|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Momodou |
Posted - 02 Apr 2014 : 18:33:00
President Jammeh Addresses the National Assembly on State of the Nation
By Muhammad Bah & Abdoulie G. Dibba
Foroyaa: Published on Tuesday, 01 April 2014
In fulfillment of section 77 of the constitution which requires the president to address the National Assembly at least once every year, President Yahya Jammeh yesterday, Monday, 31 March, 2014 presented his government’s programmes in the preceding year as well as the development plans for 2014 before the people’s representatives.
Addressing deputies at the National Assembly in Banjul, President Jammeh said he has been following their debates on key policy documents and is impressed by them. He said the government’s priority is to give much focus on the productive sectors and key social services.
He told the National Assembly members that the needs of the sectors have been identified in order to receive the requisite attention and government resources.
According to President Jammeh, despite the pressure on the global economy, the national economy remains resilient and inflation is under control, adding that the economy grew by 5.4% up from 5 ¼% in 2012, but the physical deficit reached 8% of the GDP and that the domestic borrowing reached 6% of GDP.
He said the government would implement policies to support fiscal prudence by combining revenue and expenditure measures.
President Jammeh said the government would intensify the implementation and monitoring of the tax laws in the country. He outlined the comprehensive public finance management reform strategy which begins in 2014-2018, adding that it is to promote efficiency and macroeconomic stability, improving revenue mobilization and enhance the integrity of the budget process by strengthening public procurement systems and financial accountability.
The president also announced that the legal framework underpinning the public financial management system is in the process of amendment in order to introduce reforms in accounting and internal audit systems and depth management system.
He added that the debt management operation in lease financial agreements on-lending arrangements with public enterprise and government guaranteed debts will be accounted.
He informed the deputies that the bill will be introduced to control the use of public resources and funds.
He expressed his belief that this will address the efficiency and effectiveness of financial management in government through the implementation of modern financial management practices.
Source: Foroyaa |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kobo |
Posted - 16 Apr 2014 : 06:03:29
Bingo and back to square one with our exhaustive debate for "PARLIAMENT" and whether the "NATIONAL ASSEMBLY" that is constitutional constituted (under The Gambia constitution) can be describe or referred as "PARLIAMENT"??? Interesting contradiction with Foroyaa editorial on constitutional models and legislative term or word for "PARLIAMENT" with following report. Why not "NATIONAL ASSEMBLY" OUTLINES THEIR 2013 SERVICE REPORT for following Foroyaa National News report rather than PARLIAMENT OUTLINES THEIR 2013 SERVICE REPORT 
Published on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 | Written By Muhammad Bah
The National Assembly Authority on Monday 7 April outlined the end of year 2013 activity report of the National Assembly.
Delivering the report to deputies, the Majority leader and member for Serrekunda East, Hon. Fabakary T. Jatta, stated that ‘the year was a tremendous legislative year’ for the Members and staff of the Assembly. In the report, he outlined the functions performed by the house during the year under review. He stated that in the course of the year bills were passed, agreements ratified, motions passed, papers laid and reports presented. Questions relating to public affairs were forwarded for oral reply to the vice president and ministers. According to the report, the national assembly authority is composed of the Hon. Speaker as the chairman and four Hon members which include the majority and minority leaders and the clerk as the secretary. The member for Serrekunda East noted that there are 43 elected APRC members of the National Assembly, one NRP, and four independent members. He added that there are four women members, three of whom are elected and one nominated. He recalled that parliamentary elections took place in March 2012 and the National Assembly witnessed the inauguration of the 4th Assembly (2012 to 2017) of the 2nd republic on 19th April, 2012. He informed that 21 new members were elected, 27 other NAMs re-elected and five nominated. He further stated that in September and October of 2013, two members were dismissed from the APRC party for the constituencies of Kiang West and Foni Jarrol respectively. He continued to report by saying that the dispensation of the Assembly’s mandate has consolidated and expanded within government and regional, sub regional, continental and other international organisations. In particular, he mentioned multiple collaboration with academia, civil society, ECOWAS, Pan African Parliament, inter parliamentary Centre, ADB, World Bank, and the joint Assemblies of the ACP/EU, which he added, progressively impact on the positive image and status of the National Assembly. He concluded that this demonstrates the Assembly’s relentless resolve to serve the people and the government of the Republic of The Gambia.
Hon. Sulayman Joof, Member for Serrekunda West, in seconding the Motion, commended the Authority in particular the speaker for the success of the bills enacted. He said that going through the bills indicated that the Assembly has been transparent to public finance in particular. He laid emphasis on the code of conduct and comportment of deputies both in the House and in public, as they are role models. He challenged his colleagues to improve. He emphasised the importance of the language and dress to be used in the House.
Contributing to the debate on the motion, the minority leader and member for Niamina Dankunku had some weaknesses in the National assembly service. According to Hon. Jallow, there has been no report presented to his colleagues from the ECOWAS parliament by delegates from the Assembly. For him this needs attention and he stands to be corrected. He also referred to the trust and welfare fund for the benefit of National Assembly members. He argued that members need this and other facilities in order to perform their oversight duties properly. He explained how the issue of transportation affects various house members who should arrive on time to perform their Assembly duties in the interest of the state. He concluded by acknowledging the pensioners reforms. Relating to the mobility fund, he stated that ward councillors have more weight at the community level compared to NAMs. Hon. Jallow added that the mandate of members of parliament is five years, which necessitates quick access to their trust fund. He said the president spoke about the civil service loan scheme but that they are not part of it, pointing out that they are in greater need to receive financial assistance.
Foroyaa National News |
| kobo |
Posted - 11 Apr 2014 : 00:54:09
1.NAMs commence 2014 legislative session
Members of the National Assembly Wednesday commenced the 2014 legislative session two days after the annual session was opened by President Yahya Jammeh.
The members commended President Jammeh for a well presented statement before the National Assembly Chamber....
... all thanked the President for his speech on the 2014 state opening of the National Assembly.
Full Story from The Point News
2. Sanakalanka I don't think you have anything to proof on those few lines from flawless Foroyaa editorial. From The Point news above (under 1.) "2014 state opening of the National Assembly" as reported is in order, supported by present era (Constitution of 2nd Republic) and must be noted that it is not and cannot be describe; implied or considered to be "state opening of Parliament" (until a Parliament exist/stated in the constitution) because they are different Constitutional models of legislature. There is no "Parliament" (Westminster model) anymore and misconceptions cleared by Foroyaa; till I come back to proof few points on topic.
"It is wrong to call such an address state opening of parliament." Foroyaa |
| kobo |
Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 19:31:18
Gambia has a legislative body called a National Assembly and that is not a "Parliament". 2nd Republic there is no "Parliament" for The Republic of The Gambia. Issue is not that complicated or a "chicken & egg" riddle. This is about "Hen" (Legislature) with the husband Cock(Constitution) laying different eggs "Parliament" (Westminster), "Senate"(US), "National Assembly" (Gambia), "Knesset" (Israel), "Bharatiya Sansad" (India = Westminster model bicameral)...Stay tune until am back to bring historical facts to proof my point! |
| sankalanka |
Posted - 09 Apr 2014 : 04:58:58
"Rene, you always like to muddle up yourself. Once again, I will help you out."
Nyari, we will prolong this discourse just for the fun of it. My objective in engaging in a discussion is not only to express my views and opinions, but also to learn something from the other person. This is the reason why I do not have any problem to concede on a point you have explained convincingly.
"In public law, there is what we call 'substantive law and procedural law'. The substantive law describes what needs to de done while the precedural law is about how it is done; manner and form. On this particular issue, the substantive law which is the constitution merely requires that the president address parliament on the condition of The Gambia, policies of the govt and the administration of the state at least once in a yr. How this is done is not prescribed by any law of our land."
This is the age of enlightenment. You do not need to sit in a university classroom or have a degree in a specialized profession to be able to assertively discuss and debate on any topic. A click of your mouse button can give you all the information you may need to make an objective and informed analysis.
Yes, in law there is substantive law and Procedural law. I looked it up and I know the difference too. The constitution is governed by substantive law in which it establishes the rights and responsibilities, duties and obligations of citizenship. It establishes the relationship that exist between those who govern and the people who are being governed.
One of the fundamental obligations of a person who is elected to assume the leadership of a republic is to be answerable to the people through their elected representatives. That is why Section 77, subsection 1 of the constitution states that:
"The president shall at least once in each year attend a sitting of the National Assembly and address a session on Assembly the condition of the Gambia, the policies of the government and the administration of the State."
Although this provision is silent on the procedure of what the President is commanded to do, the procedural law, we can infer from the provision that the president is required to:
1. attend a sitting of the National Assembly and address the Assembly
2. that the address should center on the condition of the Gambia (country), the policies of the government and the administration of the state.
There is an explicit function that the president is required to fulfill even though the procedure to carry out this function is not stated. It is implicit in the carrying out of the function itself.
Where something is not stated explicitly it can be implied implicitly. But the implication must bear resonance to the substance and import of what is stated.
Now you tell me, where in that provision is it implied that the president is required to carry out the function of opening a parliament.
The National Assembly can start their legislative calendar year without the president being present in person. He can delegate someone else to attend. There is no constitutional requirement that he should attend the start of the legislative year.
There is a constitutional requirement, however, that he must appear before the National Assembly at least once every year to give information to the Assembly about the condition of the country, the policies of his government and the general administration of the state.
Because he is not commanded when to do it, your procedural law, it is at his discretion when to do it. He may choose to do it even after the National Assembly has commenced its legislative calendar year.
What the president is commanded to do in that provision is a fundamental principle in most republican constitutions. Even though our constitution does not explicitly state how the president is to carry out this function most republican constitutions do. And principal among those is the United States of America. Article 11, Section 3 of the US constitution states:
"He (President) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"
What the US constitution commands the president to do is not different from what our constitution also commands our president to do. The only difference is that in the US constitution the function that the US president is required to fulfill is explicitly stated, STATE OF THE UNION address, whilst in our constitution it is not explicitly stated but implied. This is what informed Foroyaa's statement:
"It is wrong to call such an address State Opening of Parliament. At best, it could be "characterized" as a "State Of The Nation" address.
In the US even the states have STATE OF THE STATE addresses given by governors of each state, delivered to both houses of the state legislature sitting in joint session.
And these are addresses given to satisfy a constitutional stipulation.
And bear in mind that the use of the word state above has a dual meaning. State of the State address. The first use of the word state refers to the general condition of a thing, and the second use refers to the political concept of the state.
"In other words, there is no procedural law relating to the manner and form in which this constitutional obligation is discharged."
Agreed. But it is implied that the president should deliver an address to the nation through the National Assembly.
"This accords the president a very wide discretion when it comes to how he delivers on this constitutional obligation. He can choose to deliver it at the beginning, the middle, the end or anytime of the yr."
The fact that the president has the discretion to deliver this address to the National Assembly at any time whether in the beginning, middle or end of the legislative calender year makes it absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it was a state opening of parliament.
How about if he chooses to deliver this address at the end of the legislative year. Would you still call that the state opening of parliament?
"He can also choose the beginning or the end of the legislative yr to deliver this address and that would still be within his lawful margin of appreciation provided the purpose spelled-out by the substantive law, the constitution, are met."
Exactly. But why would it make sense, if the president decided to deliver this address at the end of the legislative year, to call it the state opening of parliament. How would you open something that is almost ended.
Yes, there is no procedural law and the president is within his legal rights to carry out this function in the beginning, middle or end of the year. But our concern here is the substantive law: what he is commanded to do in the constitution. That is why we argued that it is inappropriate to call what the president is commanded to do in that provision a state opening of parliament.
"From a constitutional point of view, the manner or form of the event is irrelevant."
Whatever its irrelevancy the president went to the National Assembly to carry out a constitutionally sanctioned function. An address to the Nation through the National Assembly, the people's elected representatives.
"This is why i disagree with Foroyaa. Contrary to your postulation, they did not say 'state opening of parliament is inappropriate. They actually said it is wrong which is find absurd and totally bonkers because their no basis either legal or political for them to say so."
There isn't much difference between what is inappropriate and what is wrong. Foroyaa and I are saying the same thing but differently. And there is a constitutional basis that informed their statement: Section 77, subsection 1 of the Gambian Constitution.
"If there claim only that the do not prefer this term, I would have had no qualms with them."
Point noted.
"You may now want to ask: how did the name 'State Opening of Parliament' came about? Well, the answer is simple. This name has more to do with the form that the event took rather than its purpose."
What form did the event took? And what was the fundamental objective that govern the event? The president was there to deliver an address to the National Assembly as commanded by Section 77, subsection of the constitution.
"As a matter of discretion, the president and head of state has decided that he was going to deliver this constitutionally prescribed address to mark the beginning of the legislative year and in the process not only outline govt's legislative agenda encompassing its policies but also condition and administration of state."
I have earlier stated somewhere that this event may have been planned or arranged to coincide with the beginning of the legislative year for the National Assembly since the president has the discretion to do it anytime; whether in the beginning, middle or end of the legislative year.
But the fact that he choose to appear in the beginning of the legislative year instead of the middle or the end, doesn't take away the significance and import of what he is obligated to do: an address to the nation.
"It is for this reason that the chose to called it state opening of parliament, a term not prohibited by any law in The Gambia. They would have chosen any other name and the constitution would not be bothered by it as long the purpose requirements are met."
What we have argued is that it is inappropriate to call this event a state opening of parliament. And we rely solely on the provision of Section 77, subsection 1 of the Gambian constitution to make this determination.
"On your claim that I am the one who made the inference of a monarchy, not Foroyaa, and that I am criticising just for the sake of it, I think if we have that the other way round, we shall be fine tuned with the truth more than you could ever have imagined; You are just defending for the sake of it."
The main point of contention here is the use of the word "state". There is a legal as well as a political concept of the word "state". The characteristics of the state in its legal concept is different from the characteristic of the state in its political concept. The concept of a republic and a monarchy bear characteristics of a state and they are both forms of government.
This is why I said that Foroyaa was not engaged in discussions about the concept of a monarchy or a republic which is quite expansive, but merely stated a fact that a monarchy is just like a state. And in a monarchy, absolute monarchy, sovereignty lies with the monarch; and in a republic sovereignty lies with the people.
"It is Foroyaa which made the inference of a monarchy in their editorial and attempted to draw a parallel between what occurs in a republic and what does in a monarchy."
This is what Foroyaa wrote: "There is nothing like state opening of parliament in the Gambian constitution." It is a fact.
"State comprise of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary." It is a fact.
"Under a republic there is separation of powers between the legislature and the executive." It is a fact.
"In order to keep the legislature informed of the legislative agenda of the executive and its general policies Section 77, of the constitution subsection 1 state that..." It is a fact.
"It is wrong to call such an address state opening of parliament. At best, it could be characterized as a state of the nation address."
The above is what foroyaa wrote. The part about a monarchy was just to infer that a monarchy is just like a state. Nothing else. All the other stuff is your own inference. This is my point.
"The insinuation which followed was that state opening of parliament does not happen in a republic because of separation of powers. In effect, they are saying State Opening of Parliament can only happen in an absolute monarchy where there is no separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. All I said in response was that if this is monarchical, the word 'state' would not even form part of the name because that isn't a monarchical language."
You are the one saying all these things. I refer you above to what Foroyaa wrote.
NB: I have edited the previous write up and added more.
Thanks
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union.
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 09 Apr 2014 00:50:21
|
| Nyarikangbanna |
Posted - 08 Apr 2014 : 18:03:56
Rene, you always like to muddle up yourself. Once again, I will help you out. In public law, there is what we call 'substantive law and procedural law'. The substantive law describes what needs to de done while the precedural law is about how it is done; manner and form. On this particular issue, the substantive law which is the constitution merely requires that the president address parliament on the condition of The Gambia, policies of the govt and the administration of the state at least once in a yr. How this is done is not prescribed by any law of our land. In other words, there is no procedural law relating to the manner and form in which this constitutional obligation is discharged. This accords the president a very wide discretion when it comes to how he delivers on this constitutional obligation. He can choose to deliver it at the beginning, the middle, the end or anytime of the yr. He can also choose the beginning or the end of the legislative yr to deliver this address and that would still be within his lawful margin of appreciation provided the purpose spelled-out by the substantive law, the constitution, are met. From a constitutional point of view, the manner or form of the event is irrelevant. This is why i disagree with Foroyaa.
Contrary to your postulation, Foroyaa did not say 'state opening of parliament is inappropriate. They actually said it is wrong, and this is what I found to be absurd and totally bonkers because there is no basis either legal or political for them to say so. If their position is only that they do not prefer this term, I would have had no qualms with them.
You may now want to ask: how did the name 'State Opening of Parliament' came about? Well, the answer is simple. This name has more to do with the form that the event took rather than its purpose. As a matter of discretion, the president and head of state has decided that he was going to deliver this constitutionally prescribed address to mark the beginning of the legislative year and in the process not only outline govt's legislative agenda encompassing its policies but also condition and administration of state. It is for this reason that the chose to called it state opening of parliament, a term not prohibited by any law in The Gambia. They would have chosen any other name and the constitution would not be bothered by it as long the purpose requirements are met.
On your claim that I am the one who made the inference of a monarchy, not Foroyaa, and that I am criticising just for the sake of it, I think if we have that the other way round, we shall be fine tuned with the truth more than you could ever have imagined; You are just defending for the sake of it.
It is Foroyaa which made the inference of a monarchy in their editorial and attempted to draw a parallel between what occurs in a republic and what does in a monarchy. The insinuation which followed was that state opening of parliament does not happen in a republic because of separation of powers. In effect, they are saying State Opening of Parliament can only happen in an absolute monarchy where there is no separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. All I said in response was that if this is monarchical, the word 'state' would not even form part of the name because that isn't a monarchical language.
Thanks |
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 07 Apr 2014 : 01:14:57
QUITE, (NOT QUOTE )NOW THIS IS A KOBO QUOTE:
"these are all political and legal semantics."
quote:
Originally posted by Momodou
Kibo, filling the space with so much unnecessary text and repeating only distract from the original topic. I'm sure we can all quote, copy and paste sources from the whole internet each time but that will be "spamming". Keep it simple as Toubab would say.
|
| kobo |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 19:08:46
YOU LOST THIS ONE AGAIN!
You had a personal agenda, certain political grievances, tried to castigate Foroyaa team but editorial apparently proven flawless; with my vital contributions, remarkable relevant forwards/information and Sankalanka's brilliant intervention!lol |
| Nyarikangbanna |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 16:40:37
quote:
Originally posted by Momodou
Kibo, filling the space with so much unnecessary text and repeating only distract from the original topic. I'm sure we can all quote, copy and paste sources from the whole internet each time but that will be "spamming". Keep it simple as Toubab would say.
Momodou lol |
| kobo |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 14:23:14
Momodou.Your point noted.
Sankalanka/Nyarikangbanna. Thanks for fruitful exchange of ideas, earnest and intelligent discourse; benefiting all of us |
| sankalanka |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 10:02:56
"Rene, is the issue not about terminology? Foroyaa said the term State opening of parliament is monarchical, and I said the term ' state' is not known to a monarchy."
Nyari, this is why I said in my initial reaction when you responded to the Foroyaa editorial that you were being critical just for the sake for it.
The above statement is your own logical construct. You are the one who draw the inference that "The State Opening Of Parliament", is monarchical.
When I read what Foroyaa wrote, and within the context of the constitutional provision they have quoted, inappropriate is the word that more describes their disagreement than monarchical. That is why they stated in their headline: State Of The Nation address and not The State Opening Of Parliament.
There is no reference to the State Opening Of Parliament being monarchical. And Foroyaa's position is informed by the constitutional mandate that makes it a requirement for the president to appear before the National Assembly each year and give an account of his government and the state. This is the crux of the editorial.
You can disagree with their position but they did not say that the term "State Opening Of Parliament" is monarchical.
"The monarchical term is 'crown'. In order words crown is the monarchical version of a state. They are not strictly the same although in the context of constitutional monarchies, there are two types of monarchies; constitutional and absolute, the difference is superficial. I have already explained that."
Nyari, here again, all what we have been fussing about is the use of the word "state". Foroyaa used the word "state" to imply that an absolute monarchy is like a State. You contended that Foroyaa's use of the word "state" in any context that describes a monarchy is wrong. That the correct representation of the state in any monarchical context is "The Crown."
And what Foroyaa has said simply is that an absolute monarchy is like a "state' They are not engaged in discussions about concepts of monarchy whether constitutional or absolute. Your understanding of their use of the word "state" invariably bring about all this discussion.
"There is no reason why this event cannot be called State Opening of parliament. It is the event that they use to mark the beginning of the legislative yr and it's presided over by the head of state. The constitutional mandate of the president is also delivered in the process. So why can't it be called state opening of parliament?"
I think we have exhausted this argument. If we continue we will be going round in circles. You are very adamant in maintaining your position.
"If Foroyaa want to call it a different name. No one is going to fault them for that but they have no constitutional basis to fault others too on their preferred terminology. This is my point."
Why did they quote the constitution to support their position? That is where they derive the constitutional basis to make that statement. If only it was explicitly stated in our constitution as it is in the US constitution, we wouldn't be having this discussion. In the US constitution it is explicitly stated 'the state of the union' and the provisions are similar.
"I am not going to dwell on the other points- I disagree with you on most of them-because they are not relevant."
We can always agree to disagree.
"And by the way, thanks for conceding the fact that we have a parliament in The Gambia. I was extremely worried when you previously said we haven't."
I conceded that parliament is a general term which is applicable to any legislative assembly. I still maintain that most countries with republican constitutions would call their parliaments National Assemblies, and in most parliamentary democracies their legislative bodies would be called Parliament.
Notwithstanding, The Gambia always have a parliament. Whether consciously or unconsciously I have not overlooked this fact.
Thanks
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
| Momodou |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 08:45:43
Kibo, filling the space with so much unnecessary text and repeating only distract from the original topic. I'm sure we can all quote, copy and paste sources from the whole internet each time but that will be "spamming". Keep it simple as Toubab would say. |
| kobo |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 05:10:08
[quote]Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
"I am astonished by your postulation that the term Parliament is somehow different from National Assembly. Parliament is a general political term referring to legislative chambers of any sort. National Assembly is merely a constitutional description. If we are to go by your analogy, then Gambia had no parliament since independence because the constitutional description given to parliament in the first republic is 'House of Representatives'.
My point is; these are all political and legal semantics. All legislatures can rightly be called 'a parliament'. For example, if you ask an Israeli 'do you have a parliament?' He/she would say 'yes, it's called the Knesset'. And if you ask him/her ' what is the Knesset?' He/she would say; 'the Israeli parliament'."
PART 2: Please note and stop DISTORTION & CARICATURES?
1. From your statement and point above that "Gambia had no parliament since independence because the constitutional description given to parliament in the first republic is 'House of Representatives'". I would like to point out again that YOU ARE GIVING WRONG IMPRESSION.
2. In 1970 Constitution, both House of Representatives and Parliament were straddled there in the Constitution of 1st Republic; applied where appropriate but CHAPTER VI - PARLIAMENT Part 1 COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT clearly distinguished them. Forwarding all relevant provisions to debunk your assertion, as follows;
CHAPTER VI
PARLIAMENT
Part 1
COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT
Establishment of Parliament
- "56.-(1) There shall be a Parliament which shall consist of The President and House of Representatives.
(2) The legislative power of the Republic is vested in Parliament.
(3) Parliament shall have power to make laws, for peace, security and good governance."
House of Representatives
- "57.-(1) The House of Representatives shall consist of a Speaker and the following other members; that is to say:-
(a) until Parliament otherwise prescribes, thirty-two members who shall be known as "elected members" and who shall be elected in accordance with with the provisions of section 60 of this Constitution:
(b) four members who shall be known as "Chiefs' Representative members" and who shall be elected in accordance with with the provisions of section 60 of this Constitution.
(c) the Attorney-General: and
(d) until Parliament otherwise prescribes, three members who shall be known as "nominated members" and who shall be elected in accordance with with the provisions of section 65 of this Constitution.
(2.) Only an elected member or a Chiefs' representative member or the Attorney-General shall be entitled to vote upon any question before the House of Representatives and the elected members, the Chiefs' representative members and the Attorney-General are in this Constitution collectively referred to as "voting members"."
(3),(4),(5), (6), (7), (8) followed.
3. It should be noted that "in some countries, the group of (usually) elected politicians or other people who make the laws for their country:" represent PARLIAMENT. Therefore not all countries describe its legislative assembly as parliament. The Republic of The Gambia has a NATIONAL ASSEMBLY inserted in its 1997 Constitution and not PARLIAMENT and supports Foroyaa editorial justification that; "There is nothing like state opening of parliament in the Gambian constitution. The state comprises the executive, the legislature and the judiciary." The National Assembly is the legislative branch of government in the Gambia. The word "PARLIAMENT" appear in 1970 Constitution but never written, stated or indicated to represent Our "NATIONAL ASSEMBLY" constituted in the 1997 Constitution. That nomenclature is one of the major differences between the 1970 Constitution of 1st Republic and 1997 Constitution of 2nd Republic (i.e. present era); in our transition post-independence towards a fully fledged democratic country. These radical changes has certain political ramifications that must be addressed for comprehension. As times have change and country at different era Foroyaa editorial sensitize, addressed protocols, political connotation, interpretation and policy-making, underlining the function, pomp and ceremony; to help break with tradition and clear any misconception where necessary.
Thanks |
| kobo |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 04:20:52
[quote]Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Rene, you have conceded that it is countries that do not have monarchies that do use the term 'state' and I thank you for that. You keep saying 'state' and 'crown' are the same but who said they are not? All I said is that as a matter of political and constitutional terminology, you don't use 'state' in a monarchical context and that means state opening of parliament cannot reasonably be perceived as monarchical as Foroyaa did.
PART 1: Please note and stop DISTORTION & CARICATURES?
1. Foroyaa did not "perceived state opening of parliament as monarchical". In the editorial these are the statements for clarity of description on pomp and ceremony as QUOTED below. Where is it perceived to be "monarchical" on following statements?
- "STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS and Not STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT "
- "There is nothing like state opening of parliament in the Gambian constitution. The state comprises the executive, the legislature and the judiciary."
- "Under a Republic there is separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive.
In order to keep the legislature informed of the legislative agenda of the executive and its general policies, Section 77 of the constitution Subsection 1 states that: “The President shall at least once in each year attend a sitting of the National assembly and address a session on Assembly the condition of The Gambia, the policies of the Government and the administration of the State.”"
Giving what I said in my first posting, I maintain that there is nothing wrong in this event being called 'State Opening of Parliament'.
2. You are WRONG and going by statements highlighted under POINT 1. Foroyaa stated that;
- "It is wrong to call such an address state opening of parliament. At best, it could be characterised as a state of the nation address."
3. Lets draw a line from there and deal with this statement from Foroyaa editorial to explain further. QUOTED: "Under a monarchy, the absolute monarch is the state. Sovereignty resides in him or her." EXPLAINED;- "In English jurisprudence, the Crown is the state in all its aspects." = ABSOLUTE MONARCH!
- In countries that do not have a monarchy, the concept may be expressed as "the State" or "the people", or some political entity, such as "the United States", "the Commonwealth" or "the State of (Republic of The Gambia)"
- "Legally, the Crown is a corporation sole that, in the Commonwealth realms, Crown dependencies and any of its provincial or state sub-divisions, represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, or judicial governance.
It evolved first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch. The concept spread via British colonisation, and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms. In this context it should not be confused with any physical crown, such as those of the British state regalia." SOURCE: Wikipedia
"I am astonished by your postulation that the term Parliament is somehow different from National Assembly. Parliament is a general political term referring to legislative chambers of any sort. National Assembly is merely a constitutional description. If we are to go by your analogy, then Gambia had no parliament since independence because the constitutional description given to parliament in the first republic is 'House of Representatives'.
My point is; these are all political and legal semantics. All legislatures can rightly be called 'a parliament'. For example, if you ask an Israeli 'do you have a parliament?' He/she would say 'yes, it's called the Knesset'. And if you ask him/her ' what is the Knesset?' He/she would say; 'the Israeli parliament'."
4. From your statement and point above that "Gambia had no parliament since independence because the constitutional description given to parliament in the first republic is 'House of Representatives'" these notes mainly extracted from Wikipedia can help us understand certain terms, facts, situation and circumstances better; before your assertion debunk.
House of Representatives:
- "House of representatives is the name of legislative bodies in many countries and sub-national states. In many countries, the House of Representatives is the lower house of a bicameral legislature, with the corresponding upper house often called a "Senate". In some countries, the House of Representatives is the sole chamber of a unicameral legislature"
- "The functioning of a house of representatives can vary greatly from country to country, and depends on whether a country has a parliamentary or a presidential system."
- "Approximately half of the world's sovereign states are presently unicameral," and National Assembly Of The Gambia is among them.
- "In government, unicameralism (Latin uni, one + camera, chamber) is the practice of having one legislative or parliamentary chamber. Thus, a unicameral parliament or unicameral legislature is a legislature which consists of one chamber or house. Unicameral legislatures typically exist in small (especially Republic of The Gambia) and homogeneous unitary states, where a second chamber is considered unnecessary."
"In contrast to unicameralism, multicameralism or 'polycameralism' is the condition in which a legislature is divided into several deliberative assemblies, which are commonly called "chambers" or "houses". This can include bicameralism with two chambers, tricameralism with three, tetracameralism with four branches, or a system with any amount more. The word "multicameral" can also relate in other ways to its literal meaning of "many chambered" with use in science or biology.
Many modern parliaments and congresses adopt a multicameral (usually bicameral) structure to provide multiple perspectives and a form of separation of powers within the legislature."
"Bicameralism is an essential and defining feature of the classical notion of mixed government. Bicameral legislatures usually require a concurrent majority to pass legislation."
- "Legislative representation based on universal adult suffrage in the Gambia began in May 1962 when elections were held for a 32-seat House of Representatives," (before independence in February 1965), but after independence there was baby sitting under watchful eye by colonial master UK "in right of the Crown"; a transition and devolution process of a newly born sovereign state, because a baby cannot be born and start walking. "Legislative elections to the renamed National Assembly took place on 2 January 1997" eventually. "The National Assembly is the legislative branch of government in the Gambia."
Therefore in 1970 Constitution, both House of Representatives and Parliament were straddled there in the Constitution of 1st Republic; applied where appropriate but CHAPTER VI - PARLIAMENT Part 1 COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT clearly distinguished them. Suffice to stop here and will forward all relevant provisions in next post to debunk your assertion.
Thanks |
| Nyarikangbanna |
Posted - 06 Apr 2014 : 01:28:30
Rene, is the issue not about terminology? Foroyaa said the term State opening of parliament is monarchical, and I said the term ' state' is not known to a monarchy. The monarchical term is 'crown'. In order words crown is the monarchical version of a state. They are not strictly the same although in the context of constitutional monarchies, there are two types of monarchies; constitutional and absolute, the difference is superficial. I have already explained that.
There is no reason why this event cannot be called State Opening of parliament. It is the event that they use to mark the beginning of the legislative yr and it's presided over by the head of state. The constitutional mandate of the president is also delivered in the process. So why can't it be called state opening of parliament? If Foroyaa want to call it a different name. No one is going to fault them for that but they have no constitutional basis to fault others too on their preferred terminology. This is my point.
I am not going to dwell on the other points- I disagree with you on most of them-because they are not relevant. And by the way, thanks for conceding the fact that we have a parliament in The Gambia. I was extremely worried when you previously said we haven't.
Thanks |
| sankalanka |
Posted - 05 Apr 2014 : 23:35:35
"Rene, you have conceded that it is countries that do not have monarchies that do use the term 'state' and I thank you for that."
That is correct. But look at the context in which Foroyaa used the term 'state' in reference to a monarchy. They are merely alluding to a fact that a monarchy is the same as a State. They did not say that a monarchy can also be called a state. This is where I believed you missed the point.
You are the one who brought the argument that "In a monarchy, whether absolute or constitutional, there is nothing like 'A State'.
If anything, may be you need to clarify this statement. Do you mean that a monarchy cannot be compared to a state? Or do you mean that in any reference to a monarchy, its concept, there is nothing like a state?
Obviously and I have no doubts that the editors at Foroyaa know that a monarchy is called "The Crown." They used the word "State" only to make the point that a monarchy is the same as a state. And whereas in a republic sovereignty resides with the people. In a monarchy sovereignty resides with the monarch. This is the simple and basic point they are making in the quote below.
"Under a monarchy, the absolute monarch is the state. Sovereignty resides in him or her."'Foroyaa'.
"You keep saying 'state' and 'crown' are the same but who said they are not? "
You are the one who introduced the word "Crown' to say that Foroyaa's use of the word "State" to compare it with a monarchy is wrong. And our argument is that "state" and "Crown" are synonymous.
"All I said is that as a matter of political and constitutional terminology, you don't use 'state' in a monarchical context and that means state opening of parliament cannot reasonably be perceived as monarchical as Foroyaa did."
And the argument is the context in which the word 'state'is used. Foroyaa did not used the word in a monarchical context, whatever that means, but they used the word to imply that a monarchy is the same as a state.
And as for perceiving the state opening of parliament as monarchical, that is your own inference.
"The only thing I would add is; while a state evolves around the people, a crown evolves around the king/queen but this difference is superficial in the real world as in constitutional monarchies- the most prevalent form of monarchy in the world- political power is actually exercised by elected officials on behalf of the queen/king."
How is this statement different from what Foroyaa implies in their editorial: In a republic, sovereignty resides with the people. In a monarchy sovereignty resides with the Queen/King.
In essence, the Gambia is a republic and we should not be behaving like we are in a monarchy.
"I am astonished by your postulation that the term Parliament is somehow different from National Assembly. Parliament is a general political term referring to legislative chambers of any sort. National Assembly is merely a constitutional description. If we are to go by your anology, then Gambia had no parliament since independence because the constitutional description given to parliament in the first republic is 'House of Representatives'. My point is; these are all political and legal semantics. All legislatures can rightly be called 'a parliament'. For example, if you ask an Israeli 'do you have a parliament?' He/she would say 'yes, it's called the Knesset'. And if you ask him/her ' what is the Knesset?' He/she would say; 'the Israeli parliament'."
I will concede to your points above. Parliament is a general terminology that is applicable to any legislative assembly.
"A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.
Countries with parliamentary systems may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the ceremonial head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of the legislature (such as United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as Ireland, Germany, Pakistan, India and Italy). In a few parliamentary republics, such as South Africa and Botswana, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to the legislature." (Wikipedia.)
"The South African Government
South Africa is a multiparty parliamentary democracy in which constitutional power is shared between the president and the Parliament. The parliament is bicameral, consisting of National Council of Provinces (the upper house) and the National Assembly (the lower house).
The National Council of Provinces has 90 members, while the National Assembly has 400 members. Elections for both chambers are held every five years. The government is formed in the lower house and the leader of the majority party in the National Assembly is the President."
South Africa: The government is formed in the lower house and the leader of the majority party in the National Assembly is the President.
"since the end of apartheid in 1994, African National Congress (ANC) has dominated South African politics and ruled the country. The main opposition parties are the Democratic Alliance, the Congress of the People (a split-off from ANC), and the Inkatha Freedom Party, which mainly represents Zulu voters."
"You said in parliamentary systems, presidents are not directly elected. Well that is not strictly true for there are a number of parliamentary systems with directly elected presidents. This include Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Gambia under sir Dawda."
I have researched the claim that presidents could be elected directly in a parliamentary democracy especially in the countries you have cited. In the above citation I have posted about South Africa this doesn't seem to be the case. The leader of the majority party in the parliament is the president. In Zimbabwe, the parliamentary system in which the President is the head of state and government is as recent as organized in their 2013 constitution. Kenya too is the same. The parliamentary system as organized is as recent as their 2010 constitution.
"I know you gonna start saying; they do not have a prime minister. Well, they do not have to have a prime minister to practice parliamentary democracy although this is the most common norm but only where executive power does not lie in the president. Where executive power lies in the president, govt is usually represented in parliament by the Vice President and all other ministers of govt, not only as cabinet members but also bona fide sitting members of parliament."
The two citations I have posted above more reflects my position and in some cases are supportive of my postulations. My main contentions about parliamentary and presidential systems remain relevant.
"This brings me back to your notion that the term National Assembly is used in presidential systems."
The fact remains that countries with republican constitutions most likely would call it a National Assembly. Countries with a parliamentary system would call their legislative assemblies parliament. Notwithstanding, parliament is a general term that can be used to describe any legislative assembly.
"Parliament is parliament and the constitution of a country can call it anything but it would still remain a parliament."
That is the point. Most republican constitutions call it a National Assembly.
"If you understand the distinction between politics and law, you will understand what I am talking about. Otherwise, I can't help you."
What is the distinction between law and politics? Are they govern by the same principles or different principles?
"I know you will buy anything from those scruffy ultra-socialists at Foroyaa without hesitation or scrutiny."
You bet.
Giving what I said in my first posting, I maintain that there is nothing wrong in this event being called 'State Opening of Parliament'.
And we maintain that it is more appropriate to call the event "The State of The Nation" address.
Thanks |
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
