(JollofNews)- Gambian people have voted for President Barrow to serve five years term mandate as stipulated in the constitution during December 1st, 2016 Presidential election.
This is evidence by the constitutional provision, section 63(1) which states that ” the term of office of an elected president shall, subject to subsection (3) and (6), be for a term of five years , and the person elected president shall before assuming office take the prescribed oaths”.
This constitutional provision is totally in contravention with the three years term the coalition opposition Leaderships have agreed upon. Now the question that is in the mind of every Gambian is that ” should the new National Assembly members change the constitution to satisfy the agreement of the coalition or maintain current five years term?”.
My answer to this question is simply NO. Politically, it will be impossible for UDP National Assembly members to support and vote for such constitutional change for President Barrow to serve three years instead of constitutional requirement of five years term.
Legally, even if the case is taken to Supreme Court, the court will also not support or justify three years term agreement because it violates the constitution of The Gambia. Our political leaderships should have known that the constitution clearly states that the President shall serve five years term and nothing less or more. Any changes to this constitutional provision is a violation of our constitution and it is betrayal of trust and confidence Gambian people have bestowed on the President to serve five years term. Such a change also violates the basic duty and responsibility of the President which is to uphold and defend the constitution.
Today , I have read a report on freedom newspaper about the press conference conveyed by Honorable Halifa Sallah, a National Assembly member for Serekunda Central and who was also among the leaders who made an agreement on the coalition formation and its election principles. In the report, Hon Sallah complained that ” We ( coalition leaders) agreed in the beginning to elect a president that will not overstay , and after serving three years such person will not contest the next election. This is what Barrow agreed and was elected at the 1st December , 2016 presidential elections “.
The question I have for Mr Sallah, ” why did the coalition leaders made an agreement on three years term which violates constitution of The Gambia, knowing fully well the Gambian constitution clearly states that the President shall serves five years term?
Mr Sallah who always claimed to be an expert on Gambian constitution through his words and actions simply failed to remind himself at the time that three years agreement was totally in violation of our constitution. Why did he complained about the three years constitutional violation he has advocated and supported during the coalition formation?
Mr Sallah did not only complained about agreement they have made on three years term for President Barrow to serve but he also went further to complain that ” we all agreed that President Barrow be elected as an independent candidate to lead the coalition and to elect independent candidates as National Assembly members under the coalition government. But some parties insisted that they wanted to sustain their parties that was why we contested under our individual parties instead of contesting as an independent candidates under the coalition as we agreed upon earlier”.
This lead to another question I have for Mr Sallah ” where was the agreement that the coalition should have contested National Assembly elections as independent candidates?”. I think Mr Sallah is totally in denial of what they have agreed upon. There was never an agreement which was published publicly that indicated the coalition agreed to have an independent candidates for National Assembly elections during its formation. If there was such a document then I would encourage Mr Sallah to produce the evidence rather than complained about what has never been agreed upon.
As we speak, Gambian people are looking forward to see our President serves full five years term based on what is stipulated in the constitution. Whatever agreement the coalition leaders made was between themselves and that agreement has no bearing on what Gambian constitution states and Gambian people voted for. The constitution of The Gambia is the supreme law of the land and is the guiding principle that our elected leaders must follow.
After 22 years of military dictatorship, it is time to follow the constitution and make necessary constitutional reforms which benefits every Gambian. Five years term which Gambian people have voted for President Barrow to serve, is enough time for the new government to embark on constitutional, political and economic reforms agenda.
Considering deteriorating political, economic and constitutional crisis President Barrow inherited from Dictator Yaya Jammeh, a five years constitutional term will help the new government to lay down the foundations for democratic values, institutional reforms and economic development projects for the future generations. Any changes to the constitutional provision of five years term shall be subjected to referendum which is too costly for our poor citizens to finance.
In this fragile political environment, another presidential election in the next three years would generate more divisions among the citizens. It is time to heal together as a nation and Gambian people do not need any political bickering or infighting. Whatever bad agreement the political leaders made during the coalition formation is their fault. They should not drag the country into their ill-conceived constitutional violations as Mr Sallah is currently complaining about .
President Barrow must serve five years term. I hope the National Assembly members will work to serve the common interest of Gambian people as our constitution states.
Maxs Jarju
Interesting; So are we saying the coalition mandate has therefore expired and was illegal? I think Max should reconsider what he would wish for ?
Hi Max, are you suggesting that the president cannot legally resign? The five year term limit is the maximum but the president can legally leave office whenever he or she chooses without breaking any law. Moreover this is not a constitutional issue, but a contract issue.
Thank you Muhammad, you hit the nail right on the head there. The President can voluntarily leave office and he/she won’t break any laws. Under current laws, the VP or Speaker will take over and complete former President’s term. That can be amended to make it mandatory for “acting” President to hold elections, say 3 months after assuming office, rather than stay and complete remaining term of former President, if it exceeds 3 months. No referendum required. Maxs needs to do his homework before making claims.
If I was President Barrow, I will do exactly that to uphold my honour and trustworthiness, because I signed a contract with colleagues who trusted me. If I need to stay beyond the contract period, then that will be with their blessing and consent of my colleagues. No back stabbing of colleagues, regardless of who’s got my ears.
Nothing “interesting” here Mzungu; just a PERFECTLY CLEAR piece from Max about the BORING “political bickering and infighting” – mainly fanned by Halifa Sallah and his American Cheer-Leader Pa Nderry Mbai.
Halifa Sallah is, as Max says, “TOTALLY IN DENIAL”.
And, I would add, Halifa is being utterly HYPOCRITICAL for a man who has made “Constitution, Constitution, Constitution” his MANTRA over the last 30 years.
Why, Max asks:-
a) Should Halifa sign a 3-year Presidential term agreement that he, Halifa himself, now ACKNOWLEDGES as being UNconstitutional? Halifa never misses an opportunity to chide anyone for even the most minor infringement of the Constitution. Halifa should now take his own medicine – and chide himself.
b) Why should the Barrow government embark on a fundamental constitutional change – and the required referendum – just to shorten this President’s term to three years?
c) Why should Darboe’s UDP waste valuable time on a “3-year Presidential term” amendment that needs an expensive and time-consuming nationwide referendum when there is so much work to be done?
THE UDP, PRESIDENT BARROW AND MOST GAMBIANS HAVE MOVED ONTO MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS OF CONCERN TO THE MAJORITY OF GAMBIANS – MATTERS SUCH AS HOW TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
As in the children’s story of “The Boy Who Always Cried ‘WOLF'”, Halifa Sallah and Pa Nderry Mbai run the risk of being ignored – when they do actually sometimes have important messages. But I suppose they are BOTH PROFESSIONAL “WOLF-CRIERS” and will continue to do so!
The plain answers to items B and C is in my opinion>>>
because it is The Law.
Verbal Agreements should alway be accompanied by evidence; Perhaps one could claim the public spat between OJ and Darboe about the fielding of independent candidates during the 3 year coalition contract/agreement, could be called upon to support the existence of a 3 year verbal agreement. Further evidence could possibly be taken from Mr Barrow’s answer in response to Journalists questions in Paris. Where when asked about serving 3 years Mr Barrow appeared to hesitate, and said It may be 5 years, as he has a job to do. {Don’t quote me as I was not there. This is information taken from the pages of The Point Newspaper as it was in the public domain} Also It was a clear manifesto pledge to the electorate from the combined coalition. Or was it not ?
What Made Hon Halifa withdraw from the coalition/ Answer; I do not know.
Some are saying there needs to be a referendum to place an added provision to the Constitution to 3 years.|>>> On this; I do not know.
Some are saying this 3 year provision and required referendum, would be a waste of public money and delay reforms/ Maybe/ Maybe not.
I am not qualified to answer. Except some are saying it this may be the Lawful/correct course.
To allay any public fears of the english word in all this of “Jiggery Pokery”
and for transparency’s sake, common sense would dictate ” A legal opinion should be sought ”
Hon. Halifa appears to stop short of this. In my opinion he is merely presuming that The President by oath will stay for 5 years. I think this can be viewed as being helpful, informative and diplomatic. This would also appear to be backed up by the contents of The Gambian Constitution. That is my opinion based upon what is reported in
” Opinion” online.
Inconvenience to my knowledge is not a legal standpoint but could be part of a damages settlement in a civil case. I don’t think this is up for consideration in complex matters of State such as this;
I am not a judge, lawyer or barrister;
But what Hon. Halifa and Freedom Newspaper are saying is “Interesting” That is my opinion/
If I were involved and I am not, I would take a Barrister’s opinion before proceeding with a defence or a legal challenge.
In the indomitable words of the noble Muzungu Quintin Hogg { The latter Lord Hailsham}
” A person who acts for himself at court, has a fool for a lawyer ”
Sounds wise to me/
PS/ As for Hon Halifa and Pa Mbai being “professional” WOLF CRIERS ?
I would suggest ” whistle blowers” may be more appropriate/ The Government and The Police, the media and public watch dogs rely heavily on these public spirited citizens, in this modern world of public accountability and transparency and freedom of information.
How many times of late have Government’s or Banks, Police or indeed the media themselves been caught out by whistleblowers/ My answer>> Too many for comfort.
Perhaps in the early days of Mr Jammeh had the Daily Observer been more independent and critical of Government, Many lives could have been saved?
>>and upon that I will eat my toast and jam.
Happy Easter to one and all. A time when we remember the crucifixion of an innocent man.
Opinion.
Thank you Mike Scales, the Constitution has been Abused, Violated and Turned Upside Down by Many in the GAMBIA for their Own Personal, Political and Financial Gain. This included Jammeh and the APRC in the Past. Now, UDP Regime Led Government and Leadership of Ousainou Darbo, Mai Fatty and Adama Barrow are Fast becoming Better Adapted to Unconstitutional and Despotic Acts in a Record Time. Hon. Halifa Sallah is Not One of the Abusers and Violators. Gambians, that is, the 55%+ Know who the Abusers and Violators are. His Detractors May Attack him on Some other Matters but Not the Issue at Hand. He is Consistent and Persistent on Constitutional Matters for the Interest of All Gambians.
Democracy Is Not A Statistical Number, And Leadership Is Not Silence In The Mist Of An Ongoing Crisis. “Fassaya” Is Not A Way To Govern.
Buba Sanyang, Halake, Max and Others of the Political Divide, may be Politicians would get down to work, when in this case, Militant UDP Regime Led Government Supporters like you, Max and Halake Cease and Desist from Enabling a Propensity toward a Despotic, Unconstitutional, Undemocratic Party Politics and Mob Rule that is again been Perpetrated on the Opposition, in this case the Jola and anyone who is Perceived to be an “Enemy” of UDP. These are the same Undemocratic, Despotic Actions, and Policies the Jammeh regime under APRC were accused of. They were Wrong then and are Wrong Now especially, because the UDP Regime Led Government and Leadership are elected by the Plurality of the electorate. Mind you, I said Plurality not Majority because the Majority of Gambians (55%+) did Not Vote. They, as Free born Citizens of the GAMBIA Voted, Not to Vote. They DECIDED, TO DECIDE, Not To DECIDE who their NAM would be. This Action of Inaction is a Collective and Explicit Protest Vote. One that any Sensible, well meaning and Long Term Oriented Government and Leadership would be Better off Paying Attention to and Responded in a Manner Consistent with Good Conscience and Governance. The Ball is in UDP REGIME LED Government of Ousainou Darbo, Mai Fatty and Adama Barrow. How they Play and Referee the Next three years, due to the fact that they have Packed all the Spots in the Field with their Players, would Determine the future Existence of a Peaceful Nation State of many Ethnic Groups or a Collective Bloody Mess of a Nation State of Balkanized Ethnic Groups in the GAMBIA. The Choice is for UDP, OUSAINOU DARBO MAI FATTY AND ADAMA BARROW AND SUPPORTERS TO MAKE. Fifty-five percent plus of OUR FELLOW GAMBIANS HAD DECIDED ONE WAY AND ABOUT Forty-two percent DECIDED ANOTHER WAY. THIS IS BY NO MEANS A MANDATE FOR UDP LED REGIME of Ousainou Darbo Mai Fatty and Adama Barrow. What would Save GAMBIA and Gambians as well as UDP and its Leadership and Enablers is Not the Convenient Newly Acquired Philosophy of “See no Evil, Hear No Evil”. Nor the reported Vigilantism and Selective Arrrests and Detentions that are Motivated by Ethnic and Party Affinity. There are also Regionally Motivated Violence and Vigilantism Perpetrated under the Color of Ethnic Group and Party Affiliation. Regardless of who Started it, the UDP Regime Led Government under Ousainou Darbo Mai Fatty and Adama Barrow are incharge of Affairs in the GAMBIA. They are therefore, Responsibile for All Gambians’ SECURITY, SAFETY AND WELFARE. ONE GAMBIA, ONE PEOPLE ONE DESTINY.
Maxs demanded documentary evidence from Hon. Sallah to prove that the coalition agreed to contest NA Elections, as Independent coalition candidates. Well, if we are looking for the written words in black and white, that “the coalition agreed to put up independent candidates at the NA Elections”, we may struggle to have that evidence, but sometimes, inference can be made to extract meaning and intent and establish a fact.
For example, a person who lives in Westfield and informed you that he’s been to Banjul, doesn’t need to provide documentary evidence to prove that he has been to Jeshwang and Denton Bridge. You deduct that the person must have passed Jeshwang and Denton Bridge on their way to Banjul, right.
Continued….
HA, HA, HA, my in-law, GOTCHA! I could go to Bakau waterfront and take a boat to Banjul – and come back by boat. No journey through Jeshwang or Denton Bridge! I think that is the way Hon Halifa is taking in his arguments – going directly through Jeshwang and Denton Bridge would be boring (Halifa likes the more scenic and interesting route – LOL!).
Now, let’s use a bit of deduction and draw inferences from documentary evidence to extract meaning and intent, and establish that the coalition partners agreed to contest NA Elections as Coalition Independents.
The coalition created and relied on two instruments: the MOU and the Manifesto. In both instruments, the commitment to put “our differences aside” and “act in the supreme interest of the country”, was emphasized.
The signatory stakeholders of the MOU, after stating certain observations in the Preamble, committed themselves, as thus:
“Have agreed to put our differences aside and in the supreme interest of the country, support an independent candidate elected at a National Convention constituted by equal number of delegates and further consider ourselves bound together as follows:”
Then it states in Part 1, that having elected a flag bearer, they should thereafter be referred to as “The Coalition”.
Part 2 states the Goals of the Coalition and I will use 1 & 2.
“1. Put an end to impunity and self perpetuating rule by establishing constitutional and institutional safeguards……”
“2. Institutionalize term limits, strengthen checks and balances by consolidating Judicial, Parliamentary, Media and other Civil Society oversight in order to hold government officials accountable to the people.”
Now, the question is: Where would the coalition pursue these goals they committed themselves to ? In the National Assembly, of course. How could their commitment to “putting their differences aside” be fulfilled in the National Assembly, if the intent was not to put up independent coalition candidates ? So, from the MOU, it can be deducted that the intent of the stakeholders was to put up independent coalition candidates at the NA Elections.
What did the Manifesto state ?
Continued….
When The coalition President leaves office/ hopefully by then there will be a Vice President to guide the affairs of the nation for the mandatory 90 days before the “real” President is to be chosen.
Hopefully it will be a lady ;
I have always believed in business and in public life that Quality of verse is better received than Quantity of Duplication.
The Manifesto is the contract document that Presidential Candidate Barrow sold to The Gambian People. In it, he stated: “I have offered myself as an Independent Candidate who will serve for only three years at the head of a broad based and inclusive Coalition Government aimed at conducting Constitutional, institutional and administrative reforms……”
So, it is clear that Candidate Barrow pledged to serve 3 years in his manifesto.
When we look at the Conclusion section of the Manifesto, we find a statement which provides very strong evidence to prove that the entire route for elective office holders, was through the independent ticket. It states:
“The Independent Ticket supported by Coalition 2016 aims to create a transitional Coalition Government……”
Can anybody dispute that the Coalition Government comprises the Executive and the Legislature ? If the coalition supported an “Independent Ticket” to create a transitional Coalition Government, wouldn’t that include the President and NA Candidates ?
It is obvious that the intent of the stakeholders was to create a political entity, relying on the independent ticket, to fill all elective offices, and form a Transitional Coalition Government.
Thank you Sidi and Bax;
So what is the next step? Is all this swept under the carpet or will Hon Halifa guide us through The Constitution and make recommendations ?