 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11684 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Nov 2007 : 12:47:06
|
Foroyaa Editorial:
The politics of Appointments
Time For The Courts To Rescue Constitutionality
Elected Councillors Should File Cases
During the coup period, the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) had absolute power to make laws and appoint anyone to any post. This enabled it to hire and fire at will. They therefore constituted the councils as they wished. The return to constitutional rule is proving to be a challenge to the APRC government which appears to have grown accustomed to the absolute powers of the coup period. What is surprising to many is the speed with which the executive has moved to dissolve councils and appoint management teams.
First and foremost, Section 100 subsection 7 of the Constitution states that “no act of the National Assembly shall come into operation until it has been published in the Gazette…”
According to the section, when a bill is passed, it has to be assented to by the president and published in the Gazette within 30 days of assent.
The secretary of State for Local Government has recently taken a bill to the national assembly which called for the dissolution of councils three months before an election and the appointment of a management team by the President to run them prior to elections. The dissolution has already been effected and the appointments of the Management teams have also taken place. Foroyaa will monitor the Gazettes to see whether the provisions of the constitution have been complied with.
What is of greater concern is the constitutionality of the Management teams. Section 193 of the Constitution makes it Mandatory for local Government Administration to be based on a system of democratically elected councils. We repeat - Section 193 reads : “Local Government Administration in the Gambia shall be based on a system of democratically elected councils with a high degree of local autonomy.” There is no room for management teams The provision which creates this management team to replace elected councillors is unconstitutional. Elected councillors should go to court to challenge this under section 5 of the Constitution.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues
Issue No. 131/2007, 7 – 8 November 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2007 : 18:27:45
|
Those who condemn Jammeh for his brutal lawlessness have been vindicated beyond doubt. From start, Jammeh had respect for LAWS. Now is is not ashame to do it openly. What are Gambians waiting?? Pakistan is far away from Gambia but their manner of dictatorial masked army presidents have everything in common. If Pakistanis can disown a dictator Musharaf, Gambians too have great occasion to resist and disown dictator Jammeh. What is there to protect us in the absence of our laws? |
Karamba |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 07 Nov 2007 : 18:55:49
|
Section 5[a] of the constitution allows anybody who alleges that the constitution is being breached or not observed in respect of any issue to challenge that breach or omission in court. So, instead of bombarding us with all these constitutional lectures and if he believes in what he is saying, why can't Ayatollah Sallah go to court and prove himself . Action speaks louder than words. He should therefore go there and prove himself or shut-up and give everybody some element of peace. It is not good enough saying elected councillors should mount a challenge under Section 5 of the constitution because anybody can make use of section 5 to challenge unconstitutional acts in court. You do not have to be a victim of the unconstitutional act to be able to gain locus standi. Since Ayatollah Sallah has now alleged that the removal of elected councillors is unconstitutional, it is equally his responsibility both as a self-style constitutional expert and indeed as a person who alleges that the constitution has been violated, as well as that of the elected councillors to challenge the allege unconstitutionality in court. Failure to do so would be a manifestation of indifference, untrusthworthiness and lack of credibility of his [Halifa Sallah's] assertions and person. See below section 5[a]
Any person who alleges that -
[a] any act of the National Assembly or anything done under the authority of an Act of the National Assembly, or
1. any act or omission of any person or authority, is inconsistent with; or is in contravention of a provision of this constitution, may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.
Let the Ayatollah prove himself or shut-up!
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 07 Nov 2007 20:47:40 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
