|
Momodou
Denmark
11644 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Dec 2007 : 22:40:42
|
FOCUS ON POLITICS
PDOIS CALLS ON PRESIDENT JAWARA TO APOLOGIZE OR RESIGN; WOULD HE ACT?
With Suwaibou Touray
We have been focusing on politics in general and Gambian politics in particular.
This is what motivates us to follow the narration of events from pre-colonial to the post-independence era. We have successfully followed events up to 1989 and are dealing with the aftermath of the famous libel case against Editor Sanna Manneh.
We have stopped where we said the Nation dubbed the phenomena of using public resources as a ‘fankung fankung syndrome’ meaning each for oneself and no one for the nation; that ‘the ego-centric attitude must stop if the Gambia is to March forward,’ the Nation warned.
Let us follow from where we have stopped.
The PDOIS THROUGH their mouthpiece wrote an open letter to President Jawara to resign or apologize to the Gambian people for his inaction after the judgment of Hon. Wallace Grante, which went against his two cabinet ministers.
Foroyaa maintained that the justification given by President Jawara for his inaction was ridiculous and baseless making them to honour his pronouncement with laughter.
In the final analysis they said the PDOIS is working to bring about change in the Gambia.
They said they are aware that total change is not brought about by the removal of this minister or that minister from the cabinet. That as far as they are concerned, regardless of which minister is changed; the P.P.P regime remains the same. They said to them, what fosters change is the attitude of the people towards a regime, i.e. their lack of confidence in and their level of dissatisfaction with the regime. They said they have been going from Banjul to Koina just to prove to the people that the P.P.P regime is not competent to address their needs and aspirations for life and liberty, freedom and happiness, dignity and prosperity, justice and fair play.
The PDOIS maintained that if the president decides to defy common sense and take a course of action which does not respond effectively to the expectations of the people; if he prefers for the credibility of his regime to be further eroded by giving justification for his action which is not convincing to even a person without an elementary understanding of the ABC of the present constitution or judicial procedure; if a regime prefers to commit political suicide by alienating the people, why should they be dissatisfied with its action? They asked. They felt that the lack of action was to their political advantage for the president to take the decision he took.
Foroyaa opined that the trial of Sanna Manneh has opened up a chapter in Gambian history.
They said one would not be guilty of exaggeration if it were referred to as the most interesting and dramatic trial in Gambian history.
ON INDECISIVENESS
PDOIS said the president is guilty of indecisiveness.
The PDOIS explained that a court has said that Sanna Manneh has acted within the law but the decision of the court did not seem to be perfectly acceptable to the president.
They said it must be said that the press is free to investigate any matter of importance not because of president Jawara’s permission but because it is their constitutional right to do so. They maintained that the same constitution that makes the president’s government lawful is the same that guarantees Gambians their freedom of expression. They however said government may ofcourse decide to impose tyranny on a people and seize their freedoms but
however asserted that sooner of later the people must rise up to abolish such tyranny.
This they asserted is a fundamental law of history and it is inviolable.
The article concluded by calling on the president among many other things that he was perfectly free to act according to the rule of law; that is, in accordance with the decision of the magistrate or by the rule of imagination, i.e. the intention of the Attorney General. They however reminded the president that what history teaches is that the unpopular and unjustifiable action of a political head serves as fertilizer to nurture the seed of change; that a political head therefore ignores the aspirations of the people at his or her own peril.
IS THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OF INDECISIVENESS?
PDOIS said now that the legal foundation upon which the president erected his justification for not taking action has been destroyed, one might now wonder what other defence he has to justify his inaction. Obviously they said anybody who is faithful to truth and common sense would not be able to see any other defence the president can rely on to justify his inaction. Hence, it is now the duty of the president to act in accordance with the decision of the court. If he fails to act, they advised, then it should be clear to all that he was hiding behind legal justification to cover up his indecisiveness.
“Infact, if the matter is given a closer look one would tend to see that the president is indeed guilty of indecisiveness. In short, he has tried to give the impression that he is waiting for the decision of a higher court to act, but there is a minister who has been accused of corruption and no step has been taken by the state to defend his innocence.” PDOIS posited.
They said since the minister has not taken any action and does not seem to want to be a subject of much discussion, they have decided not to mention his name. Notwithstanding, the failure of the president to take action against such a minister even though no appeal is pending in respect of his case confirms that the president’s inaction is due to indecisiveness.
Needless to say, PDOIS pushed, a president who cannot be decisive on a matter of public interest cannot be said to be fully prepared to shoulder the burden of leading a nation. They further opined that it is therefore important for the president to become decisive. If he fails to act,PDOIS said, then it should become apparent that he cannot be decisive on a matter of public interest. In that case, they said he should resign and leave the nation to be guided by someone who would not hesitate to take decision that is in line with justice and common sense. That they said is their third point.
IS THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED TO THE PRINICLPLE OF EQUITY?
Foroyaa quoted section 36, sub-section (1) of the constitution and said the president has sworn that he ‘will do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear of favour, affection or ill-ill.’ These are the underlying principles of equity under the Gambian constitution that posited.
In his interview with Mr. Baboucarr Gaye, they wrote that the president said; “the legal authorities feel that the judgment should be appealed against, I think the matter should be pursued in the interest of equity and justice.” In short, they said the president is implying that it is in accordance with the principles of equity for him to wait for the decision of a higher court. The PDOIS then examined how the president behaved in the past towards ministers and public servants who have been accused of corruption and how he is behaving towards the two ministers concerned in this case. This they said will determine whether the president can be said to be adhering to the principle of equity for not acting.
They then asked the President, how did you behave towards Alhajie Musa Darboe in the 1960s when he was accused of corruption?and then asked, did he lose his ministerial post before he was taken before a court for trial? What about Mr. K.C.A. Kah, a former minister of Health? Didn’t he suffer the same fate? ‘Why did you remove Mr. Kuti Sanyang from his post as minister of works and communications? Isn’t it on the basis of unproven allegations? What happened to Mr. Fafa Mbye, the former Minister of justice? Was he not removed from office on the basis of allegations and subjected before an Asset evaluation commission, which froze all his assets pending investigation? Why did Dr. Manneh lose his ministerial post? Was it not on the basis of allegations? Why did Mr. Sheriff Dibba gave up the vice presidency? Was it not because his brother was found to use state vehicles to engage in alleged corrupt practices?”
“What about Mr. Janneh, former minister for Local Government? Was he not removed on the basis of allegations? Let us now move away from the ministers to the civil servants. We don’t have to go into detail to mention the countless number of public servants who have been interdicted or removed from their positions on the basis of allegations. Let us refer to very recent developments to prove our point.”
PDOIS mentioned many employees of the Gambia Cooperative Union who they said were still wandering about without jobs even though the courts have acquitted and discharged them.They cited the former Manager Director of the Agriculture Development Bank, GUC, GPMB, GCDB and the former Comptroller of Customs end other staff who have all been removed from their posts on the basis of allegations.
They told the President that, if his actions towards ministers and public servants yesterday are weighed against his inaction today one would not conclude that your present conduct constitutes an adherence to the principle of equity. Infact, they advanced, all the people who contacted them were questioning why you are treating the ministers in such a special way? Many people they said do not seem to believe that you would risk losing public support and confidence by your inaction simply out of love for your ministers. “Bear in mind that some people were speculating that you removed Mr. Sabally from the Ministry of Agriculture and placd him at the Ministry of Finance to show the court that no matter what decision it took you had said that you are a respecter of law and would not comment on a matter that was ‘subjudice. Now, Mr. President, what can we tell the people to dispel such speculations?”
Hence, the letter summed up this point by emphasizing that adherence to the principle of equity is one of the fundamental requirements of your office. “It is by demonstrating in practice that your every conduct is done without fear or favour, affection or ill-will that public trust in your government is ensured. Hence, Mr. President, it is necessary to evaluate your past actions and ensure that your present actions are in line with it. If you cannot do so then it is better to resign, they told the president.
“However, before drawing our conclusion it is necessary to make certain points clear. Some people are asking whether the attitude of the president towards Mr. Manneh cannot be classified as witch-hunting. Well, we wish to make this abundantly clear that Mr. Manneh cannot be a victim of witch-hunting. He is a free citizen just like the president. He has been accused of a crime. He had been given a hearing. He is now a free person. Mr. Manneh should therefore walk with his shoulders high and breathe the air of liberty. The era when Gambians could be intimidated has passed. Only a Gambia with the brain of a sheep or donkey could fear another Gambian.
Meanwhile, apart from the legal arguments as to whether an appeal could be struck out before it was heard, the Supreme Court judge, Justice Ayoola ruled that he would hear the appeal. At this state, the questions that remained to be answered were; will the appeal be dismissed after it is heard on the basis of technicalities? Will the decision of the magistrate be set aside? What is to be the outcome of Sanna’s case?
According to Foroyaa, anything is possible. The paper cautioned people to wait for the appeal to be heard. They said since the case was covered nationally and internationally, the court may not want to be seen to be dragging its feet.
See next issue as we delve deeper into other issues of political significance in 1989.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issues
Issue No. 144/2007, 7 - 9 December 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
Topic Locked
