 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Aug 2010 : 18:51:25
|
31st July 2010
Press Release: - UDP/UK’s Response to Halifa Sallah’s Press Statements
On the 26th June 2010, the spokesperson of PDOIS and former flag bearer of the National Alliance for Democracy and Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently concluded Jarra Soma Congress, that the registration of NADD as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating that the registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60 of the Constitution to back his claim. The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] dismisses this as irresponsible, deceitful and utterly lacking basis. This is a statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to distort facts and hoodwink the Gambian public on the subject of what actually led to the collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned into a complete farce. Here are the facts;
In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established NADD, the signatory parties including PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as follows;
‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who seek to establish an alliance.......’’
The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article 1 of the same MOU, the establishment of an alliance called NADD. This is what Article 1 states;
‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development with the acronym [NADD].’’
All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an alliance. There is no single reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even by the provisions which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD as an alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’
Those of Article 16 are as follows;
‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’
It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as an alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an incontrovertible fact.
Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then
Two conflicting statements have been advanced by Halifa as to the true status of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12 of his press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but went on to claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger. These are contradictory and irreconcilable positions, and it clearly shows that Halifa was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to what was actually envisaged by the MOU that established NADD.
The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’ hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase all together. We have therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of what was envisaged in NADD’s MOU vis-a- vis the relevant constitutional provisions.
Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a requirement that NADD put up candidates in its own right and under its own banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit postulation of this under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks about symbols. This is what Article 8 states;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus; provided that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’
Article 16 states the following;
‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be determined within one month of the coming into force of the agreement with the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’
It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form part of a broad instrument, the context of which has been well defined by the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or can be deduced from the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the MOU obsolete or having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and perverse but also inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble and Article 1 which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor candidates in its own right and under its own name in any given election. Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by Halifa, it would still be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section 60 states;
‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public elections.’’
Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa has been making into or purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been enforceable without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were promulgated in the context of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while still maintaining the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD] could not put up candidates in its own right and under its own name while still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If Halifa had not arrogantly rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional matters, he would have been better advised on this point.
Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It presented them with two options; they could either re-negotiate the terms of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should they desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent parties as a vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential election. Under Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states;
‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall be based on the principle of unanimity provided that matters of procedure shall be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present and voting. In the event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may agree unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’
As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek a unanimous agreement as to which path to take. However, since PDOIS has it as an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle to the UDP and its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to wittingly register NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory parties, and despite strong opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader described it as a ‘disaster’.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might not have been a significant factor in its disintegration since there was a time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP from the organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.
The Supreme Court Judgement
It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party. Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now a settled case law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court, not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear such matters. This is what Section 127 states;
‘‘The Supreme Court shall have 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.’’
Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no need to show sufficient interest- for ‘anybody who alleges that an Act of the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or omission of any person or authority is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’ Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the position of the law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either file an appeal at the Supreme Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing him arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done sooner rather than later.
Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral Commission had conceived it as such is utterly frivolous and unintelligent. The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are certainly not the custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just like anybody else.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are able to sponsor candidates in a public election. Hence, the IEC could not have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections. It follows therefore that the only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be registered as a political party and be deemed as such by law. As a matter of a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the establishment of an alliance, not a political party.
The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful of certain opposition elements who are hell bent on stoking controversy and division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s politics. As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to be united and rally behind the main opposition United Democratic Party under the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011 presidential election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of duty to our beloved country, the Gambia.
THE END.
Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 04 Aug 2010 00:21:54 |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 01:24:53
|
Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It presented them with two options; they could either re-negotiate the terms of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should they desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent parties as a vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential election. Under Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states; (Nyamato Daffeh)
So option one was unanimously adopted and signed by all parties after the supreme court ruling(note that there was also a third option: to deregister NADD as a political party or opt out of the newly emerged party), who went on to sponsor candidates from their individual parties to contest the ensuing parliamentary bi-elctions under a NADD ticket. No problems there. No gun put on anybody's head. Amazingly the UDP candidate won back his parliamentary seat. And they were all estatic. No disaster there. So all was well with the alliance/merger/party called NADD up to this point. UNTIL THE UDP LEADER WAS NOT UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED FLAG BEARER. So exactly what is your contention Mr US Navy Frigate SS DAFFEH? You're headed to sea man.
|
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 07:40:53
|
Thank you Shaka, you have said it all. We all know that there is only one reason for NADD's breakup: It is because Darboe was not selected as he had expected.Also this is only the UDP's understanding or excuse after the fact. No body else in the Alliance, whether PPP, NRP (or maybe not), NDAM, or PDOIS shares that version. Halifa's version is what stands.
Furthermore, UDP still fails to tell us what is the difference between an alliance, a merger, and a party.
Is the UDP (the political party) itself not an alliance, a merger of PPP, GPP, GDP, NCP, etc ?
Is this paper the real UDP's position or this is the unofficial UDP/U.K.'s position? Who wrote this paper? At least we all know that Halifa is the author of the paper being responded to... |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 21:18:32
|
Well maybe some people need to do some little bit of reading because i have no doubt the release has addressed the point lamented above. This is what it says;
''Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.''
Just to add and as a matter of fact [we were able to ascertain this], nothing was signed either before or after the supreme court case in respect of the registration. If there was Halifa would not have said this;
''The only legal advice that was legitimate was to tell parties that they were creating a merger by signing the Memorandum of Understanding. Hence those who did not want a merger should not have signed it. The error was to fail to get every party to sign to indicate in black and white that they conceived NADD as an umbrella Party or merger or resign from NADD before the court case. No room would have been left for historical excuses that are so evident after NADD’s disintegration.''
I will no longer waste my time repeating points that are already highlighted in the release. If the retards [I know toubab would object to this but ah, this is bantaba] can't use their brain properly to digest stuff, then I have no sympathy for them.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 04 Aug 2010 21:40:24 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 00:04:09
|
"I will no longer waste my time repeating points that are already highlighted in the release. If the retards [I know toubab would object to this but ah, this is bantaba] can't use their brain properly to digest stuff, then I have no sympathy for them."
"digest stuff" (Oh you mean Operation Clean the Nation  )
The last thing I want is your sympathy,this bantaba is a good place to have a discussion and voice opinions,The qustions that have constantly been ignored are,
Where is the WRITTEN manifesto ?
What are the aims and ideals of this party ?
What is the structure of this party ?
All that appears to be generated is a load of generalisations,if the "Party" got their act together instead of just tucking frills around words then things may be different,reports of speeches,are they policy NO,come on put together a PROPER document so the electorate can decide if you should get their vote for what you propose if you were elected to form an administration. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 05 Aug 2010 00:08:32 |
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 06:14:50
|
| On the contrary Kayjatta, Darboe said he was misled by the party executive members, meaning the UDP organization as a whole. Here is one of Gambia's finest solicitors signing documents he seems to not comprehend what it entails. The man made his point clear without taking responsibility. The UDP party I can't say is a replication of the old PPP party but the follies of the PPP befell UDP and this is evident looking at their struggle trying to save face nowadays. The Party is based on Tribal marks and looking at the membership and how they operate, Trust me they are very calculating but Gambia has gone beyond the stage of Tribalism.Welcome Back King Shaka Zulu...................................................Peace |
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 ..... |
Edited by - Moe on 05 Aug 2010 06:16:29 |
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 06:35:54
|
Come on toubab.....chill! I am sure you have never seen a written manifesto from any political party in Gambia including APRC. Not that they don't have manifestos but because you never really make efforts to get them. Why are you so hooked up on seeing UDP's written manifesto in Bantaba? Wouldn't it be better to contact the secretariat then? Please don't twist this very important debate into issues of written manifesto. This link might help if you wanna know the structure of the party and I hope those in positions of helping you out with info will do so once and for all.
http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/5332/Breaking-News-Gambia-Darboe-Promises-To-Step-Down-After-Serving-Two-Term-As-President-/Default.aspx
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
"I will no longer waste my time repeating points that are already highlighted in the release. If the retards [I know toubab would object to this but ah, this is bantaba] can't use their brain properly to digest stuff, then I have no sympathy for them."
"digest stuff" (Oh you mean Operation Clean the Nation )
The last thing I want is your sympathy,this bantaba is a good place to have a discussion and voice opinions,The qustions that have constantly been ignored are,
Where is the WRITTEN manifesto ?
What are the aims and ideals of this party ?
What is the structure of this party ?
All that appears to be generated is a load of generalisations,if the "Party" got their act together instead of just tucking frills around words then things may be different,reports of speeches,are they policy NO,come on put together a PROPER document so the electorate can decide if you should get their vote for what you propose if you were elected to form an administration.
|
Tesito
|
|
|
|
Senegambia
175 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 07:04:48
|
Moe, oh please, not the tribalist bullcrap remark again! It's irresponsible and it has no iota of truth what so ever! Jammehian proponents like you have a special interest UDP/PDOIS engagements. It's evident!
quote:
Originally posted by Moe
On the contrary Kayjatta, Darboe said he was misled by the party executive members, meaning the UDP organization as a whole. Here is one of Gambia's finest solicitors signing documents he seems to not comprehend what it entails. The man made his point clear without taking responsibility. The UDP party I can't say is a replication of the old PPP party but the follies of the PPP befell UDP and this is evident looking at their struggle trying to save face nowadays. The Party is based on Tribal marks and looking at the membership and how they operate, Trust me they are very calculating but Gambia has gone beyond the stage of Tribalism.Welcome Back King Shaka Zulu...................................................Peace
|
Tesito
|
|
|
|
Moe
USA
2326 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 07:09:45
|
Yeah right take a good look at the executive members and I know all of them including the one's hiding in the Huts and farting during the 1994 coup scared to death. Yes some of the executive members were hiding under beds and rest assured whatever Moe says Moe can Back up. The little boy held his leg and he started farting thinking it was the soldiers .....................................................Peace |
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 ..... |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 11:43:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Well maybe some people need to do some little bit of reading because i have no doubt the release has addressed the point lamented above. This is what it says;
''Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.''
Just to add and as a matter of fact [we were able to ascertain this], nothing was signed either before or after the supreme court case in respect of the registration. If there was Halifa would not have said this;
''The only legal advice that was legitimate was to tell parties that they were creating a merger by signing the Memorandum of Understanding. Hence those who did not want a merger should not have signed it. The error was to fail to get every party to sign to indicate in black and white that they conceived NADD as an umbrella Party or merger or resign from NADD before the court case. No room would have been left for historical excuses that are so evident after NADD’s disintegration.''
I will no longer waste my time repeating points that are already highlighted in the release. If the retards [I know toubab would object to this but ah, this is bantaba] can't use their brain properly to digest stuff, then I have no sympathy for them.
Regards
The only time you had to waste is being entrapped in fixation and obsessive delusion. Just look how pathetic you sound when you become entangled in your own web of confusion.
''Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.''(Nyamato Daffeh)
When did it became clear to the UDP leadership that NADD was a registered a party and when did the UDP leader decided to reconsider his position within NADD?
When NADD was registered a party following the supreme court ruling?
(Certainly not. Because UDP sponsored a candidate on a NADD ticket in the bi-election that ensued from the court ruling)
Immediately after the bi-elections?
(Absolutely not. Because they celebrated the bi-election victory of their sponsored candidate in a NADD victory.)
After the UDP leader was not unanimously elected NADD flag bearer?
(Aha!!)
You got to quit man. Every clowns should know when they are no longer funny.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 11:51:30
|
Indeed Kay. Let the clowns continue to entertain us even when we stopped laughing moons ago. Moe, your man Nyari is just a sad and pathetic voyeur. Allow him to keep masturbating over Halifa Sallah's utterances. He will hopefully climax some day.quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
Thank you Shaka, you have said it all. We all know that there is only one reason for NADD's breakup: It is because Darboe was not selected as he had expected.Also this is only the UDP's understanding or excuse after the fact. No body else in the Alliance, whether PPP, NRP (or maybe not), NDAM, or PDOIS shares that version. Halifa's version is what stands.
Furthermore, UDP still fails to tell us what is the difference between an alliance, a merger, and a party.
Is the UDP (the political party) itself not an alliance, a merger of PPP, GPP, GDP, NCP, etc ?
Is this paper the real UDP's position or this is the unofficial UDP/U.K.'s position? Who wrote this paper? At least we all know that Halifa is the author of the paper being responded to...
|
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 13:19:22
|
| Mr.Nyarikangbanna should take the PR role of UDP. He has some nice interpersonal skills and his charm with the voters is very impressive. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 13:48:17
|
You are trying to persuade the average Gambian to vote,does the AVERAGE Gambian have access to the internet where he can read the online newspaper? answer of course not, can the AVERAGE Gambian read and write English ? no of course not,how do you communicate with him or her? If you produced leaflets for instance,there is usually someone in the community (more often than not a young person or child who has been lucky enough to go to school)that you are targeting to vote that can translate English into the spoken language of that community.Therefore unless you can get your ideas and policies to the voters you do not have a chance.
The existing administration has many more ways of communicating with voters than you have, radio tv printed newspapers.Just some of my thoughts.
quote:
Originally posted by Senegambia
Come on toubab.....chill! I am sure you have never seen a written manifesto from any political party in Gambia including APRC. [quote]Originally posted by toubab1020
[Where is the WRITTEN manifesto ?
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 15:42:25
|
OK, no valid point has been raised since my last posting. The point at which NADD was registered as a political party has been noted in the release and commonsense tells everyone that it happened before the supreme court case. This is what the statement said;
''It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party. Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now a settled case law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court, not the media.''
I now rest my case. Regards to all, friends and foes alike. |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Aug 2010 15:57:04 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 15:49:55
|
OK, Nyarikangbanna,your closing speech has been posted.
There will be no written manifesto. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 05 Aug 2010 15:52:31 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 17:35:52
|
What case have you got to rest? Questions are raised about your utterances. Questions you continue to dodge as if no one will notice. If according to you the UDP opted out of NADD when it became apparent NADD was registered as a political party instead of an alliance, when did it became clear to the UDP leadership that NADD was registered as a party and when did the UDP leader decided to reconsider his position within NADD? Real disingenuity lies within this answer if you can figure it out. So stop chasing your tail like a cat on zumzum.
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
OK, no valid point has been raised since my last posting. The point at which NADD was registered as a political party has been noted in the release and commonsense tells everyone that it happened before the supreme court case. This is what the statement said;
''It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party. Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now a settled case law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court, not the media.''
I now rest my case. Regards to all, friends and foes alike.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
