 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Nov 2011 : 01:52:42
|
Exceptionalism in Gambian public life: the IEC’s unlawful nomination of Hamat N K Bah as an independent presidential candidate - by Lamin J. Darboe
"A political party shall not receive any contribution from any person who is not a citizen of The Gambia, or from any corporate or incorporated body section 104 (7) Elections Act 2001
As expected, the reaction was swift and acerbic. And not surprisingly, the substantive issue was ignored, thus leaving my principal contention unanswered. To the extent this remains the case, I stand firmly by my considered view that Hamat N K Bah (Hamat) is legally barred from contesting the presidency as an independent candidate. Without doubt, this position is on all fours with the unequivocal stricture of section 60 (1) of our supreme law: “No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public elections”.
For those who interpose incidents of past independent candidates participating and winning in public elections as evidence Hamat can contest on 24 November, I simply refer to section 104 (7) of the Elections Act. If, notwithstanding its explicit legal prohibition, the presence of foreign money in Gambian elections is seen as of no significance, why would anyone shed tears about an independent presidential candidate that works to the incumbent’s advantage. It is incontestable that in Gambian public life, law and conduct inhabit completely different planets, and failure by competent authority to enforce law must never be regarded as evidence that particular conduct is legally permissible. In this electioneering year, section 104 (7) of the Elections Act exemplifies that regrettable gulf between law and official conduct.
An astute Gambia watcher observed, and rightly, that section 60 (1) of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia (the Constitution) armed His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Doctor Yahya A J J Jammeh (the Professor) with a “double-edged sword”. With the characteristic patience and calculating ways of a Machiavellian politician, the Hamat scenario presented no compelling urgency for the Professor to reveal his hand on the particular and live issue of an independent presidential candidate. In so far as he has no incentive to enter the ring against a single presidential challenger, Hamat’s candidacy came as a god-sent for the Professor. In his position, I would have offered libations of gratitude to the seers who foretold the passing of such an advantageous event.
Of course the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) purports to have ‘duly’ nominated Hamat as an independent candidate for the November 24 presidential contest. And yes, I am utterly disappointed at the IEC’s blatant dereliction of duty in a matter of the highest public significance. Since coming into effect on 16 January 1997, the Constitution was subjected to several amendments, all of them undemocratic and curtailing of accountability, not to mention public and individual rights and freedoms. Without question, any amendment to a nation’s supreme law constitutes a serious event, and it is therefore a given that section 60 (1), a 2001 amendment, was inserted in the Constitution for a purpose. Even allowing that juxtaposing section 49 against section 60 (1) introduces some incoherence to the process of candidate nomination in presidential elections, any contest between the absolute clarity of the latter, and the passing suggestion of the former, must be resolved in favour of 60 (1). This is even more compelling considering that section 60 (1) commenced life some five years after the Constitution as a whole came into force. The muted and wholly implicit section 49 merely states: “Any registered political party which has participated in the Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated in such an election …”.
Indeed, section 104 (1) of the Elections Act lends express credence to the foregoing contention, by stating, in no uncertain terms that “The conduct of elections to an elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall be based on party politics”. To the extent the Constitution is supreme to all other law, section 104 (2) of the Elections Act, although specifically addressing sub-section (1) of the same legislation, is invalid in so far as it purports to endorse an independent candidacy in “public elections”. This is the clear teaching of the supremacy clause of the Constitution! Why does it matter that albeit outside the ambit of law, the IEC nevertheless gave the nudge to Hamat’s nomination as an independent presidential candidate notwithstanding the clear command of section 60 (1) of the Constitution? Although some asked this question to score political points, others may be genuinely interested in further amplification of the issue.
On current electoral realities, Hamat’s candidacy is going nowhere, and I would rather have an opposition field of one challenging the Professor on November 24. Although my preference for that scenario was for a UDP-led united front headed by Ousainu N Darboe, that calculus was a tangential consideration in my call for the IEC to obey the Constitution and reject the nomination of Hamat as an independent candidate for the Gambian presidency.
Of crucial importance is my desire to provoke a debate and have this critical matter settled once and for all. Assuming opposition Gambia was fully united and went into nomination day with an independent candidate, a national crisis of major proportions will likely ensue in the event the IEC invokes the letter of section 60 (1) of the Constitution. Without a Plan B, the election would have been decided on nomination day pursuant to section 48 (4) of the Constitution, a 2003 amendment that states: “If at close of nomination only one candidate is nominated, he or she shall be declared to have been duly elected as President”.
Even more fundamentally, opposing Hamat’s independent candidacy is rooted in my total rejection of the exceptional-ism that is now a central feature of Gambian public life.
In so far as it retains the potential of triggering a major political crisis, the issue of Hamat’s candidacy is neither moot nor academic. Although he is nowhere even remotely close the ballpark for victory in the two-horse race between the incumbent, and Ousainu, the Professor’s insurance policy against Hamat’s unlawful candidacy was paid for and filed away. Even as he got his fragmented opposition, the Professor will not cancel his insurance against the zero chance of a Hamat victory. He must have complete peace of mind!
What is exceptionalism in the context of Gambian public life?
Although the concept has been long articulated and differently understood, its modern application by some neoconservative pundits about America’s place in international intercourse is what interests me. In summary form, “Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being "above" or an "exception" to the law, specifically the Law of Nations[32]” (see Wikipedia). It is in this context that I extrapolate the underpinnings of exceptionalism from its neoconservative perspective to Gambian domestic affairs.
Even in this presidential election year, the Professor continues to ignore the strictures of the law on what he cannot do as far as Gambian law is concerned. In explicit terms, the section 104 (7) of the Elections Act 2001 prohibits foreign money in Gambian elections: “A political party shall not receive any contribution from any person who is not a citizen of The Gambia, or from any corporate or incorporated body”. The Professor ignores this prohibition, and did so publicly by accepting hundreds of thousands of dalasis from a Mauritanian tycoon with business interests in The Gambia. This undoubtedly sends a clear signal to other foreign businessmen about what is expected of them. Whether we are in the know or not, others likely followed the good example of the Mauritanian tycoon.
It is no secret the Constitution prohibits the appointment of dual nationals to the Gambian Cabinet as ministers of state. The Professor ignores that stricture on his powers and appointed dual nationals, including Americans, as members of his Cabinet. And this notwithstanding the explicit prohibition of section 71 (2) of the Constitution: “A person shall not be qualified to be appointed or hold the office of a Minister if, he or she … holds the citizenship or nationality of any country other than The Gambia.”
And incidents of clear-cut Constitutional infractions go on from a ruler who never hesitates in using incompetent laws on “sedition”, and “giving false information to public servant” to prosecute and incarcerate innocents citizens. I am thinking
here of cases involving Fatou Jaw Manneh, the GPU six, Abbas Manneh, Moses Richards, and ongoing prosecutions involving Dr Amadou Scattred, Dr Gumbo Touray, and others. A variant of this capriciousness was used against Femi Peters! All these prosecutions were in violations of rights variously enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution.
In international intercourse as in domestic affairs, exceptionalism is unquestionably the other side of the coin of impunity. I reject it in the appointment of dual nationals to the Cabinet, of foreign money in Gambian elections, and in its latest manifestations concerning the unlawful nomination of Hamat as an independent presidential candidate. Any contrary view on the Hamat nomination ought to tackle the legal issues for a more constructive discourse.
With God’s permission, the questions around independent candidacies and public elections will be fully settled by the highest tribunal of law in The Gambia.
Watch this and other public space!
Lamin J Darbo" Maafanta.com
|
Edited by - kobo on 23 Nov 2011 01:53:52 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2011 : 02:52:22
|
“No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public elections” s. 60(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia
1. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A THESIS? HAMAT BAH IS "SPONSORED BY POLITICAL PARTIES" ALREADY LEGALLY "REGISTERED" UNDER THE ELECTORAL LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GAMBIA PERIOD 
2. HIS RESIGNATION FROM HIS PARTY NRP AS LEADER IS IN LINE WITH THE CONSTITUTION TO BE PART OF A "POLITICAL ENTITY"; UNDER UNITED NATIONAL FRONT IN LINE WITH "MERGER OF POLITICAL PARTIES" AND THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION (SINCE THERE IS NO ROOM FOR "CROSS-CARPETING")? AGAIN I REPEAT HAMAT BAH'S NOMINATION IS ACCEPTED AS "THE SPONSORED CANDIDATE FOR REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES THAT MERGED UNDER A UNITED NATIONAL FRONT (TO REPRESENT A POLITICAL ENTITY)"! REFER UDP LEADER'S COMMENTS ON AN INTERVIEW THE DAILY NEWS BELOW?
quote:
"“I cautioned against the formation of another political entity because individuals can come together to form a party, but registered political parties cannot form a political entity,” he said."
3. ALL CONTENTIOUS CRITICAL ISSUES ON "REGISTRATION" OF NADD FOR 2006 AND THE NEED TO ADDRESS RESOLUTIONS ON "MERGER" TO MOBILISE A UNITED FRONT FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS WERE REHEARSED, ADDRESSED AND AT PLAY AGAIN FOR 2011; FOR THE COMMON POLITICAL PLATFORM,UNDER ONE BANNER & UMBRELLA, UNITED FOR A COMMON GOAL WITH ONE FLAG BEARER
RELATED BANTABA GAMBIAN POLITICS TOPICS;
|
Edited by - kobo on 23 Nov 2011 03:11:21 |
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
