSITIONAL PERIOD (and that includes every aspect of governance/administration) to fix our broken and abused system. I think anyone who wants to dispute this will have a hard time doing so.
What is worrying and should be a concern to ALL, is the behaviour of the UDP as it continues to renege on its word, given to coalition partners and the whole nation, and gradually turn the Coalition Government into a UDP Government, thus beginning to consolidate its grip on power.
And if we revisit the past and examine how we got here, it may become clear why we should be worried. We may even be able to anticipate what might occur in future.
The UDP, having frustrated every attempt to forge a united opposition by their insistence on a UDP led coalition (which was never going to be accepted by all), and realising that they CANNOT dislodge Jammeh by their own efforts, agreed to a NON partisan coalition and presented their candidate at the convention, perhaps having already secretely agreed with Mai Fatty, to manipulate the process in their favour.
Having succeeded in getting their candidate (Adama Barrow) elected as the flag bearer, they went along and campaigned on a THREE YEAR Transitional Manifesto, without anyone raising the supposedly, “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” 3 year agreement.
With elections gone and the (UDP presented) all party coalition candidate sworn in as President, the first signs of deceit surfaced, when they refused to participate in the NA Elections under the coalition ticket, arguing that the coalition agreement only covered the Presidential Elections and not the NA Elections. They got their way and parties contested the NA Elections under their own tickets.
Once the NA Elections was done, the UDP turned against the very argument they used to justify departure from independent coalition candidates at the NA Elections, when they question the legality of the 3 year agreement. They have already argued that the coalition agreement, which includes the 3 year term, only covered the Presidential Election. All indications are that they will get their way on that one too.
What have we seen now? A cabinet resuffle that brings the UDP Leader closer to the centre of power: THE PRESIDENCY (as VP). One would have thought that, whatever the shortcomings of the former VP (FTJ), caution and patience would have been exercised for the duration of the “transition” period.
It is worthy to note, that a politician who is not hungry for power, and has so much influence over the president, would have advised against the move and/or declined the position, given the circumstances that brought about the change.
What we are witnessing, unfortunately, is the demonstration of the most blatant hunger for power, perhaps, never seen in our political history. The UDP maneuverings should now be understood from the perspective of the song, “YE,ye,ye, Ousainou Darboe ye banko taa”, which he (Darboe) sang after the NA Elections.
And this is what should be anticipated: Ousainou Darboe will take over (how & when is not clear) from Barrow, as the next president (Bensouda will not have even a sniff at it) and even if we succeed in putting a TWO term limit in the new constitution, no one should be surprised when it is amended (and all arguments in a massive campaign will be put forth for that) to remove any term limits. We are looking at a life president in the making.
Thanks pa babu Safe Journey with your family and Enjoy the vacation and the tabaski as well i just Left the some couple of weeks ago other Wise i would love to celebrate the tabaski with my mom together.please Keep educating us and Stay healthy.
Pa babu send The Account details in the Forum please
@Bax: “Ousainou Darboe will take over (how & when is not clear) from Barrow”
@Dida: My in-law, stop imagining non-existent conspiracies (at least Samba’s disguises his imaginings in high-flown legalese – LoL!).
Bax: “I think my-in-law knows he is clutching at straws”.
@Dida: I think you know deep in your heart I am not – afterall you say Halifa has agreed with me (LoL!).
*******************************
@Samba: “Bax, your in-law takes the position that it is not binding because the constitution won’t allow it”.
@Dida: Bax’s in-law took no such ‘position’!!!! Dida’s ‘position’ as stated a million times above, is that the so called 3-year agreement has nothing to do with the constitution … nor the Presidency. It is, as the Learned Samba admitted above, only a ‘private agreement’. If Barrow honours it, he will serve 3 years as per the agreement because he is always free to resign at anytime during his constitutional mandated 5-year term. If he does not honour it, he will serve out his 5-year term. As I said above, the 3-year agreement cannot be used to dislodge the 5-year term of the Presidency. As the Learned Samba himself puts it: “Five years term of the Presidency is so because The Gambia Constitution says so. Agreement for a number of years less than the stated five years, the constitution says nothing”. Yes Samba, I gotta repeat that:-
“AGREEMENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS LESS THAN FIVE” is constitutionally “NOTHING”.
*******************************
@Bax: “The UDP, having frustrated every attempt to forge a united opposition by their insistence on a UDP led coalition”.
@Dida: Bax, it is equally legitimate to phrase this sentence as follows:- “The PDOIS, having frustrated every attempt to forge a united opposition by their insistence on a NON-UDP led coalition”.
******************************
The QUESTION then Bax is this: WHY DID HALIFA SALLAH, THE CONSUMATE CONSTITUTIONALIST, AGREE TO “A 3-YR PRESIDENCY AGREEMENT” THAT HE KNEW WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY UNENFORCEABLE?” The answer is simple:-
Solo Sandeng having sacrificed his life to set the HISTORY TRAIN on its way in April 2016 (and Darboe and his Executive having got on the train at once at the risk to their own lives) Halifa, the astitute politician that he is, decided that he DID NOT WANT TO BE LEFT BEHIND BY HISTORY.
*********************************
And so ALL GAMBIANS too jumped on the train of history … and the rest is history.
*********************************
In my humble view, 90% of the credit belongs to THE ORDINARY PEOPLE – and those HEROIC NAMELESS SOLDIERS who burned the voters cards at the APRC Bureau.
*********************************
To conclude:
* Solo lit the match through an act that the Black Panthers in the 1960s USA termed REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE. That was Steve BIKO in South Africa too;
* Darboe and his Executive put oil on the REVOLUTIONARY flame (read Darboe’s Letter from Mile 2 Prison while his comrades were dying around him);
* Fatoumatta Tambajang, Halifa Sallah and others HEROICALLY kept the REVOLUTIONARY fire going – until DAYLIGHT saw the Monster on the run to Equatorial Guinea.
***********************************
Wrong again, Mr. Halake, as usual. How in the world can you ask why did Halifah agreed to three years transition period? It is the person who wants to extend it who should be asked that question. You ignored almost every question I raised you and now you are using what I wrote against your position on Bax. You are incredible. You use no legal principle or precedent to back up what you said. Because Barrow agreed to the agreement, the choice is not his to decide whether he wants to honor it or not. It is like you saying to Bax, I am agreeing with you on this but it will be my choice to honor it or not. Is that an agreement? Not to mention, you later publicly admitted that yes you have an agreement with Bax. If that was Barrow’s position during the time of their negotiations, I can tell you that there would have no coalition and you know it.Are you really listening to yourself. Not only are you not using any legal principle to back up your position but you are not using any logic either. Wow! You are blowing me away! Have a blessed day everyone.
@Samba: “Wow! You are blowing me away!”.
Dida: My pleasure; I have sent you my bill – via JollofNews. Please settle within 14 days.
●”Non existent conspiracy ?” Time will tell. Just pray for good health and long life.
● Here’s a possible scenario: Barrow steps down after 3 years and VP Darboe completes the residue of his (Barrow’s) term, and goes into the next presidential election as the incumbent.
● You know that this rephrased statement is uncompleteable because it would make no sense/ reflect the reality of the situation at the time. If you disagree, go ahead and complete it.
● I have no problem with hero worship and/or equating one’s heroes with other historical figures, whether that’s Mandela, Biko or Che. I do have a problem with MISREPRESENTATION and I think you are guilty of that here, but due to the pain of the past, I would reserve my opinion on your claims.
● Halifa, my-in-law, has always subscribed to a non-partisan coalition, headed by an independent flag bearer, selected through a process that involves the stake holders, whether that’s a selection committee, a primary or a convention.
To say therefore, that he jumped on the bandwagon because he didn’t want to be left behind is a misrepresentation of the facts and indulging in wishful thinking.
● Those who jumped on the bandwagon, having seen the mood on the ground at the time, and are now clearly showing that they had no intention of honouring their commitments under the coalition agreement, are the ones that didn’t want to be left behind. That’s just plain for all to see.
● Halifa has said many times that the idea behind the 3 Year agreement was to set an example to end self perpetuating rule. To show that if the President, who has every right to enjoy his full term, should step down after 3 years, who in their right mind would want to self perpetuate again?
● Btw, it wasn’t Halifa who agreed to it. That’s just one of the many futile attempts to make the Coalition 2016 Agreement Halifa’s.
It was the coalition that AGREED to it, including Adama Barrow, on behalf of the UDP. No meanderings can change that historical FACT.
My in-law, I am happy that there is an able voice here to put Halifa’s and PDOIS case. Makes me feel much better!
Sorry everyone my spell check is killing me and I do not know how to turn it off.
Babu, wish you well on the trip and stay on message. By that I mean that you pursue your dreams for The Gambia. Stay in touch.
And Luntango, I have no doubt that you’re both a smart and witty fellow with tons of street savvy under your sleeves.
I believe that it was Dr Isatou or Samba that aptly said that when you’ve been following someone’s writings or sayings over time, you pretty much have a good idea as to their mindset, where they’re headed and, if one is sharp enough, where you expect them to land. So there’s no gain saying that you, Luntango, have known all along that Ousainou Darboe was gonna assume the mantle of leadership at some point in his quest to consolidate gains made by the UDP. Your broad knowledge of African politics offers you a unique window into all the topsy-turvy and rumors abound in our Gambia and you therefore should hold no illusions about the Barrow-Darboe relationship.
So when you say that Bax and others are “imagining non existent conspiracies” I go scratching my head, not for answers but for the object of the statement as I truly believe that you and I both understand the lay of the land so well that we shouldn’t be in the business of throwing people for a loop!
On another note, I’ll admit that I’m not a legal scholar so I don’t typically comment on legal matters that I’d rather leave to my able pal Lamin Darbo and other legal scholars. However, I’d like to seek input on the subject of legal precedence in verbal and consensual agreements. I’m not at ease with the UDP walking away from an agreement, a gentleman’s agreement at that, that propelled the party to where it is today. A case of the Arab and the Camel? Legal scholars may argue that the coalition partners should have been wary enough to not enter into a non binding agreement but we aren’t in a court of law here but looking to uphold an honor system.
The UDP may be saying hard luck to the coalition partners but the party may very well come back to pay a hefty price for the lack of honor.
A game of smarts going forward?
“I’d like to seek input on the subject of legal precedence in verbal and consensual agreements”, Andy.
Andy, this is probably more appropriate for our Learned Friend Mr. Samba, but here we go:
1. verbal and written agreements are both valid – as able Mr. Samba has pointed out earlier (you see Mr. Samba, I do read everything although I choose what to respond to!).
2. As Mr. Samba said a verbal agreement is more challenging to prove but once both parties have confirmed the existence of the agreement, the court will be happy to accept that.
3. “Consequences” will depend on jurisdiction but I will refer to UK. In Scotland a mere verbal or written promise is enough. If I said, “Andy, I will give you my car” and you can prove I said that, I must give you the car, no “ifs”, no “buts” … unless the psychiatrist or the alcohol merchant can testify that I was totally out of my mind when I made the promise. This is different in England …
3. In England, every contract and every promise must have a “consideration” … i.e. if I promise to give Andy my car, what to I get in return. If Andy offers me his bicycle in return for my car, his bicycle is the consideration. Which brings as to the Coalition’s 3-year agreement …
4. What is the consideration in the Coalition’s 3-year agreement? The consideration was that the Coalition partners will work together as a team in the post-Jammeh government to lay the “level ground” for an election in 3-years time …
5. Halifa Sallah of PDOIS, a key signatory to the Agreement, BROKE the Agreement by refusing to perform a key element of the Agreement: Halifa jumped ship and refused to be part of the post-Jammeh government team as envisaged in the Agreement!!!!!!!!
6. Once one party to the contract breaks a key term of the contract, the contract will be considered dead … as Mr. Samba will, nay must, agree!!!
YOUR HONOUR, BARROW DID NOT BREAK THE AGREEMENT; HALIFA DID by refusing to be part of the post-Jammeh team!
We have not seen the agreement. We don’t even know there is one, except so and so said so. Samba assumed wrongly that just because Barrow said publicly there is one makes it so, and therefore it will be admissible by an exception to the hearsay rule. For that to happen the court will have to believe Barrow and others that said such agreement was made. In other words there has to be some tangible evidence to support the statement. Is it verbal or written. Who knows. No one said. If it is verbal what are the conditions and whose recollection will be admissible. If it is written who are the signatories. Not as simple as it appears.
One thing is crystal clear. There is a disagreement now. First salvo was fired by Halifa refusing to stay in the coalition and going it alone in the NA. That obviously triggered a reaction from other coalition members and specifically Darboe. I think most observers believe this was predictable and expected by Darboe. Darboe understood where this was headed even while in prison and was 10 steps ahead of the rest.
The problem is that non of the coalition members expected victory, they were looking to gain public recognition by association. Fast forward.
It is unlikely there will be litigation concerning the coalition agreement as I said, it’s not a matter of law. It is just not practical. I assume someone who understands how the process works will sit and make a risk benefit analysis of litigating the coalition agreement. The final result is same. Even if you prevail in court, you loose because there can be no enforcement, no remedy. Time is the enemy. Something Darboe is very aware of.
So guys calm yourselves. No real legal fight in the horizon. We are in the middle of the real power play. Not in a court room but in Banjul. This only end one way.
Either Barrow remains in power for 5years of Darboe becomes president in 2 years. Samba the result is same Darboe outsmart them and UDP wins. Bax, Halifa is a good man but not a politician and never will be.
“Bax, Halifa is a good man but not a politician and never will be.”
Your opinion sis, and you’re entitled to it. He is certainly not the type of politician many Gambian voters gravitate towards. The reason why we are where we are today.
Btw, Barrow is not the only one who acknowledged the agreement. OJ, FTJ and Halifa ALL did too. I don’t know why anyone would doubt their testimonies, if it comes to that.
Quote: “4. What is the consideration in the Coalition’s 3-year agreement? ….that the Coalition partners will work together as a team in the post-Jammeh government… in 3-years time …
5. Halifa Sallah of PDOIS,….BROKE the Agreement: Halifa….refused to be part of the post-Jammeh government team as envisaged in the Agreement!!!!!!!!
6. Once one party to the contract breaks a key term of the contract, the contract will be considered dead … ”
Observation:
1. Clutching at straws again, my-in-law. Government, as traditionally understood, comprises the THREE inter-related, but independent Organs of the State: The Executive, Judiciary & Legislature. Halifa is a member of the LEGISLATURE. He is part and parcel of the team.
2. But even if we restrict the definition of “Government” to just the Executive, there is NOTHING to support your claim that Halifa broke an agreement to work in government.
The composition of Cabinet, as contained in the Agreement, is as follows:
“1. The Transitional Cabinet shall comprise not more than 19 Ministries.
2. Cabinet position(s) will be allocated in consultation with each signatory stakeholder in the CEC (Coalition Executive Committee).
3. All Presidential appointments and removals shall be done in consultation with CEC.
4. In the event of the removal of a Minister, the President will consult the signatory stakeholder affected for proposal before appointment of a replacement.”
There is nothing compelling partners to work in the executive.
Luntango:
“To conclude:
* Solo lit the match through an act that the Black Panthers in the 1960s USA termed REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE. That was Steve BIKO in South Africa too;
* Darboe and his Executive put oil on the REVOLUTIONARY flame (read Darboe’s Letter from Mile 2 Prison while his comrades were dying around him);
* Fatoumatta Tambajang, Halifa Sallah and others HEROICALLY kept the REVOLUTIONARY fire going – until DAYLIGHT saw the Monster on the run to Equatorial Guinea”.
And then Luntango……a post narrative plausible analysis?
Keep going! Afadaali?
Andy, “a post narrative analysis” would be too premature as it is all still happening as we speak! But of course I can’t do every thing however much Mr. Samba is desperate for my contribution. The task must be shared and I beg my in-law Bax and Pjalo to please (Afadaali) share the burden … and send the bill to Mr. Samba!
Mr. Halake, you are getting closer to using some type of a legal principle. However, your analysis of what a “Consideration” is a little off, but overall not bad. A “Consideration” is what contracts lawyers like yourself call “A Legal Detriment.” A consideration does not have to be a physical thing like a car or money or a piece of land and the like. It MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO and you give that up in exchange for something else. Of course, the consideration cannot be something illegal. (With the capital letters, i am not yelling but simply emphasizing the definition to stand out.) Correction, Mr. Halake: the consideration in the Coalition agreement is the LEGAL RIGHT NOT TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY IN ONE’S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN EXCHANGE FOR JOINING THE COALITION WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT IF THEY WIN, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE IN OFFICE FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. In other words, the individual coalition members gave up their rights to individually run for the office in exchange to shorten the five years terms as stated in the Constitution. The three years was the BARGAINED FOR EXCHANGE (that’s another way lawyers like Mr. Halake refer to consideration) that brought them together. It’s like Mwalimu saying, if i am to join the coalition then we will all agree that if we win, we will have a transition government for three years or else i am not joining. And they all agreed. Now such an agreement does not violate the constitution at all. What would have violated the five years term for the presidency would have been if they have agreed to extend the five years term beyond what the constitution says. I made a similar point yesterday, but i was waiting for Mr. Halake to bring up some type of a legal principle into his argument and he now does even though what he says is the consideration is not exactly the consideration in this matter. Overall a good job Mr. Halake. Yesterday, i also pointed out that if the coalition members had agreed to raised the minimum age among themselves to run for the office of the presidency, that the person to occupy the office must be 50 years old then any member of the coalition who is younger than 50 years, will not have a case to go to court and argue that the agreement is not binding because the constitution set a lower age limit to run for the presidency. Therefore, to say that the agreement the coalition members agreed to violates the constitution is incorrect. Mr. Halake, you still have not tell me what constitutes a constitutional case. If you answer that question correctly, you will see that this is not a constitutional case at all. May be you already see that and hence you are avoiding answering the question. Sooner or later you will and your answer if correct will undercut your argument. I expect you to defeat your own position which why i am unwilling to volunteer anything to you. For example, i could easily have brought up the doctrine of “consideration” but i kept waiting for you to bring it up. I believe if i am patient, you will eventually defeat your own position. Now where is Mwalimu hiding? Lol! Mwalimu, are you being silent because you agree with me or are you waiting for the opportune time to prove me wrong? Lol! Mr. Halake, you and Mwalimu should be paying me for this. Come one pay up! Free of charge for my dear sister Dr. Sarr, but i will take chee rea ak pepe soup kobo though! Have a blessed day everyone.
@ Samba: “A consideration does not have to be a physical thing like a car or money or a piece of land and the like. It MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO and you give that up in exchange for something else”.
@Dida: Stop splitting hairs Mr. Samba! Surely one’s car and one’s piece of land are also things that one ‘has a legal right to’? You know what, it is 4th of July and I am going to declare my independence from this endless debate. Jerre Jeff, Kwaheri, Shalom, Asalam Malaikum!
Mr. Halake, “it does not have to be a physical thing …” is certainly not denying that physical things cannot be consideration. The inference you are supposed to draw is that consideration is not limited to physical things only. That is what the statement means. How could you interpret it any other way, sir? I gave you credit for what you wrote, but as you know it was not on point. So I made that statement to show that a consideration can be something other than a tangible thing. If you disagree with that, please say so. Either what I said is true or not. If there is one thing you need to take from me, it is that I do not have an agenda on this forum. I write as I understand things. If someone writes something that is incorrect or not clear I say so. The day I feel like I cannot write on this forum to edify, you will know about it because I will not comment on the forum anymore. My reasons for writing on the forum are different from yours. And you know, you do not have to respond to what I write and that will be perfectly ok with me. There is a lot you do not know about me and I prefer it that way too. If you have not noticed, I do not claim this or that. I write as I see things. And yes, trust me on this one; you need a break, believe me!
Sister Sarr, evidence does not necessarily have to be tangible or concrete.(Lawyers call such evidence “real” to differentiate it from circumstantial evidence.) Real evidence is no more evidence than circumstantial evidence. Your emphasizes on real evidence is misplaced. If that was to be the standard, then 95% of cases will not be solved, i mean both criminal and civil cases. An agreement is not what is written but what legalese call “meeting of the minds.” A hand sake is enough. It can also be be formed by the conduct of the parties. And so is a contract. It may be a concept that you are unwilling to accept but it is what it is. Did you asked yourself why Barrow admitted that there was an agreement if there was none? People normally do not just say an agreement exists which could bind them if none exists. Why would you say that an agreement exists between you and i, knowing that if one exists it will bind you? People do not willingly admit things that they know would make them lose money, power, or send them to jail. What i mean is that, that is not the norm, hence the hearsay exception, “statement of a party opponent.” And this issue is not and have not been whether an agreement was entered into. No one to my knowledge disputes that. The issue is whether the agreement is enforceable and that is what the court will have to decide if one or more of the coalition members go to court to try to enforce the terms of the agreement.
Guy please check out this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRP0zUJhYUw. if you can’t please go to Youtube and type “Lawyer Darboe Just Did A Political Coup D’etate.”
Samba: JULY 4, 2018 @ 4:54 AM
“I do not have an agenda on this forum”
3 MINUTES LATER:-
Samba: JULY 4, 2018 @ 4:57 AM
“Guy please check out this Youtube … Lawyer Darboe Just Did A Political Coup D’etate.”
Luntango: Sure Mr. Samba, you do NOT have “an agenda”! Have a nice 4th of July.
Lol, Can you translate please anybody?
Andy, before you start enjoying your holiday I must tell you that I had much laughter at this your sentence:-
“I go scratching my head … as I truly believe that you and I both understand the lay of the land so well that we shouldn’t be in the business of throwing people for a loop!”.
Anything for “a loop” Brav, just ask Lebron James! Happy 4th of July to you and family.
To bring the readership’s attention to a YouTube audio that concerns Gambians is not an agenda, Mr. Halake. I hope you are not implying that if the audio was about someone else, i won’t call the readership’s attention to it. You have a big time difficulty drawing valid inferences. No wonder you are wrong as often as you do. You need a vacation sir. Please take some time off. It will do you good.
Luntango, is there any truth to the rumor that the UDP may be looking to set up a party newspaper akin to the observer under the APRC?
How would you know, you may ask. Why am I thinking the word, Chicanery? Smile.
Thanks for the July 4th wishes.