 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Apr 2013 : 02:09:35
|
1. Related topic: Local Government Council Results 4th April 2013
2. HALIFA WRITES TO PRESIDENT JAMMEH ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAPSES IN THE INAUGURATION OF COUNCILS
SOURCE: FOROYAA BURNING ISSUES NEWS
"29 April 2013
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA
STATE HOUSE
BANJUL
RE: ON DEVIATIONS FROM THE RULE OF LAW
The setting up of different dates to inaugurate councils after the 4th April 2013 Local Government elections reflects a lack of uniformity in the assumption of office by members of Councils who are elected on the same day and have equal tenure of office.
Good Laws are made by a state to ensure predictability of official conduct and avert ambiguity and absurdity in administrative practice. It is therefore important to point out to you that ambiguity and absurdity is already evident in the assumption of office on different dates by councillors who are destined to leave office on the same date if they serve their full term.
In short, the members of the Banjul City Council assumed office on the 24 April 2013. The members of the Kanifing Municipal Council assumed office on the 25 April 2013. The members of the Brikama Area Council are to assume office on 29 April 2013. The dates set for the first sitting of the Mansakonko Area Council, Kerewan Area Council, Kuntaur Area Council, Janjanbureh Area Council and Basse Area Council are different from that of Banjul, Kanifing and Brikama. What is responsible for this inconsistency and inconstancy? Is it because of a defect in the law or a by-product of its disregard in practice by the government or both? What then is the Nature of the law? Does it promote consistency or constancy in political succession at the Council level?
The Constitution establishes the Local Councils. Section 193 states that “Local government administration in the Gambia shall be based on a system of democratically elected councils with a high degree of local autonomy.”
Hence, this entrenched provision is saying that there should be no administration of councils by any other authority other than democratically elected representatives. This should have been made possible by enacting a provision under the Local Government Act that is similar to the one established by Section 99 of the Constitution for the National Assembly. It reads:
“Subject to the provisions of this section, the National Assembly shall stand dissolved on the day immediately preceding the day appointed in accordance with Section 97 for the first session of the next following national Assembly.”
Two things need to be learnt from Section 99. It encompasses both a relevant provision and an omission. The relevant provision is to ensure the continuity of elected representation up to the day preceding the assumption of office by newly elected representatives. Hence, the best practice of democratic succession of political office is for elected representatives to remain until a day preceding the assumption of office by newly elected members. This practice is what should have been incorporated in the Local Government Act. That however is not the case. The fact is being cited in passing for future references.
The Second point deals with the omission. Section 99 makes it abundantly clear that the incumbent National Assembly members will stay in office until a day preceding the date appointed under Section 97 for the first session of the next following National Assembly. Suffice it to say, even though Section 99 takes it as given that the date for the first sitting of the Assembly is prescribed under Section 97, a close reading of section 97 would reveal that it does not fix a date for the first sitting of the National Assembly and does not give any command to any authority to set the date within a prescribed framework that negates arbitrariness.
When PDOIS won seats in the 2002 elections and appeared to have been waiting indefinitely for the first sitting to be convened we had to confront the relevant authorities which ended up in heated debate on the day of the inauguration of the Assembly. Putting the National Assembly at the mercy of the executive was exposed to be antithetical to the principle of the separation of powers. We emphasised that Section 97 should be amended to incorporate the concrete working day on which the first sitting of The National Assembly should take place after an election. Despite the heated debate and recommendation no effort has emanated from the state to remedy the Lacuna.
Hence if arbitrariness is to be removed from the succession process regarding political office, the law should not only ensure that elected representatives are replaced in office by elected representatives but should also limit the overstaying of incumbents by indicating the concrete working day when the first sitting of newly elected representatives should take place after an election. Is that how matters stand with regards to the Local Councils? The answer is in the negative.
It is relevant to make reference to the current provision dealing with political successions before and after Local Government Elections.
Section 9(a) of the Local Government Act as amended states:
“1. A Local Government Council shall stand dissolved ninety days before a local Government Election.
2. On the dissolution of a Council The President shall appoint, for each Local Government Area, an interim Management Team consisting of such persons as he or she may determine, to perform the functions and exercise the powers of a Council until the day preceding the first meeting of a council after a local government election.”
It is apparent here that the Local Government Act provides for the replacement of elected Representatives with appointed individuals prior to elections and has not indicated when the newly elected representatives would assume office after an election. The amendments simply states that the Interim Management Team will stand dissolved a day before the first meeting of a Council after a Local Government Election. This has given rise to an absurdity characterised by councils being managed by Interim Management Teams after new council members have been duly elected. It is not clear whether the acknowledgement of the absurdity is what led the state to proceed to broadcast news of the dissolution of all councils on 23 April 2013 without regard to the statutory provision that an Interim Management Team should stand dissolved a day preceding the first meeting of the council after a local government election.
In actual fact, the state would have acted in compliance with section 9(a) of the Local Government Act if all councils held their first meeting on the 24 April 2013. Hence only the first meeting of the Banjul City Council could be considered to have been held on the day that it should have been held, if it is assumed that the Interim Management Teams are dissolved on the 23 April 2013 as announced. The facts reveal that KMC had its first meeting 2 days after the dissolution of the Councils. Brikama schedules its first meeting 6 days after the dissolution. The majority of Councils were without elected representatives or an Interim Management Team after the dissolution. Nothing could be more absurd than that. Inconsistency and inconstancy in administrative practice and arbitrary rule are the by-products of deviation from what is legally prescribed. Governments are only credible if they recognise criticism and consider wise proposals to redress anomalies in law and practice. It must be said that the anomalies in practice that PDOIS has been pointing out are numerous.
Let us table few of them to corroborate our assertion that there have been many serious deviations from the rule of law in the manner of administration of the country. First and foremost, we have argued that executive orders and proclamations are being made and implemented without any regard to correct legal procedure. The first proof constitutes the recent announcement that the Interim Management Teams are dissolved. The announcement indicates that the Ministry of Regional Administration and Lands dissolved them. Suffice it to say, the mandate to dissolve the Interim Management Team must be provided for by law and must be exercised as provided for by law. No law was cited in the dissolution of the Interim Management Teams.
We have conveyed to you and would like to repeat again that executive orders that do not originate from the Constitution or Acts and published in the Gazette are without legal foundation and amount to arbitrary rule. Authority must be lawfully exercised. Hence any executive directive in the form of a proclamation, rule, regulation, order, public notice or any other instrument must go through a legally prescribed process to become lawful exercise of authority.
It is not sufficient just to claim that a notice is issued by the state house that a day is a public holiday for a public holiday to be lawfully declared. This is not the position of the law. Any lawful order must first be made by relying on an Act or other Legal instrument that must be cited to give it legitimacy and legislative effect. Suffice it to say, simple declaration over the media is not sufficient as far as the requirement of the Law is concerned. The law does not have any provision for overnight announcement of an executive order such as the proclamation of a Public holiday without any publication in the Gazette. If an executive order is to be lawful, an Act or legal instrument must first give powers to the authority to make such an order. Secondly, the authority shall ensure the publication of the order in the gazette. It shall have the force of law on the date of publication or on the date stipulated in the publication for it come into effect. This is clearly stipulated in the Interpretation Act.
Government order means “an order made by or by command of the President or by any other person under powers conferred by Act of the National Assembly or any other legislative authority.”
Such an order is classified as subsidiary legislation under the interpretation Act. Subsidiary legislation means “…...any proclamation, rule, regulation, order, Notice, by -law, or other instrument made under any Act or by or under any other lawful authority and having legislative effect.”
Section 11 of the Interpretation Act stipulates the process that an order goes through to become supplementary legislation with legislative effect. It states among other things that:
“(c) a subsidiary legislation shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; Furthermore, it adds that
“(d) subsidiary legislation shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of law upon the publication thereof or from the date named therein…”
It is therefore mandatory for executive orders to be published in the Gazette to have the force of law. It is incontrovertible that to issue and implement executive orders without citing their sources in law and ensuring their publication in the Gazette for them to have legislative effect is to deviate from the principle of the rule of law.
The recent vacuum created by dissolving Interim Management Teams and thus deprive councils of elected members and management teams is an aberration and measures should be taken to amend the laws to avoid any recurrence. We hope the lapses we have been pointing out in constitutional and democratic governance would be given more attention.
In our view, governing a country, no matter who is at the helm, is not a one-sided affair. Our role is to filter the flaws of governance and propose redress. The duty of those at the helm is to abide by the compass of law and exemplary practice or risk crisis of integrity. Any wise and reasonable government would bear in mind that constitutions, institutions and administrative practices are not established once and for all. Constitutions, institutions and normative practices in governance are refined over time through practice. Constitutions that have basic democratic pillars are refined by the interpretation of democratic minded and just judges and amendments proposed by a well organised and enlightened citizenry that monitors lapses and demand for amendments.
As an opposition party we have a duty to scrutinise, criticise and restrain government from disregarding law and good practice in governance and plunge a country into the abyss of impunity and arbitrary rule. I am still to remind you that PDOIS as part of the Gambia Opposition For Electoral Reform (GOFER) which incorporated the group of six is waiting for your government to concede to Reverend Jackson’s mediation efforts. The hands of time can never be bound. We must move with it or be left behind. Gambian politics needs a new leash of life. The old way is leading us into a blind allay.
The results of the Local Government elections reveal a vote of no confidence in the electoral system. Out of 187,757 registered voters in KMC only 36,755 voters participated. This is 19.6 percent of the registered voters. There is indeed need for political dialogue and electoral reform.The inevitable should not be delayed. Your Government is now writing its history. The first Republic has already written its history. The Constitutional provisions you pioneer, the judicial precedence you endorse and applaud and the response you give to demands and proposals for better instruments and institutions will serve as an indictment or defence before the court of posterity and eternal justice.
We strongly recommend that a Human Rights and Good Governance Department be set up at the Ministry of Justice to begin to look at the lapses in governance and cooperate with the Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights Commission to be to look into all genuine concerns. As the saying goes, “it is better late than never”. As far as we are concerned, we are not writing because we are under any illusion that we could compel you to do anything. We are writing to be counted among those people who refuse to sit and watch things deteriorate and then say we thought so.
We want history to record that we have said everything that needed to be said, at the time it was needed and in the way and manner it was needed to be effective in helping to re-think and re-shape the destiny of the motherland. All the good examples are in place for any citizen to assimilate and be an asset instead of a liability to the country. It is possible for all to enjoy liberty, dignity and prosperity. The leaders bear the greatest responsibility in making the nation float or sink. Each has the duty to engage destiny. History will pass its judgement.
Halifa Sallah Secretary General, PDOIS"
|
Edited by - kobo on 30 Apr 2013 08:32:05 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2013 : 11:24:12
|
But was he not one of the people who drafted the constitution and even went around the country campaigning in support of it? This is sheer hypocrisy.
And by the way, the setting up of different inauguration dates for the councils although not a good governance practice, is still perfectly legal and not in any way or form unconstitutional.
Yes, the government has an opportunity to change things for the good but it is the drafters including Halifa who ultimately have to take responsibility for the mess created.
Halifa and Sidia are even more blameworthy than the govt because not only did they contributed in the drafting, they also campaigned for a 'yes' vote. No scapegoating please!!!
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 30 Apr 2013 11:32:58 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2013 : 11:40:07
|
NYARIKANBANNA. GO BACK HOME AND SET UP YOUR CHAMBERS, IF YOU ARE LEGALLY COMPETENT TO DO SO, FOR IT APPEARS AND/OR IMPRESSION GIVEN IS THAT YOU ARE ALL THE TIME TRYING TO IMPRESS US AS PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED LAWYER, LAW BEING YOUR CAREER AND A LEGAL EXPERT 
I WILL COME BACK TO YOUR COMMENTS LATER
CHEERS! |
Edited by - kobo on 30 Apr 2013 11:42:58 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2013 : 13:04:51
|
It is always better to ignore the waifs and astrays whenever a debate of this nature is around.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2013 : 23:53:45
|
"But was he not one of the people who drafted the constitution and even went around the country campaigning in support of it? This is sheer hypocrisy.
And by the way, the setting up of different inauguration dates for the councils although not a good governance practice, is still perfectly legal and not in any way or form unconstitutional.
Yes, the government has an opportunity to change things for the good but it is the drafters including Halifa who ultimately have to take responsibility for the mess created.
Halifa and Sidia are even more blameworthy than the govt because not only did they contributed in the drafting, they also campaigned for a 'yes' vote. No scapegoating please!!!"
Nyari, whatever personal issues you may have with Halifa, which makes you to be dismissive of him, although not on the basis of any substantive arguments that negates the fundamental principles, the moral acumen and the intellectual comportment that underpins his social standing, it is becoming quite irrational to be picking on him every time his name appears anywhere just because you feel like doing so.
What makes it difficult for me to ignore you, is that I have made it my concern to read everything that Halifa writes, spanning well over more than two decades, and I do not see anything in all the issues that you raised that has the intellectual basis to challenge what Halifa has written or what he has been saying for more than 30 years. It is there; it is just that you never bothered to take issue with its substantive appeal.
On the issue of the 1997 constitution, Halifa has extensively written about his role in its promulgation; what are or were the basis of his reasoning in supporting it. Halifa has expansively debated with other Gambians when the issue came up, you can check the archives of the Bantaba in early 2000 or thereabouts. Whatever the shortcomings of the constitution, Halifa has given the rational basis that makes him to support it. If you want to take issue with that, you should take issue with the intellectual basis that informs his decision to support the constitution. That would have made for a more compelling argument.
What makes it difficult to take issue with Halifa without merit, is that the man has a substantive literature on Gambian politics, society and economics, and you just cannot befuddle the issues whilst this enormous storehouse of knowledge is out there; and in the archives. This is what you have to deal with.
Like him or hate him, and I will continue to say this, he is a formidable force that will continue to guide and help shape the evolution of the third republic.
|
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2013 : 11:37:08
|
Rene, glad to see u again.
I did not only read Halifa's reasons for supporting the constitution, I also witnessed him spoke in defense of the draft constitution at a time when nobody else is allowed to do so especially if you are going to speak against it.
If Halifa has any moral wit in himself, he would have refused to campaign for the draft constitution unless the Junta lift the ban on political activities. That way, those with dissenting and divergent views can be heard too. If that had happened, it won't have taken Halifa 17yrs to realise that the constitution he so passionately supported and defended is full of lapses and lacunas.
My criticisms are fact based and if you think they are personal to halifa, well maybe that is only because your Ayatollah has so much character flaws that the facts are intractibly linked to his person.
Putting all that side, it is incontovertible that whatever flaws or lacuna the constitution exhibits, it is the drafters and those who campaigned for a 'yes vote' when campaign for a 'No vote' is utterly outlawed who should take responsibility and the blame for that rather than the govt. I therefore find it grossly hypocritical that instead of accepting responsibility, Halifa is putting the blame entirely at the doorstep of the govt when in fact, the govt is not flouting any provision of the constitution as far as this issue is concern.
Yes, the govt have not adopted a good governance practice when they should have, their actions are nonetheless entirely legal and this is thanks to some of the flaws exhibited by the constitution. This is not to say everthing in or about the constitution is bad but only that some of the things Halifa is complaining of actually stem from the flaws of the constitution and that makes it all the fault of the drafters and those who campaigned for a 'yes vote' and that includes Halifa himself.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 01 May 2013 15:10:03 |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 02:44:06
|
"Rene, glad to see u again."
Glad to see you again, Nyari, although it is always about Halifa. I hope I will be reading you often with your take on other issues besides Halifa. Your recent contributions are interesting. You should keep the focus in that area, we can learn a lot more from you.
"I did not only read Halifa's reasons for supporting the constitution, I also witnessed him spoke in defense of the draft constitution at a time when nobody else is allowed to do so especially if you are going to speak against it."
I wonder then why you did not give him the benefit of the doubt. Halifa was merely expressing his God-given right as a Gambian, and at the time I presume he was not representing your interest or the interest of other Gambians who were opposed to his position. He was representing his interest and the interest of other Gambians who were in support of his position.
And this makes sense, if you consider the fact that there was a constitutional vacuum, and people have the choice either to accept a draft constitution with all its faults, or continue to be govern under decrees until such a time that the Junta was ready to give them a constitution they deem necessary.
Halifa believed that he was better off with a constitution with faults that can be remedied at a later time, than living under a governance environment with decrees. Others could have argued the other way, of living under a governance environment with decrees until such a time that the Junta could give them a constitution without faults.
We are witnessing the ramifications of the first choice, but would not know the ramifications of the second choice because the majority of Gambians didn't have to make that choice. We would never know.
Nonetheless, we can learn a lot from the exchanges between the people who were for or against the draft constitution. And eventually the 1997 constitution.
I take it that you were active on the Gambia-l in the late nineties, and that you were also conversant with the robust debates between Halifa and those young articulate, brilliant and promising Gambian minds who challenged his stance on the 1997 constitution and other political issues.
The result was an exercise in political orientation and civic education, and the answers to the questions you raised and lot more are contained therein in those Gambia-l archives.
Nonetheless, Halifa has written a lot in these exchanges, and even if I have to rely only on these exchanges, they can form the basis of any response to the questions you raised. They are voluminous but it was my intention to forward them here for our perusal.
"If Halifa has any moral wit in himself, he would have refused to campaign for the draft constitution unless the Junta lift the ban on political activities. That way, those with dissenting and divergent views can be heard too. If that had happened, it won't have taken Halifa 17yrs to realise that the constitution he so passionately supported and defended is full of lapses and lacunas."
Nyari, I don't think you are being fair to Halifa then and also now. Halifa is just one voice, one person, although we can argue that his voice carry a lot of weight. Do you think that if Halifa would have refused to campaign for the draft constitution the Junta would have lifted the ban on political activities? Do you seriously believe that?
What happened to all the recommendations that they made for the draft constitution, which was neither included in the draft nor the constitution itself? This should inform us that at this time the only loyalty that the Junta had was to themselves. Halifa couldn't force the Junta to lift the ban on political parties, and you know that. You should hold that against him.
Secondly, I thought that the draft constitution represented the "dissenting and divergent views", since the draft contained the views of people with divergent interest. Thus there were those who supported it and those who against it. It could not have represented the views of any one Gambian. It could not have represented the views o only the Junta. I believe as a living document, it was a work in progress. The reason why after 17 years Halifa could point out its anomaly and asked for its redress.
"My criticisms are fact based and if you think they are personal to halifa, well maybe that is only because your Ayatollah has so much character flaws that the facts are intractibly linked to his person."
If your criticisms are personal they cannot be fact based, that is the reason why there is a personal opinion and an objective opinion which could be fact based. The opinions that are personal to you may not be the opinions that other people share. Those opinions can also have character flaws which can be intractibly linked to your person.
"Putting all that side, it is incontovertible that whatever flaws or lacuna the constitution exhibits, it is the drafters and those who campaigned for a 'yes vote' when campaign for a 'No vote' is utterly outlawed who should take responsibility and the blame for that rather than the govt."
Who were the drafters? Didn't what they produced represented the diverse interest of the Gambian people? Why is then that some supported it and others opposed it? We can go back to the same arguments as before. A "no vote" was outlawed?
"I therefore find it grossly hypocritical that instead of accepting responsibility, Halifa is putting the blame entirely at the doorstep of the govt when in fact, the govt is not flouting any provision of the constitution as far as this issue is concern."
I think you are misrepresenting Halifa's position. One of the reasons why Halifa supported the constitution, among many other reasons, was the fact that what was before the Gambian people was not a perfect document that could be acceptable to all, however it was a governance instrument that could guide and foster constitutional rule. It would have been better to put Halifa in quotes, as this view is contained in the exchanges that I referred to on the Gambia-l archives.
As a constitution is a living document, Halifa envisages that all the defects in the constitution could be corrected overtime, and it should be the responsibility of all citizens, not only Halifa, to stay vigilant on the defects of the constitution and asked for their redress. This is what you have seen him doing continually. Why you can find fault with this pertinent civic responsibility baffles me.
"Yes, the govt have not adopted a good governance practice when they should have, their actions are nonetheless entirely legal and this is thanks to some of the flaws exhibited by the constitution. This is not to say everthing in or about the constitution is bad but only that some of the things Halifa is complaining of actually stem from the flaws of the constitution and that makes it all the fault of the drafters and those who campaigned for a 'yes vote' and that includes Halifa himself."
Yea. Yea. Thanks for the response.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 03:44:21
|
Nyarikangbanna. THANK YOU FOR BEING A DEVIL ADVOCATE AND MAKING HALIFA SALLAH A SUPER HUMAN; OPPOSING ALL HIS VIEWS, PROSECUTING AND/OR ALWAYS CONDEMNING HIM FOR ALL OUR NATIONS PROBLEM; FLAWS OF THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTION AND GAMBIA POLITICS
I TOLD YOU AM COMING TO NAG YOU ON YOUR RUBBISH COMMENTS
YOU HAVE A PERSONAL PROBLEM AND SHOULD OWN UP TO ARROGANCE, EGOISTIC, POMPOUS WITH YOUR EDUCATION AND THINKING YOU CAN OVER RULE ON HALIFA SALLAH'S PROPOSITIONS; ALWAYS MANIFESTED BY THE ONE AND ONLY GREAT "MY LORD" NYARIKANGBANNA |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 03:47:07
|
Sankalanka Before I deal with Nyarikangbanna's sarcastic rubbish; pointless comments and distortions of Halifa Sallah's propositions on Councils, the specific Constitutional lapses and flaws that he pointed out to The Authorities (The President & Judiciary); let me help you to make the job easy for you with these useful sources you looking for references to discredit Nyarikangbanna's false allegations, defamatory and deceitful inept remarks; with courtesy of Gambia-l;
1. SOURCE 1- GAMBIA-L Re:1997 Constitution
"Joe,
Thank you for the message. I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I also feel that the topic has been exhausted. However, I do not have a choice. I have been placed in an accused box. As long as the questions keep on coming, I will have to continue to answer. Of course, my humble view is that we have reached the stage of agreeing or agreeing to disagree.
All reasonable human beings know that history does not develop just as we please. Our choices and decisions are dictated by the length and breadth of the circumstances we inherit.
It is not in dispute that The Gambia had to have a constitution in order to move to a constitutional order after the coup. It is not in dispute that the 1997 Constitution is superior to the 1970 constitution. It is not in dispute that the 1997 constitution has flaws. The point at issue now is whether those flaws should have led to its total rejection or not.
My position is that since the 1997 constitution has essentially the same flaws as the 1970 constitution which had obtained for 24 years prior to the coup; taking into consideration that contains superior provisions which empower the National Assembly to have more effective control over the executive and the people greater power to control misrepresentation through the exercise of the right to recall, it was best to accept it and start from there to work for the elimination of its flaws. This could be done in two ways: if the people had elected another government other than APRC, the changes could have been inevitable. Where the APRC is in office, more pressure could be exerted where freedom of expression and association are guaranteed for changes than under a coup set-up. This is my point.
For Hamjatta and Saul, the 1997 constitution should have been rejected. According to them, we should have gone back to the drawing board for a new draft, and may I add, under a coup set-up. What they fail to explain is when that new draft would have been acceptable to those who held power and the people in general. All they seem to say is that Gambians and the international community would have put pressure for an ideal constitution to emerge. They are yet to explain why that internal and external pressure has not been brought to bear since 1997 to deal with the flaws which should have led to the rejection of the constitution, as well as the banning of major parties which claimed to have very large mass following.
Since my position is sensible to me, and their position is sensible to them, we should just simply agree to disagree, full stop. They are free to say that I was in error; I am also free to call them dreamers if I so desire. This is how matters stand.
I agree with you that nothing new can be added to these two different positions. It should be left to the rest of the G-L members to decide which position they would have supported if they had not had the opportunity to vote 'yes' or 'no' during the referendum.
If you are interested in some of the booklets we produced during the period, they are available. FOROYAA produced the whole draft constitution in twelve booklets which cost D24.00 as compared to D100.00 for the whole draft constitution produced by the then Printing Department. Anybody who is interested may contact us. I believe those who have seen these pamphlets could already confirm that we took a very critical view of the provisions of the draft constitution and had made many recommendations in those booklets. In fact some people used to take these criticisms and make them their own and then attribute to us a very uncritical posture that is a classic case of drinking from the well and spitting in it at the same time. Pardon me if I sound a bit arrogant.
I hope I have not bored you by this intervention. I am simply trying to throw more light on what we tried to do during this period to contribute our quota in shaping the future of the country even though we did not have any army or control any mass movement to put pressure on anyone to do anything.
Halifa Sallah." AND FROM THE HORSE MOUTH
2. RELATED FOROYAA's REVIEW OF THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF THE SECOND REPUBLIC ;
2. SOURCE 1-FOROYAA ARCHIVES;
|
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 05:14:11
|
Kobo, thanks a lot. You are a great resource person. You can see that the forwards are relevant today as they were more than a decade ago.
Halifa was very insightful in putting across all that resourceful information, and we are better of coming back to all these pertinent issues after all these years. His capacity to be instructive and to give freely of his knowledge, is what I and many others cherished. His contributions are formidable, and they will remain a great source of hope and inspiration as our struggle continues.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 12:57:10
|
Rene, you cannot re-write history and all these clutter you just thrown in here is doing nothing to change the facts. Here are the fundamentals of this subject:
1. Yes, the drafters include people from diverse professional background,some of their recommendations were actually expunged and those who disagreed with this were not only alienated but also unable to say so to the people because of the ban on political activities imposed by the junta.
2. The junta also refused to lift the ban on political activities and that ensured that those holding dissenting and divergent views on the draft constitution were not heard by the Gambian people. In essence only those who agreed with the final draft were allowed to sell it to the gambian people and this denied the electorates any chance of weighing the prons and cons of the constitution in order to make an informed decision at the referendum and Halifa was complicit in that.
3. Notwithstanding all the hindrances to a constructive debate which would have allowed the dissenting and divergent voices to be heard and contribute towards shaping the decision of the sovereign electorates who were ill informed about the content of the constitution, Halifa and his collection of indignant PDOIS associates decided to go around the country and sold the constitution to the people as the best Gambia can ever have and now, we have the same Halifa complaining about lapses and lacunas exhibited by the very constitution he himself sold to the people. My problem with that is; he is scapegoating the govt rather than accepting his own responsibility in the matter. That, to me, is dishonesty of the highest order.
4. Halifa had an opportunity to prevail over the junta to ensure that debate and campaigning of all sorts, not just for the yes vote, was allowed over the draft constitution before it is presented to a referendum. Sine that was not going to happen, he (halifa) should have recused himself from leading the 'yes' campaign as matter of morality and political ethics especially given that a 'No' campaign is completely and utterly outlawed. The fact that he hasn't done this is morally reprehensible and that also means he has no moral standing whatsoever, to advise govt about the lapses or lacunas exhibited by the constitution- some of them are there at the expense of good governance- because his fingerprints are all over them.
These are the facts, Rene and your ideological spinning is doing nothing to change them for they are incontrovertible. The constitution was not voted on the basis of its merits but for some extraneous reasons which the Junta backed Yes Campaign thought were more important than anything else and now we have one of its leaders, Halifa Ababacarr Sallah, blaming all but himself for the trouble the flaws of the constitution have brought to bear on the governance situation in the country. This is despicable!!!
Most of your forwards and comments here are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion and I have decided to ignore them. I know you only do that just to try to confuse the readership hence, my reason for laying out the facts in a more succinct way.
While you cling on Halifa's wishful and rudimentary ideology, I will continue to concern myself with facts.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 02 May 2013 14:32:34 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 14:28:11
|
The disciples are taking the bloody heat
Cool |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
sankalanka
270 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2013 : 19:02:08
|
"Rene, you cannot re-write history and all these clutter you just thrown in here is doing nothing to change the facts. Here are the fundamentals of this subject:"
It is interesting that you are only comfortable with your own "facts" but always dismissive of anything else that does not support your assumptions and contentions. What we have so far forwarded gives ample evidence that there was a high degree of conviction and goodwill on behalf of HALIFA and PDOIS to do everything in their capacity to serve and promote the interest of the Gambian people.
I don't think you can ever be able to take this away from them. I am not attempting to rewrite history, history has already been written in the voluminous records that we have in our archives. We only need to find them as resourceful.
But if you should consider such resources as "clutter" and would consign them to the garbage bin, how else can you develop any intellectual basis to inform the arguments that you want to make.
"1. Yes, the drafters include people from diverse professional background,some of their recommendations were actually expunged and those who disagreed with this were not only alienated but also unable to say so to the people because of the ban on political activities imposed by the junta."
I think there is a discrepancy in the way you want to advance this argument. There are three different things. First, the drafters of the constitution include people from diverse professional backgrounds. Second, they make recommendations which are removed from their draft. And third, as you would want us to believe, some of the people who disagreed with what was included or omitted, were not only alienated but have no platform to render their disagreement because of the ban on political activities.
To begin with there was a ban on political parties even before the whole constitutional process started. It was under this banning of political activities that the constitutional process started and ended. It was also under this ban that the drafters review the different recommendations and proposals that were submitted to them. Suffice to say, and regardless of the ban, the drafters were able to draw from all the divergent views and interest to place a document before the Gambian people. The people were then given the choice to either accept the document or reject it.
Therefore your statement that people who wanted to oppose the document when they had the choice to vote "no", but because of the ban couldn't talked about what they disagreed with before they can vote "no" lacks merit. The people had only two options: yes or no. The campaign that was going on was to convince people to vote either yes or no.
2." The junta also refused to lift the ban on political activities and that ensured that those holding dissenting and divergent views on the draft constitution were not heard by the Gambian people. In essence only those who agreed with the final draft were allowed to sell it to the gambian people and this denied the electorates any chance of weighing the prons and cons of the constitution in order to make an informed decision at the referendum and Halifa was complicit in that."
I thought the dissenting and divergent views were already reflected in the draft. The Junta expunged whatever they didn't like and leave the rest as the document that was presented to the people. The problem you seem to portray as I understand it is the "selling" of this document and for people to either accept of reject it. The ban couldn't have changed the outcome because it was already in place before the whole thing started. This cannot be an excuse for you to hold people accountable for what they could not control.
3." Notwithstanding all the hindrances to a constructive debate which would have allowed the dissenting and divergent voices to be heard and contribute towards shaping the decision of the sovereign electorates who were ill informed about the content of the constitution, Halifa and his collection of indignant PDOIS associates decided to go around the country and sold the constitution to the people as the best Gambia can ever have and now, we have the same Halifa complaining about lapses and lacunas exhibited by the very constitution he himself sold to the people. My problem with that is; he is scapegoating the govt rather than accepting his own responsibility in this matter."
Halifa is not scapegoating the government, he is holding the government responsible. This is what every citizen should endeavor to do: to hold their government to account.
Yes there are lapses in the constitution, and Halifa was aware of them and admitted to their existence, and he had done everything and still continues to do evrything in his capacity to make sure that these lapses are corrected. At least he has given his reasons for supporting the document with the lapses and committed himself to changing those lapses for the better. This is a mark of sincerity.
4. Halifa had an opportunity to prevail over the junta to ensure that debate and campaigning of all sorts, not just for the yes vote, was allowed over the draft constitution before it is presented to a referendum."
Wow, you are assigning to Halifa powers that he himself never claim to possess. There was no representative government at the time because the government was overthrown, and now you want us to believe that Halifa who represented nobody at the time except his interest and others who share those interest, can actually prevail on the Junta to do your bidding. Even whereas he doesn't want to do your bidding, and now you still want to hold him responsible.
"Sine that was not going to happen, he (halifa) should have recused himself from leading the 'yes' campaign as matter of morality and political ethics especially given that a 'No' campaign is completely and utterly outlawed."
My question is: why do you want to control the activities of a fellow citizen even when you do not share the same predisposition? Why would you want Halifa to recused himself from carrying out his sovereign and civil responsibilities? The fact that you are making these claims tells us more about you than Halifa.
"The fact that he hasn't done this is morally reprehensible and that also means he has no moral standing whatsoever, to advise govt about the lapses or lacunas exhibited by the constitution much to the expense of good governance because his fingerprints are all over them."
Nyari, I will come to this point and your closing statements next. I am off to work right now.
These are the facts, Rene and your ideological spinning is doing nothing to change them for they are incontrovertible. The constitution was not voted on the basis of its merits but for some extraneous reasons which the Junta backed Yes Campaign thought were more important than anything else and now we have one of its leaders, Halifa Ababacarr Sallah, blaming all but himself for the trouble the flaws of the constitution have brought to bear on the governance situation in the country. This is despicable!!!
Most of your forwards and comments here are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion and I have decided to ignore them. I know you only do that just to try to confuse the readership hence, my reason for laying out the facts in a more succinct way.
While you cling on Halifa's wishful and rudimentary ideology, I will continue to concern myself with facts.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2013 : 17:02:12
|
UPDATE: FOROYAA BURNING ISSUES NEWS;
"30 April 2013
Minister Of Regional Administration And Lands
The Quadrangle
Banjul
ON THE CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR SUCCESSION OF POLITICAL OFFICE AFTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
We have been following the procedures adopted in facilitating the assumption of office by newly elected members of Councils after the 4th April 2013 Local Government Elections.
We have raised many questions questioning the procedures adopted to convene the first meeting of the various councils after the local government elections. We thought it fair to be more proactive in sharing our views on how the process could have been conducted under the current laws.
In our view, the first task after the elections should have been to convene a meeting comprising staff of your Ministry,members of each of the Interim Management Teams, the Regional Governors or the Chief Executive Officers of Banjul and Kanifing respectively, representatives of the AG Chambers and the Independent Electoral Commission to review the realistic date for the inauguration of all the councils in the country.
Once the date of the first sitting is fixed it would be communicated to the President and published in the Gazette as Public notice by the Governors and The Chief Executive officers who are empowered by Section 28 of the Local Government Act as amended to fix the date of the first meeting.
Following the publication of the date, the President would then fix the date of the dissolution of the Interim Management Teams to accord with the day preceding the date fixed for the first sitting of the Councils after the election.
This proposal is in line with the current provisions of the Local Government Act. In short, Section 9 (a) of the Local Government Act empowers the Interim Management Teams to stay in Office until the day preceding the first meeting of the Councils after a local Government Election. The teams are important in the equation for political succession.
According to the amended version of Section 28 of the Local Government Act: “The Governor and in the case of Banjul and Kanifing, the Chief Executive Officers shall appoint a date for the first meeting of the Council after a local government election and thereafter every other meeting of the council shall be convened at least once a month by the Chairperson.”
The Governors and the CEO of Banjul and Kanifing are also important in the equation. The IEC comes in because of the election of the Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Area Councils.
According to Section 13 of the Local Government Act as amended in 2007 “a Chairperson other than a Mayor or Mayoress shall be elected by the councillors from among the councilors.”
It adds that the “The Independent Electoral Commission shall preside over the election of a Chairperson under subsection (2).” The election of a chairperson shall be the first business transacted at the meeting at the Council, held after a local government election”
According to section 16: “The Council shall elect a deputy Chair person from among the councillors …”
In the past, all the chairpersons were directly elected by the electorate and the deputy chairperson was elected by the council at its first meeting. This is why the following provision was enacted. “The election of Deputy Chairperson shall be the first business transacted at the first meeting of a council held after a local government election ….”
However the law was amended to negate the direct election of the chairperson by the electorate and the introduction of election by council members. This is why the following provision was introduced without amending the provision which made it a requirement for the election of deputy chairperson by councillors to be the first business of the council after an election.
The new provision reads:“The election of a Chairperson shall be the first business transacted at the meeting of the council held after an election.”
Hence the two provisions need to be reconciled.
Notwithstanding this the IEC’s role in the first sitting makes it important in the equation. In our view, until measures are taken to statutorily fix the day for the first sitting of a council after Council elections, the procedure we have highlighted could be relied on to ensure consistency in political succession after local government elections.
While hoping that you will find the proposals relevant,
I remain Yours in the service of the people
Halifa Sallah Secretary General, PDOIS" |
Edited by - kobo on 04 May 2013 17:06:58 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
