 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 21:10:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
Shaka,
The floor is yours 
Easy Tiger, im not finished yet
im on a roll  |
 |
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 21:16:36
|
quote:
[i]Try your luck, you might just succeed where i have failed. A woman's voice on the State House line might do the trick. NIGHT NIGHT!!
toubab1020 is there something your not telling me I thought you were of the male species  |
|
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 21:27:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
do you know which company is mining this sand from their quarry today?
Oh I know the answer im so excited do I get a prize apparently the mining is still continuing with Carnegie equipment infrastructure etc etc by ....
The Government.
I wonder if this will install confidence in new investors? |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 22:41:32
|
I don't want to dwell on your arguemant below for it is a known fact that the independence of the Gambia Judiciary is highjacked by the emperor, however is is equally arguable that like most African dictatorships, extra-judiciary abuses and denial of justice is limited to their citizens and citizens of other nation who fall victim to such dictatorship because for one reason or the other their government fail to represent them in the event where it is universally accepted that they have been wronged by the dictatorship. A company with resources the size of Carnegie's has the lobby power to get justice in the form of compensation for breach of contract if at all they legally have a case. In year 2000 the Swiss company Alimenta wielded its legal right, successfully sued the government of the Gambia and romped home with US$11.4million. http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2000/gmb/02/index.htm
I quote "In July 2000, the government approached Alimenta (the parent company of the GGC whose property was seized by the government in January 1999) seeking an out-of-court settlement. Agreement was reached in October under which the government agreed to pay a total of US$11.4 million to Alimenta to settle the uncontestable past obligations, the value of the seized property, as well as lost earnings. To this end, the government is committed to making three payments, the first of which was effected in November in the amount of US$3.5 million, while the second (about US$5.5 million) and third (about US$2.5 million) installments will be paid by end-June and end-July 2001, respectively"
Carnegie equally have this legal right. The million dollar question is; why is Carnegie shying away from expressing such right if its operation is not illegal?quote:
Originally posted by Hiz Princess
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
If they are in the right, why not do the right thing and sue the government of Yahya Jammeh for breach of contract and unlawful detention of their employee according to the laws of the land and international law.quote]Originally posted by Jack
there is NO uranium in the gambia
it was a set up by the gambian government for .....
Shaka just a thought but this may be the answer
The Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association in its 2006 report found that...
The judicial system in the Gambia suffers from neglect, under investment, and a severe lack of resources and infrastructure, resulting from a general deprioritisation of its importance. Whilst the government was supportive of the independence of the judiciary in discussions with the delegation, in practice many of its actions undermined judicial independence and the rule of law, and its overall attitude to the judiciary was of grave concern to the delegation. This has created a climate where the protection of human rights is undermined and the rule of law subverted.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2008 : 23:41:11
|
Very Very good Shaka,a lot to read here,I am impressed many words, are you able to confirm that cash money was actually paid to the claimant? the quoted paragraph below indicates that an agreement was reached, but was CASH money paid under this agreement?
I quote "In July 2000, the government approached Alimenta (the parent company of the GGC whose property was seized by the government in January 1999) seeking an out-of-court settlement. Agreement was reached in October under which the government agreed to pay a total of US$11.4 million to Alimenta to settle the uncontestable past obligations, the value of the seized property, as well as lost earnings. To this end, the government is committed to making three payments, the first of which was effected in November in the amount of US$3.5 million, while the second (about US$5.5 million) and third (about US$2.5 million) installments will be paid by end-June and end-July 2001, respectively"
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 00:02:48
|
"the first of which was effected in November in the amount of US$3.5 million" The clue here is "was affected". The article was written November 27. Call the IMF for further verification, it will be a lot easier than State House,that i can promise.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 00:18:52
|
Thanks Shaka,unfortunately you cannot verify any CASH payment,you clue "was affected" I take it was a typo you meant to write "effected", I do not have the contacts within the IMF to make further enquiry (maybe someone has ?) I looked up the legal term for "effected" which is:
As a verb, to do; to produce; to make; to bring to pass; to execute; enforce; accomplish. As a noun, that which is produced by an agent or cause; result; outcome; consequence. The result that an instrument between parties will produce in their relative rights, or which a statute will produce upon the existing law, as discovered from the language used, the forms employed, or other materials for construing it. The operation of a law, of an agreement, or an act. The phrases take effect, be in force, and go into operation, are used interchangeably.
I don't understand it either,however I have enjoyed this discussion and I would really like to know if the company ever recieved any CASH or not,as I said, I havn't the contacts but I really hope someone has.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 05 Sep 2008 00:23:03 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 00:57:22
|
Here is your verification Toubab. The Gambia budget speech 2002.
http://www.statehouse.gm/budget2002/3.htm
I quote "The performance of revenues and expenditure for the current fiscal year has been mixed. While there has been revenue shortfalls, especially in the first quarter, as a consequence of lower customs collections and low payments from the public enterprises, expenditure overruns associated with the additional payments to Alimenta exerted pressure on the outcome of 2001 fiscal aggregates. The fiscal authorities stepped in with some measures to improve revenue collections and tightened spending to contain the deficit to the targeted level."
Go to bed now!!
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 01:03:51
|
| I appricate the link, but the response "I" would get asking if a government had paid its debt or not would be non commital to say the least,probably something like " I am very sorry, I cannot help you with your enquiry. I suggest that your own government may be able to direct you to the correct channel for such an enquiry as you are making" so will I be telephoning or e mailing the IMF ?.......Er.. NO...........but I suspect that there are some powerful people who monitor bantaba, and one of those may arrange a leak,who knows.Anyway, good discussion. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 05 Sep 2008 01:06:06 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 12:34:44
|
Thanks for your research Shaka,I have turned up some interesting stuff,essentially it means that you will be unable to access any financial information about the company Alimenta,so we will be left wondering,have a read of this,fascinating;
http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-4335.html |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Hiz Princess
United Kingdom
464 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 13:08:23
|
[quote]Originally posted by shaka
A company with resources the size of Carnegie's has the lobby power to get justice in the form of compensation for breach of contract if at all they legally have a case.-June and end-July 2001, respectively"
Carnegie equally have this legal right. The million dollar question is; why is Carnegie shying away from expressing such right if its operation is not illegal?
Who is to say this will not be the outcome
In all the documentation I have read they're number 1 priority was getting their man out (this may have been lip service )
I cannot see a firm this big walking away while the Government uses and abuses their infrastructure but who knows. They have sought advice from high commissions and also the commonwealth development corp who had laid down specific guidelines between the company and government but alas ignored and refused to meet in arbitration.
Most of The Alimenta payout was met by EU grants would this be the case again I doubt it, most of the thought surrounding this latest case accuses the Government of no more than extortion and the illegal re-possession of plant.
The whole thing sound dubious and unfortunately one man was used as a scapegoat a whole nation may suffer the consequences of this greed. There are lots of unanswered question some of which I don't think will ever be in the public domain.
This June the IMF stated
The main factors affecting The Gambia's international competitiveness, however, include weak infrastructure, lack of access to long-term financing, and the burden of a multiplicity of taxes and local government charges. These problems will need to be addressed through further structural reforms.
like I said this last fiasco is hardly going to instill confidence in investers
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 14:24:13
|
And........... on......and on ......... Ad infinitum............................ |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 15:58:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hiz Princess
Who is to say this will not be the outcome
In all the documentation I have read they're number 1 priority was getting their man out (this may have been lip service)
I cannot see a firm this big walking away while the Government uses and abuses their infrastructure but who knows. They have sought advice from high commissions and also the commonwealth development corp who had laid down specific guidelines between the company and government but alas ignored and refused to meet in arbitration.
So your position have shifted from "Carnegie cannot possibly get justice in the Gambia because of a weak judiciary system" to Carnegie is likely to take legal action against the Gambia government. Good for me because in the event of any legal proceeding the Gambian masses will finally have the truth about the evil operations of the shadow dealings that Jammeh and his partners had undertaken to defraud the nation. My humble bet is that Carnegie had indeed in engaged in an illegal operation by understating the content of the minerals it was "licensed" to mine as much as i believe the government of the Gambia was not benefitting from this deal as much as Jammeh had. I also believed that Carnegie had profitted way above its investment in the Gambia and a lawsuit against the government of the Gambia is as likely to happen as me being elected the next pope. Their only concern was how to whisk Chalie Nortfield from under the nose of the dictatorship. Charlie's status in this saga had now shifted from being a pawn(scapegoat as you want to call it) to a virtual criminal by jumping his bail terms and accepting the services of mercenaries hired by Carnegie to engage in an illegal covert operation in a sovereign nation. But then again he wouldn't give a toss knowing a good chunk of the loot from Gambian mines lies waiting for him in a Bangkok bank account, would he?
By the way what documentation are you refering to from your above statement. Can you share it with us if you can, please , most especially the "advice from high commissions and also the commonwealth development corp who had laid down specific guidelines between the company and government but alas ignored and refused to meet in arbitration" |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
