| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jan 2008 : 20:46:20
|
Deleted. Sorry for any inconvinence but I just thought it is appropriate to do so.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Jan 2008 23:07:07 |
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2008 : 22:14:52
|
| Is NADD a Political Party or a collusion of political parties (independent parties)? In the later no registration is needed |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2008 : 22:22:27
|
Janko, thanks for that question. The so-called Umbrella party label is Halifa's bizarre and disingenuous fiction. The legal position is that NADD is a political party just like APRC, PDOIS and UDP. In fact the conventional wisdom among the legal community in the Gambia including those in opposition or have opposition affliation, is that this position is sound, settled and correct.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Jan 2008 22:36:08 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2008 : 23:10:58
|
Nyarikangbanna
Thanks for your answer.
Pardon me for taking your time, but it is difficult for me to grasp how Halifa can be a member of two political parties at the same time.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 05 Jan 2008 23:11:54 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 14:59:02
|
Janko, Halifa is not a member of two parties. He is a member of NADD and only NADD. He delisted his name from PDOIS executive so that he can legally stand for a parliamentary seat in the 2005 by-election and to remain an executive member of NADD. So, he has effectively resigned from PDOIS.This is the truth he won't let you know.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2008 : 22:27:39
|
Progressive minded Gambians should move beyond party politics and think about how we should regain our country back. NADD was an idea of dislodging the current status quo we had in Gambia and unfortunately it failed. We all had a responsibility in its failure and in maintaining the status quo.
We should therefore be thinking beyond NADD and how best Gambia can be freed from tyranny and politics of destruction. The fact is NADD, UDP or PPP, Gambia remains in a desperate situation and need for change. So are we going to cry about spilt milk or think positively for a way forward?
|
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 12:20:10
|
You are very right.
It is unfortunate that the context in which NADD comes in the discussion is deleted.
Secondly, one very important step towards progress is to learn from our failures. By analysing and understanding the mistakes of the pass, we would lessen the likelihood of repeating them in the feature.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 17:29:31
|
Political parties are the vechicles to attaining a representative government in every vibrant democracy. Only those who lack the capacity to effectively compete in such a democratic set up would want to shun this statement
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 07 Jan 2008 17:30:48 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jan 2008 : 19:37:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
You are very right.
It is unfortunate that the context in which NADD comes in the discussion is deleted.
Secondly, one very important step towards progress is to learn from our failures. By analysing and understanding the mistakes of the pass, we would lessen the likelihood of repeating them in the feature.
Janko, the script will be made available once both sides have made their arguments. I will compare both arguments and contrast them with the law. Hopefully that will enable every body to make a sound and indepedant judgement. I hope Admin would assist.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 08 Jan 2008 19:42:24 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jan 2008 : 23:31:02
|
Thanks Nyarikangbanna
Its a very interesting development worth following. Am waiting |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2008 : 11:39:54
|
nyariganbana, i disaggree with the udp/nrp attitude towards the politics in the gambia. i also don't support the attitude of the pdois either. the udp/nrp place strong reference on the constitution and rule of law.ousainou is strong suporter of rule of law. but in all honesty what law do we have in the gambia that will help the udp/nrp achieve any political end? the constitution is there for yahya to play with at will. the courts are nothing but his tool for past time ,yet the udp/nrp feel they can take the electoral commission to court for giving even more power to yahya. what a waste of time.
ousanou is too peace loving.dealing with the government of yahya on his terms will not take udp/nrp any where. it is high time the leadership in udp/nrp realise that taking matters to court will only delay them in other matters.
the parliament is a rubber stand bunch of mps.the courts aren't up to scrach,the police and the army are yes sir men and women .what is that the udp/nrp will gain any way?
the sooner they realise some gun boot diplomacy the better.yahya will only toy with them.
the udp need to change that peaceful nature of them.the pdois is equally at fault.the constitution this and constitution that. as if the aprc know any thing about that constitution. let them give us a break and be willing to tell us some thing concrete. we want strong personalities to challenge that mad man. no amount of apeacement will change things. ousanou and his people and halifa and people need to see the reality.yahya don't care about democracy or diplomacy.he is rulling like our olden days kings.dream and then tell porkies .the dump militants buy every silly thing he said.
he blame others for all his mess. yahya never take responsility for any misfortune ,it most be baba jobe, or no it most yankuba touray, or no it most be edward ,sana, .all the time some one to blame.we will go on like this for dunkey years.
nyari ,i don't support any of this court actions or taken part in sham elections. they need to bouycut this election and demand national uprising... if they stand firm ,the support will come. any thing else is futile. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2008 : 19:37:25
|
Hi Admin., can you restore this piece for us please?
See below
Thanks
UDP & Others v. The State
The substantive issue in this matter is the Plaintiffs’ allegation that the new local government legislation is in contravention of Section 197 of the 1997 constitution, and that it was made in excess of the powers of both the National Assembly and the president. However, both the Attorney-General and counsel for the Independent Electoral Commission have raised preliminary objections, attacking the competency of the suit on what appears to be a multi faceted procedural grounds. This is how the debate unfolded;
The Attorney General: - The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The suit is not therefore incompetent.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Darboe: - Section 127 (1) conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to determine whether or not a law made by the National Assembly was made in excess of its powers as given by the constitution.
What does the constitution say?
The Supreme Court shall have an exclusive original jurisdiction for the interpretation or enforcement of this constitution other than any provision of sections 18-33 or section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and freedoms. – Section 127[1][a]
Attorney General: - UDP and NRP lack capacity to institute the suit as they are legally still members of an existing political party called NADD.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Darboe: - Political parties cannot be members of a political party. It is individuals who form political parties. UDP and NRP are separate entities. They have not been re-registered and there is no proof before the court that they have de-registered. The notion that UDP and NRP do not have locus standi is inconceivable as the two are operating political parties with rights to protect the interest of the nation. The Attorney-General’s objection therefore, amounts to an abuse of process.
Attorney General: - The Minority Leader is a member of the National Assembly who voted against the amendment. After majority vote in favor of the bill, he decided that he would seek to overturn this amendment through the legal process. He cannot do that because his role as a member of the National Assembly overrides his position.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Darboe: - The suit is not an attack on the procedures of the National Assembly as claimed by the Attorney General. No one would doubt that such a constitutional issue has never been raised in this jurisdiction.
How does a litigant gain capacity to sue?
Under the rules of Common Law, a party to a civil suit is required to show that he has sufficient interest in the matter before the court if he is to gain locus standi [standing/capacity] to proceed, sufficient interest being a detriment suffered or likely to be suffered either in the form of material loss or that of rights.
Do you have to satisfy this requirement before you can challenge an unconstitutional act or omission before the Supreme Court?
Well, this is what the constitution says:
A person who alleges that any Act of the National Assembly or any thing done under the authority of an Act of the National Assembly, or any act or omission of any person or authority, is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the constitution, may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect. – Section 5[a][1]
The constitution further stated:
This Constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia. Any law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. - Section 4
Counsel for IEC, Ms Joof-Conteh: - The suit is incomplete because it did not disclose any cause of action against the IEC. The matters complained of are not matters that the IEC is party to and as such the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the IEC. Also, given that the 1997 constitution mandated the IEC to conduct all national elections, it is incompetent to ask the IEC to go contrary to the constitution
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Darboe: - The contention is not for the IEC not to hold election but that it should not hold elections whose legislations are questionable.
Can the Supreme Court forbid the IEC from conducting an election whose legislation is questionable?
In addition to section 5[a] [1], this what the constitution says:
The court may make orders and give directions as it may consider appropriate for giving to such declaration and any person to whom any order or direction is addressed shall duly obey and carry out the terms of the order or direction. - Section 5[a][2]
Make your own independent judgment and do not let them confuse you.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jan 2008 : 20:34:48
|
I am very interested in this case and would like to follow it to conclusion.
Both Nyarikanbanna and Santafara have some points of great merit. What the Opposition should do I think is this: they should not take anything off the table. The lawsuit in the Supreme court should be pursued but they should also boycut the election, and at some point considered mass protests. Freedom and liberation is not always given on a silver platter. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2008 : 18:56:51
|
Santanfara,
Thanks for your comments. You know, when whenever there is a sign on the wall that the system that is designed to impartially administer justice is being muzzled, law abiding citizens normally get frustrated and loose faith in the capacity of the law to deliver justice. So, I perfectly understand your frustrations. But I think we should also bear in mind that the United Democratic Party [UDP] is not an armed opposition. It is a constitutionally constituted political party that believes in a democracy based on constitutional rule underpinned by the fundamental principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights. This is one of the fundamental differences between them and the incumbent APRC, and this is why they have being recognized and approved of consistently, since the birth of the second republic, as the real alternative to APRC misrule. Belief in constitutional rule, human rights and democracy are not just the core principles of the UDP but also their political trademark. It is therefore their responsibility not only to show genuine adherence to these principles but also to demonstrate them in action even when the system is going against them. Unless we want tyranny to triumph, this is the cause we should approve and support. Turning to subversive activities to achieve a political goal is not an option.
The rule of law can only work if we want it to work. If we believe in it, we can make it work even when Jammeh swears to his own life that we won’t succeed.
Can we do it? Yes, we can!
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 10 Jan 2008 19:13:46 |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2008 : 20:15:24
|
Nyarikangbanna
In an ideal situation your perception of driving changes would have prevailed. That is not Gambia of today. There is no temptation advocating for unconstitutional mode of intervention. The greatest puzzle at hand is that Gambians are unable to grow grapes on River Gambia with all the abundance of water. Equally orderly legal pursuit as preferred by UDP, NRP,PDOIS, and all peace loving Gambians will yield further frustration. The most pressing task is to UNDO the ILLEGAL setting. There is no doubt peace loving Gambians do also have the required competence to challenge this ILLEGAL regime. But legal instruments CANNOT be properly utilised in a broken legal order as we now face. When armed robbers run with their loot they expect being chased after. They are ready for even more damaging counter-challenges. That means they are able to use their lethal weapons (of course they do.) They are able to use the loot to appear rich and protected. They are able to confuse sycophants and selfish elements of society to club around them. These are examples. The Gambia's case may be even sadder. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2008 : 20:15:45
|
Thanks Nyari, My point exactly . This is nothing but the truth. It's all about teaching the next generation to be better than us................................Peacequote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Santanfara,
Thanks for your comments. You know, when whenever there is a sign on the wall that the system that is designed to impartially administer justice is being muzzled, law abiding citizens normally get frustrated and loose faith in the capacity of the law to deliver justice. So, I perfectly understand your frustrations. But I think we should also bear in mind that the United Democratic Party [UDP] is not an armed opposition. It is a constitutionally constituted political party that believes in a democracy based on constitutional rule underpinned by the fundamental principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights. This is one of the fundamental differences between them and the incumbent APRC, and this is why they have being recognized and approved of consistently, since the birth of the second republic, as the real alternative to APRC misrule. Belief in constitutional rule, human rights and democracy are not just the core principles of the UDP but also their political trademark. It is therefore their responsibility not only to show genuine adherence to these principles but also to demonstrate them in action even when the system is going against them. Unless we want tyranny to triumph, this is the cause we should approve and support. Turning to subversive activities to achieve a political goal is not an option.
The rule of law can only work if we want it to work. If we believe in it, we can make it work even when Jammeh swears to his own life that we won’t succeed.
Can we do it? Yes, we can!
Thanks
|
I am Jebel Musa better yet rock of Gibraltar,either or,still a stronghold and a Pillar commanding direction
The GPU wants Me Hunted Down for what I don't know ..... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
