Bantaba in Cyberspace
Bantaba in Cyberspace
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Politics Forum
 Politics: Gambian politics
 UDP Leadership Raised Eyebrows & Crises Alert
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
| More
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Nyarikangbanna

United Kingdom
1382 Posts

Posted - 05 Jan 2014 :  19:25:24  Show Profile Send Nyarikangbanna a Private Message
Rene, he also said Mai's appointment as Vice President would have been legal assuming there was an agreement between Mai and the UDP leader on the same as there was no illegality or moral issue surrounding the matter. In a complete contradiction, he went on to say in the same piece that Mai was not ordinarily resident in The Gambia.

The key determinant factor of one's eligibility to the positions of President and Vice President is that of one's ordinary residence status in the country and for 5yrs. If one is not ordinarily resident in the country for this period, he/she cannot therefore be appointed, legally, to the Office of Vice President.

Yes, Lamin is a very erudite guy but it does not look like he has conducted research on this one, and of course I disagree with him.

My assertion is based on sound legal authorities and I stand by it. I leave you with this quote from the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of Canada;

"The expression "ordinarily resident" carries a restricted signification, and although the first impression seems to be that of preponderance in time, the decisions on the English Act reject that view. It is held to mean residence in the course of the customary mode of life of the person concerned, and it is contrasted with special or occasional or casual residence. The general mode of life is, therefore, relevant to a question of its application." (See Thomson v Minister of National Revenue (1946) SCR 209. Also, McFadyen v. The Queen, [2000] 4 CTC 2573 per Justice Garon)

Thanks

I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union.

Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Jan 2014 19:58:32
Go to Top of Page

sankalanka

270 Posts

Posted - 05 Jan 2014 :  20:00:43  Show Profile Send sankalanka a Private Message
Rene, he also said Mai would have legally served as Vice President if the position was offered to him as there was no illegality or moral issue surrounding the matter."

Nyari, I urge you to read the statement again. Lamin made two observations: one, that there was nothing illegal or immoral in having an agreement between Lawyer Darboe and Mai even though whatever they tend to agree to was not supported under the present constituted provisions of the
law.

Secondly, he made the observation that if Darboe had won the presidency he would have under his executive powers stand aside the offending provisions in the constitution thus enabling him to appoint Mai as a vice president. All this was contingent upon him winning and removing all the offending provisions in the constitution. Aside from these observations he has affirmed Musa's arguments in that respect.

"In a complete contradiction, he went on to say in the same piece that Mai was not ordinarily resident in The Gambia."

There is no contradiction. That is why I urged you to read the relevant statement again. As he earlier argued, any other president would suspend the constitution upon taking office and sanitized it to remove all the offending provisions, and it is under this scenario that he was making the assumption that if Darboe had won he would have done the same thus providing the legal basis to appoint Mai.

Edited by - sankalanka on 06 Jan 2014 05:55:17
Go to Top of Page

Nyarikangbanna

United Kingdom
1382 Posts

Posted - 05 Jan 2014 :  20:30:25  Show Profile Send Nyarikangbanna a Private Message
Rene, his article is full of contradictions then or perhaps lack of clarity because he said this too;

"However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainou Darboe (Ousainou) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainou was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster. (((On the facts as alleged, that was indeed the case. Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed.))) Whatever your thoughts on the alleged transaction, it was neither “illegal”, nor “immoral”! It would have been a legally permissible political strategy around the Constitutional our architecture."

In any case and as far as this matter is concern, the key issue is 'Ordinary Residence' and what it means legally. As far as that is concern, I do not see any coherent legal argument in Lamin's piece that defies the authorities I have cited. The legal definition I provided for 'Ordinary Residence' was adopted by many courts within the common law jurisdictions including the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Canada in Thomson v Minister of National Revenue.

Once again, I leave you with this quote from the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of Canada. I am maintaining my position.

"The expression "ordinarily resident" carries a restricted signification, and although the first impression seems to be that of preponderance in time, the decisions on the English Act reject that view. It is held to mean residence in the course of the customary mode of life of the person concerned, and it is contrasted with special or occasional or casual residence. The general mode of life is, therefore, relevant to a question of its application." (See Thomson v Minister of National Revenue (1946) SCR 209. Also, McFadyen v. The Queen, [2000] 4 CTC 2573 per Justice Garon).

Thanks

I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union.

Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 05 Jan 2014 21:47:37
Go to Top of Page

kobo



United Kingdom
7765 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2014 :  06:05:46  Show Profile Send kobo a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020

You give the impression of being VERY experienced and competent hence my comment.
OK KOBO was right this time when he wrote:

CHEERLEADER! SAD POLITICAL SITUATION AND PATHETIC WEAK ARGUMENTS BECAUSE "OLD BOY" IS FLAWED BIG TIME

But Credit where credit is due,do I detect a hint of Jelousy in Kobo's thinking



quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna

I am only in my 30s toubab.

Thanks



Toubab 1020.

1. You are wrong to consider my comment or criticism above maliciously as ("a hint of jealousy") because am very clear to observe weak arguments and certain defects (or fatal flaws) in "old boy" reasoning or legal posturing of Sections 62 and 70 of the Gambia Constitution; in defense of Lawyer Mai Fatty (GMC leader) recent claims (for "running mate" & "Vice President" of a Coalition) on Freedom radio interview? I will proof my points later and open for public opinion

2. It is same snapshots as mine that our "learned friend" was able to observe, deduce and apparently comment that;
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna

Rene, his article is full of contradictions then or perhaps lack of clarity because he said this too;

"However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainou Darboe (Ousainou) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainou was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster. (((On the facts as alleged, that was indeed the case. Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed.))) Whatever your thoughts on the alleged transaction, it was neither “illegal”, nor “immoral”! It would have been a legally permissible political strategy around the Constitutional our architecture."

.....

Thanks

3. NOTE: That I observed certain "flaws" and made the comment or criticism. Nyarikangbanna also observed on 2. above "contradictions" apparently stated "perhaps lack clarity"; so where are you coming from on "hint of jealousy"

Edited by - kobo on 06 Jan 2014 06:19:13
Go to Top of Page

kobo



United Kingdom
7765 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2014 :  07:24:06  Show Profile Send kobo a Private Message
MAAFANTA.COM WITH INTERESTING CONTRASTING VIEWS FROM TWO VOCAL UDP MILITANTS; HOLDING BRIEF FOR THEIR LEADERS (Re: "The Lawyer Politicians and the Constitution" By Musa Camara)

1. Mai Fatty was Ordinarily Resident in The Gambia By SS Daffeh Essex, UK

Madam Editor,


I write in deference to Musa Camara's claim that the GMC leader, Lawyer Mai Fatty, was not qualified to be appointed Vice President since he (according to Musa) was not ordinarily resident in The Gambia in the entire 5yrs preceding the 2011 presidential elections as required by the constitution. I am not sure if I can agree with this claim and here are my reasons;....

Source: Maafanta.com & full report

2. Re: The Lawyer Politicians and the Constitution By Lamin J Darbo

Dear Musa Camara


As in your article dealing with the illegal appointment, and continuance in office, of Dr Amadou Scattred Janneh, as a Secretary of State, you are again on terra firma in contending that the GMC leader, Mai Fatty (Mai), was constitutionally barred from contesting the Presidency in 2011. Should His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Doctor Yahya A J J Jammeh (the Professor) take us to election 2016, Mai’s constitutional fate would remain the same as far as his legal ability to contest the presidency. To the extent your argument is thus confined, I take no issue with your position......

Source: Maafanta.com & full report

Edited by - kobo on 06 Jan 2014 11:31:14
Go to Top of Page

sankalanka

270 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2014 :  08:28:33  Show Profile Send sankalanka a Private Message

"However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainou Darboe (Ousainou) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainou was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster."

Nyari, regarding the above quote, I will let Lamin clarify the point himself, but you would notice that he put the words "illegal" and "immoral" in quotes and then he used the word potential as the basis for the illegality and immorality. That it would only be illegal and immoral if acted upon under the prevailing constitutional provisions.

However, Lamin is assuming that Darboe will not do that but instead would create the legal basis that would allow for such an action to be legal and moral. And I am making this inference from this sentence:

"Constitutionally, Ousainou was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transactions would have to revolve around him to pass "legal" muster." I interpret this to mean that as President he would have had the executive powers and the political influence to create the legal basis to act on that agreement.

And to support my interpretation, I again rely on the following:

"For any president in full charge of his faculties, the Constitution’s eligibility provisions for election to the Presidency, or appointment to the Cabinet, would have to be immediately suspended upon taking office, and completely dropped, in due time, from any future supreme governing document of The Gambia. There is indeed a legitimate argument to be made for the contention that at least 80% of Constitutional provisions not entrenched must be immediately suspended by a successor government to Professor Jammeh’s APRC if only because of the document’s total concentration of national power in the Executive. It is the suspension of offending provisions – in collaboration with the National Assembly – that would have validated, and legalized, any claimed agreement between Ousainou, and Mai."


(((On whether the phrase “ordinarily resident” is “technical”, that postulation should not detain us. I have heard the same argument before from our “concerned Gambian” on a different platform, but on the same issue, and it is not compelling at all."

In the above quote Lamin is dismissing, as I have also done, that there is nothing technical in the phrase "ordinarily resident."

"Although I accept that “ordinarily resident” can have a legal connotation,( and it does as per the cases cited) it is clearly a common phrase in daily usage. What “technical” meaning it has does not change the fact that for the 2011 presidential elections, Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia."

And this I may add is solely on the basis that he did not meet the residency requirements for the duration of stay in the country.

"Wherever Mai was resident in the run-up to 2011, it was not The Gambia, and the contention that he was ineligible to stand as a presidential candidate in that year, and in 2016 for that matter, is therefore unassailable."

The above quote supports the fundamental basis of the argument Musa made, and if you and Mai are convince to the contrary he should try a legal challenge, and as you are providing the legal opinions in other courts, we will then be able to have the legal opinion in our own courts. This is how the matter should stand.


"In the UK, “the courts have interpreted ordinary residence as a regular habitual mode of life in a particular place, the continuity of which has persisted despite temporary absences”. In deciding its meaning, a Canadian Court stated that “”ordinary residence” connotes something more than mere temporary presence in a place. It refers to the place in which a person’s lifestyle is centered and to which the person regularly returns if his or her presence is not continuous”.)))

(((In further amplifying the meaning of the phrase, that same Court approvingly stated that “most common law courts understand ordinary residence to mean the place where a person resides in the ordinary course of his or her day to day life. If the inquiry is directed towards a person’s real home as many courts have suggested a person usually will have only one place of ordinary residence notwithstanding the family courts’ early reliance on cases decided in an income tax context where the courts held that an individual can have more than one residence”."

In the above citations, Lamin is relying as you are doing on the legal opinions of the courts, and apart from may be a difference in structure and language the contents are the same and both of you are agreeing on these legal opinions as a correct interpretation of "ordinary residence."

I am beginning to believe that "ordinary residence" is not the crux of this argument, at least from the standpoint of Musa and Lamin, as they have both argued that the language of the Gambian constitution is "ordinarily resident" and not "ordinary resident." And through the research I have done, and the information I have shared earlier there is no statutory provision for "ordinarily" resident" in the UK. The courts rely on the broader interpretation of "ordinary residence" to determine or the lack off of "ordinarily resident"

"As stated earlier, I accept your interpretation that Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia in 2011, and that he was therefore ineligible to run for President in that year. For practical purposes, this remains the case for Mai assuming there is a 2016 in electoral terms, and under the Professor’s rules."

What more can I say Nyari, you may disagree with Lamin but his arguments are very convincing. This may now be a matter between you two lawyers.


"Rene, his article is full of contradictions then or perhaps lack of clarity because he said this too;

"However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainou Darboe (Ousainou) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainou was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster. (((On the facts as alleged, that was indeed the case. Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed.))) Whatever your thoughts on the alleged transaction, it was neither “illegal”, nor “immoral”! It would have been a legally permissible political strategy around the Constitutional our architecture.")

Nyari, I copied the full quote above so that we can examine it thoroughly.

"In any case and as far as this matter is concern, the key issue is 'Ordinary Residence' and what it means legally."

I understand now that the correct phrase in the constitution is "ordinarily resident."

"As far as that is concern, I do not see any coherent legal argument in Lamin's piece that defies the authorities I have cited."

In fact, I don't think he defies the authorities you cited. You are both relying on the same legal opinions for your understanding of "ordinary resident". Take a look at his court citations and your court citations, the content is almost the same although the language and structure may be different. While you are concern with "ordinary residence", he is concern with "ordinarily resident"

"The legal definition I provided for 'Ordinary Residence' was adopted by many courts within the common law jurisdictions including the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Canada in Thomson v Minister of National Revenue."

He has also cited a Canadian court's opinion on "ordinary resident" and the contents are almost the same.

"Once again, I leave you with this quote from the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of Canada. I am maintaining my position.

"The expression "ordinarily resident" carries a restricted signification, and although the first impression seems to be that of preponderance in time, the decisions on the English Act reject that view. It is held to mean residence in the course of the customary mode of life of the person concerned, and it is contrasted with special or occasional or casual residence. The general mode of life is, therefore, relevant to a question of its application." (See Thomson v Minister of National Revenue (1946) SCR 209. Also, McFadyen v. The Queen, [2000] 4 CTC 2573 per Justice Garon).

Thanks
Go to Top of Page

kobo



United Kingdom
7765 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2014 :  11:36:30  Show Profile Send kobo a Private Message
Sankalanka You can rest your case as respected legal luminary (Lawyer Lamin J.Darbo) confirm certain utterly incontrovertible points, in your arguments from above.

PART - 1: Listing his statements are these SALIENT POINTS QUOTED below;
  • Dear Musa Camara

    "As in your article dealing with the illegal appointment, and continuance in office, of Dr Amadou Scattred Janneh, as a Secretary of State, you are again on terra firma in contending that the GMC leader, Mai Fatty (Mai), was constitutionally barred from contesting the Presidency in 2011. Should His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Doctor Yahya A J J Jammeh (the Professor) take us to election 2016, Mai’s constitutional fate would remain the same as far as his legal ability to contest the presidency. To the extent your argument is thus confined, I take no issue with your position."

  • "Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed."

  • "On whether the phrase “ordinarily resident” is “technical”, that postulation should not detain us. I have heard the same argument before from our “concerned Gambian” on a different platform, but on the same issue, and it is not compelling at all. Although I accept that “ordinarily resident” can have a legal connotation, it is clearly a common phrase in daily usage. What “technical” meaning it has does not change the fact that for the 2011 presidential elections, Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia. Wherever Mai was resident in the run-up to 2011, it was not The Gambia, and the contention that he was ineligible to stand as a presidential candidate in that year, and in 2016 for that matter, is therefore unassailable. "

  • As to our “concerned Gambian’s” contention that the Professor himself “will not be qualified to run since he too is sometimes absent from the country for days if not weeks”, that cannot be the intent of “ordinarily resident” in our constitutional context. Those are very short absences, and more crucially, on national service.

    In the UK, “the courts have interpreted ordinary residence as a regular habitual mode of life in a particular place, the continuity of which has persisted despite temporary absences”. In deciding its meaning, a Canadian Court stated that “”ordinary residence” connotes something more than mere temporary presence in a place. It refers to the place in which a person's lifestyle is centered and to which the person regularly returns if his or her presence is not continuous”. In further amplifying the meaning of the phrase, that same Court approvingly stated that
    “most common law courts understand ordinary residence to mean the place where a person resides in the ordinary course of his or her day to day life. If the inquiry is directed towards a person's real home as many courts have suggested a person usually will have only one place of ordinary residence notwithstanding the family courts' early reliance on cases decided in an income tax context where the courts held that an individual can have more than one residence”.

  • "As stated earlier, I accept your interpretation that Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia in 2011, and that he was therefore ineligible to run for President in that year. For practical purposes, this remains the case for Mai assuming there is a 2016 in electoral terms, and under the Professor’s rules." By Lamin J. Darbo (Lawyer & UDP militant)

Edited by - kobo on 07 Jan 2014 04:16:32
Go to Top of Page

Nyarikangbanna

United Kingdom
1382 Posts

Posted - 06 Jan 2014 :  14:05:32  Show Profile Send Nyarikangbanna a Private Message
Rene, after putting illegal and immoral into quotations, he went on to tell Musa Camara that his arguments on those points are impossible to sustain. This is very clear; he was telling Musa that he is damn wrong. That contradicts his postulations you quoted earlier or at least how you interpreted it, and also his take on 'ordinary residence'. I have reviewed Lamin's article in full.

When you talked about authority in law, it means a cited case with full name and citations or a provision of a statute or constitution. I did not see any of that in LJD's piece. His comments on the the views of the courts in England and Canada are not detailed enough to make a coherent sense and by the way, they are not verifiable due to lack of citations.

The authorities I have cited indicated that the meaning of 'ordinary residence' is a highly flexible one. It also said it is not necessarily about preponderence in time. That means it requires a lot more explanation than LJD has provided. Notwithstanding, he also said this;

"Most common law courts understand ordinary residence to mean the place where a person resides in the ordinary course of his or her day to day life".

Mai was not in the ordinary course of his day to day life when he was overseas confined in a hospital or recieving medical treatment. In the ordinary course of his daily life, he was living in The Gambia and this is what made him an ordinary resident of that country at least for the 5yr period preceding the 2011 presidential elections.

In any case, there is no need for you to keep going on trying to reconcile or interpretively reconstruct LJD's other comments for the key issue is 'Ordinary Residence' and what it means legally. As far as that is concern, I do not see any coherent legal argument in Lamin's piece that defies the authorities I have cited. The legal definition I provided was adopted by many courts within the common law jurisdictions including the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Canada in Thomson v Minister of National Revenue.

Once again, I leave you with this quote from the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of Canada. I am maintaining my position.

"A reference to the dictionary and judicial comments upon the meaning of these terms indicates that one is "ordinarily resident" in the place where in the settled routine of his life he regularly, normally or customarily lives....

"The graduation of degrees of time, object, intention, continuity and other relevant circumstances, shows, I think, that in common parlance "residing" is not a term of invariable elements, all of which must be satisfied in each instance. It is quite impossible to give it a precise and inclusive definition. It is highly flexible, and its many shades of meaning vary not only in the contexts of different matters, but also in different aspects of the same matter. In one case it is satisfied by certain elements, in another by others, some common, some new.

"The expression "ordinarily resident" carries a restricted signification, and although the first impression seems to be that of preponderance in time, the decisions on the English Act reject that view. It is held to mean residence in the course of the customary mode of life of the person concerned, and it is contrasted with special or occasional or casual residence. The general mode of life is, therefore, relevant to a question of its application.

"For the purpose of income tax legislation, it must be assumed that every person has at all times a residence. It is not necessary to this that he should have a home or a particular place of abode or even a shelter. He may sleep in the open. It is important only to ascertain the spatial bounds within he spends his life or to which his ordered or customary living is related. Ordinary residence can best be appreciated by considering its antithesis, occasional or casual or deviatory residence. The latter would seem clearly to be not only temporary in time and exceptional in circumstances, but also accompanied by a sense of transitoriness and of return.

"But in the different situations of so-called "permanent residence", "temporary residence", "ordinary residence", "principal residence" and the like, the adjectives do not affect the fact that there is in all cases residence; and that quality is chiefly a matter of the degree to which a person in mind and fact settles into or maintains or centralizes his ordinary mode of living with its accessories in social relations, interests and conveniences at or in the place in question. It may be limited in time from the outset, or it may be indefinite, or so far as it is thought of, unlimited. On the lower level, the expressions involving residence should be distinguished, as I think they are in ordinary speech, from the field of "stay" or "visit"." (See Thomson v Minister of National Revenue (1946) SCR 209. Also, McFadyen v. The Queen, [2000] 4 CTC 2573 per Justice Garon).

Thanks

Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 06 Jan 2014 16:08:38
Go to Top of Page

kobo



United Kingdom
7765 Posts

Posted - 07 Jan 2014 :  04:12:10  Show Profile Send kobo a Private Message
PART - 2: To espouse more on article by Lawyer Lamin J.Darbo from these STATEMENTS QUOTED BELOW, especially to examine closely what Nyarikangbanna stated to be "telling Musa that that his arguments on those points are impossible to sustain," "that he is damn wrong", "full of contradictions then or perhaps lack of clarity"; in comparison to his views listed above under PART - 1; which (in my opinion) are apparently controversial views (of Lawyer Lamin J. Darbo), conflicting, incoherent and incomprehensible; laid before us to convince and influence public opinion
  • Dear Musa Camara

    "However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainu Darboe (Ousainu) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainu was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster. On the facts as alleged, that was indeed the case. Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed. Whatever your thoughts on the alleged transaction, it was neither “illegal”, nor “immoral”! It would have been a legally permissible political strategy around the Constitutional our architecture."

  • "The provisions of the Constitution that agitate your conscience as far as the claimed agreement between Ousainu and Mai serve no legitimate national purpose other than to oppressively monopolize public power. For any president in full charge of his faculties, the Constitution’s eligibility provisions for election to the Presidency, or appointment to the Cabinet, would have to be immediately suspended upon taking office, and completely dropped, in due time, from any future supreme governing document of The Gambia. There is indeed a legitimate argument to be made for the contention that at least 80% of Constitutional provisions not entrenched must be immediately suspended by a successor government to Professor Jammeh’s APRC if only because of the document’s total concentration of national power in the Executive. It is the suspension of offending provisions - in collaboration with the National Assembly - that would have validated, and legalized, any claimed agreement between Ousainu, and Mai."

  • "Without question, someone with your demonstrated faculties can clearly appreciate why there are no “legal” or “moral” issues around the claimed agreement between Ousainu, and Mai. If indeed a deal was reached, it was a competent agreement with not a hint of illegality or immorality. In The Gambia, the Vice President is appointed, not elected. Even without suspending the problematic provisions of the Constitution, Ousainu would have been legally able to appoint Musa Camara as Vice President assuming exclusive Gambian citizenship. If you are a dual national who negatively triggered the residency requirements, a suspension of the offending provisions would have legally cleared the way for your Cabinet appointment."

  • "Notwithstanding, and for reasons earlier stated, I reject your contention that where an agreement was reached as claimed, Ousainu was part of an “illegal” transaction. It follows therefore that I reject your assertion that this alleged Vice Presidential agreement with Mai was “both an issue of character and judgment especially for Mr. Darboe”. If there was indeed a deal, it was neither “illegal” nor “immoral”, and there was never any issue either of “character” or “judgment”. If even in a tortured way, our extant constitutional framework would have permitted the outcome had Ousainu actually offered the Vice Presidency to Mai." By Lamin J. Darbo (Lawyer & UDP militant)

Edited by - kobo on 07 Jan 2014 06:49:42
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
| More
Jump To:
Bantaba in Cyberspace © 2005-2017 Nijii Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.25 seconds. User Policy, Privacy & Disclaimer | Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.06