 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 13:58:21
|
| friends do you remember Mark Anthony when he made that remarkable speech after the assasination of Ceasar, he was not directly seeking for the crown nor was he shunning it .If anyone thinks Halifa is not interested in leading us as it were so be it . The fact remains that politicians tend to tell their target what they want to hear either directly or in a devious manner.Halifa has been on the political platform for too long not to want to rule at all but and a very good but is how is he going about getting us to put him there . As for Pa Siakou premises that Halifa misled us on the accepting or rejection of the Constitution i say that every cat has his own way of breaking the mice head. At that point in time some simply would reject any move by the JUNTA whereas Halifa saw in my view a way forward even if it is not clear enough for some. In that instance one could say he did push an agenda which now that a lot of water has gone under the bridge we can assess as a sellout to Jammeh depending on which side of the bridge one is standing. I respect Halifa and his supporters but the fact remains that politicians have to sacrifice some principles if they want to jointly tackle a common foe ,failing which each buries his head into the sand pretending that they are secure and the other party is not. This is the situation we have as regards the NADD and UDP/NRP impasse. |
 |
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2006 : 16:02:23
|
Momodou,
Halifa did indeed reply to this and many others who took him to task for his role in getting a flawed constitution passed with the knowledge that two of the key provisions have been taken out by the Junta contrary to the wishes of the populace. His excuse was that he was trying to avoid a Rwandan episode from happening in the Gambia. Say what? It wasn't that tense. I was in the country then. Principles my left foot.
I am not a Halifa basher. The man did a lot for his nation. He is brilliant, but it will further political discourse if his disciples will own up to the fact that some of the actions he took during the transition were not exemplary. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 03:12:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Momodou
quote:
Originally posted by kobo Halifa would have defended himself if the article and those allegations came to his knowledge.
kobo, Halifa had indeed responded and the exchanges are there in the Gambia-L archives. Some responses should be in the archives of November 1999 and December 1999. You will find many other interesting discussions there but you have to search for them.
Any help with the information from admin. Momodou? Perhaps it may help to substantiate Bronx allegations and/or any attempts to discredit him. If given the chance to review them we would gather the facts and deal with them accordingly.
Irrespective of that I believed under present circumstances Halifa is more politically ready than all opposition party leaders especially Lawyer Ousainou Darboe and Hamat Bah for the political challenges that lie ahead.
|
Edited by - kobo on 19 Aug 2006 03:19:31 |
|
|
|
Biraago
Gambia
173 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 04:39:55
|
Halifa's Reply to Hamjatta - (A Pox On Halifa's Semantic Sophistry) Hamjatta,
Your posting of December 19 is quite interesting. It appears that you do acknowledge that the 1997 Constitution is superior in content to the 1970 Constitution. However, you proceeded to ask the question: "Where did you get the lopsided idea that we have raised issues of any kind that makes comparative analysis of the 1970 and 1997 Constitution?" You further asked: "Was there any dispute about the development of the 1997 constitution over the 1970 constitution?" You then proceeded to state categorically that: "Fairly and squarely, the 1997 constitution did away with much of the monarchical proclivities, gender discrimination and most of the democratic deficits that were inherent in the 1970 constitution." Interesting. Isn't it?
Why then are you asking me to explain why I gave support to the 1997 Constitution. Of course, you did give an answer. According to you, I made a postulation which was never raised. Furthermore, you indicated that: "It was a deliberate deviationist ploy and intellectual dishonesty on your part to bring up a point that was never in dispute; that of the 1997 constitution's developments over the 1970 constitution. The idea that Saul and I found the 1970 constitution preferable to the 1997 constitution is a figment of your feverish imaginations and very hallucinatory brought up solely to gain cheap points."
Now, now, Hamjatta, angry invectives aside, I know you are more intelligent than this. It is true that I have been very provocative. I quite understand that the trend of discourse does not help you to easily digest the points at issue because of the language like 'pedantic' and others which impinge on your self esteem. I have been doing so because of the prevalence of uncouth words like 'hog wash' in your own correspondence, fit only to be utilised by one who has allowed his or her language to degenerate into lumpen parlance. I would like to apologise for giving the wrong impression that everything you say is empty in content. It is my duty to encourage you to sharpen your critical faculties since you constitute the foundation for a future Gambia. In actual fact, the right thing to do is to enhance your self esteem instead of impinging on it.
Let me now get to the point. You know as much as I do that there can be no constitutional order without a constitution. Hence, in order to restore constitutional rule after the coup, Gambians had two options, that is, to restore the 1970 Constitution which had been suspended or come up with a new constitution.
Furthermore, constitutions are drawn up within a given contextual framework. In our case, it had to be worked out under the government of the day or under another government which could only have been possible at the time by overthrowing the AFPRC.
The fact that you accused me of deviationist ploy by bringing the relation between the 1970 and the 1997 Constitution into play seems to indicate to me that you did not fully understand the mandate which brought the 1997 Constitution into being.
Let me refer to the terms of reference of the Constitutional Review Commission which were spelt out in section 5 of Decree No. 33. They read:
"(1) The terms of reference of the Commission shall be;
"(a) to formulate proposals for a Draft Constitution for The Gambia taking into account:
"(i) the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1970 for purposes of determining its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The Gambia;
"(ii) Laws passed after the enactment of the Constitution of 1970 whose provisions or part thereof merit inclusion in the draft Constitution;
"(iii) Views and comments of members of the general public including professional and other bodies and associations;
"(iv) Matters which in the opinion of the Commission are reasonably related to this section;
"(v) Such matters as may be referred to it by the Council.
"(b) Submit to the Council a draft Constitution which shall form the basis of a new Constitution for The Gambia; and
"(c) To present a report of their activities which shall contain recommendations and such other matters that merit consideration by the Council."
Hence, it should be abundantly clear that it was the fundamental role for the Constitutional Review Commission to review the 1970 Constitution and determine its adequacy or otherwise for the good governance of The Gambia. This was one of the principal task.
Furthermore, the Commission was to take note of recommendations of other bodies.
A draft constitution emerged out of the exercise. Gambians had the option to accept or reject the draft constitution. There would still have been elections under Decree 78 regardless of whether Gambians accepted or rejected the draft constitution. In fact the presidential and national assembly elections took place before the constitution came into force.
Suffice it to say, if the draft constitution was rejected, the Party which won the elections would have had the mandate to prepare another constitution or restore the 1970 constitution. On the other hand, by accepting the draft constituion, any party which took over would have had to abide by that constitution but would also have had the capacity to consult the people again to bring about a new constitution.
You have already agreed that the 1997 Constitution is superior to the 1970 constitution. Relying on this conclusion you have drawn, it would, therefore, not be an option to you to restore the 1970 Constitution.
Now, if we rejected the draft constitution, it would have meant that after winning an election, the same AFPRC would have ruled by some form of transitional instruments based on decrees until we promulgated a new constitution. The acceptance of the 1997 Constitution provides a yard stick by which the performance of the AFPRC could be gauged, and the instruments available such as the courts, auditor general's department, the Independent Electoral Commission made operational.
As a Gambian, I was of the opinion that it was best to have a constitution which has elements that were superior to a constitution that I have functioned under for 26 years at the time.
I did also alert my mind to the concerns you raised. According to you, your "dispute was premised on the blanket Indemnity Clause, the term limit and age of the presidency, how still the executive (presidency) still has enormous monarchical dispositions that the Constitution Review Committee has not fundamentally stripped off the 1997 constitution...."
I am sure you know that in my memorandum to the Constitutional Review Commission, I had exposed and opposed all the monarchical characteristics of constitutions using the 1970 constitution as an example. Furthermore, there is no Gambian, except those who have something to hide and lose, who would support an Indemnity Clause. However, the issue was whether to accept the draft constitution with these flaws or reject it on the basis of those flaws.
In my view, I had lived with those flaws under the 1970 constitution. Hence, if I could get a constitution with more advanced provisions to the 1970 Constitution with the same flaws all the better. It is on this basis that I supported the 1997 Constitution. I am sure you do know that there was no term limit under the 1970 constitution which kept Jawara in office for over two decades. I am sure you do know that the age (30 years), qualification for a presidential candidate is the same under the 1970 constitution as it is under the 1997 constitution. I know you do know that the 1970 constitution did not bar state of emergencies from being called and Indemnity Act established as the one after the 1981 coup absolving government and its agents from any liabilities to any commission or ommission of an act under the Emergency Regulations.
Needless to say, you have already acknowledged the monarchical characteristics embedded in the 1970 Constitution. What is your problem now and why do you find it difficult to understand why I, personally, supported the 1997 Constitution? I do not know what Saul's position would be; whether he also holds that the 1997 constituion is superior to the 1970. Otherwise, I would have gone into greater details to make a comparative analysis. This is the first point.
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 09:53:07
|
| Thanks Biraago. It appears there were lots of improvements to warrant endorsement of the revised constitution by Halifa Sallah. Implementation and further revision were tailor made by Jammeh and his Administration under APRC to suit their political objectives rather than for the advancement of the relevant structures for a better Gambia. They used it for their own annesty and open loopholes for manipulation or I would rather say made the constitution bad (as subsequently seen to be) technically and legally. Halifa put in all his efforts to sensitise the masses through the media for drafting a good constitution before the referandum but its finalisation were done under the purview of AFPRC (i.e the military junta). All the defiencies and the blame cannot be against him but to those unpatriotic Gambians who did the homework for Jammeh and the APRC. Furthermore what he advocated are far different in what has been finalised and incorporated in the 1997 constitution. |
Edited by - kobo on 19 Aug 2006 09:56:03 |
|
|
|
Biraago
Gambia
173 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 13:04:10
|
Kobo,
With your understanding of the situation at home, don't let the deviationists divert your attention and reduce your contribution into hoping for a new alliance of all in the opposition.
The gact of the matter is that, those whom you want to cooperate with are bashing NADD more than Jammeh on the home front.
70% of the rethoric coming from the supporters of the other alliance is againt NADD instead of the APRC.
So please, if you sence any glimse of a progressive nature in NADD, concentrate on the essentials of the campaign.
Bring out write-up that would educate the readership and lead them to a progressive posture. Their is no time for sideline discussions on our side at this moment.
All the genuine NADD supporters are closing ranks now and I hope you are still one of them.
Tke care |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 16:56:04
|
Don't worry about other views on this topic Biraago. Likewise in a democratic forum just post your opinions and make critical analysis on any comments for your own good and leave others to consump the gabbage they want.
Pa Saikou Kujabi appears to be more of Jammeh's agent and with double standards to rally with Jammeh against the likes of Halifa whom he appears to have ill feelings against. Am just busy and have read his disoriented analysis of Halifa's reactions to Darboe's UDP/NRP letter and would come to show that he was wrong from my own points of views. We are all praying to have more politicians with the calibre and level of political maturity like Halifa to move Gambia forward. Don't you think so |
|
|
|
Biraago
Gambia
173 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 18:33:39
|
Very well so. Wothout any drop of doubt.
It is my conviction that each and every progressive should try with their atmost capacity to raise themselve to a level higher than Halifa has attained among other progressives.
Ofcourse, the reactionary elements are here to stay and their actions or re-actions should always be taken into account so as to help other see through them and the fallacy in which they base their interventions at any given time. |
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 19:22:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bronx
What Kujabi failed to understand is that saint Halifa is always right. He is infallible in the eyes of his supporters and nothing is ever his fault. Like the fictional character Napoleone in George Orwells animal farm, he is always right. Better not speak ill of him. He is beyond all human infallibility. He is the leader of NADD, but you see he is not interested in positions. If you disagree with his position on anything, you must have your head buried in the sand. You are unpatriotic, you need psychiatric help or better yet need to be locked up in Campana for speaking ill of his highness Halifa Sallah. Pleeeaaseee...the man spent the past two decade trying to convince Gambians that he got the right way forward.
Either he is a bad communicator or his leadership skills suck.
Oh is Halifa really?I am learning every day |
|
|
|
dbaldeh
USA
934 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 19:58:11
|
Brother Biraago and Kobo, I can't agree with you folks more. It is absolutely right that we should concentrate our energy on the positives and prepare mother Gambia for a better future.
It is equally essential that we TACKLE head on those people who are only interested in discrediting people who have worked so hard to restore good governance in the Gambia. The likes of Pa Saikou CANNOT be let loose without setting the records straight. It is generally easier to destroy than to put sense in peoples' brains. If anyone is frustrated about current political events, they should look in the mirror and see the problem in themselves.
Thanks Biraago for reproducing Halifa's response to the constitutional debate. I hope BRONX will have the chance to read it one more time and acknowledge Halifa's position. As I rightly mentioned, the WHOLE WAS AND IS STILL BETTER THAN THE PARTS OF THE 1997 constitution. Halifa's position cannot be more explicit than that. I am done with the Halifa debate as his response clears the air. look out for more contributions for the way forward. Peace
|
Baldeh,
"Be the change you want to see in the world" Ghandi
Visit http://www.gainako.com for your daily news and politics |
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2006 : 20:14:04
|
Baldeh,
I read Halifa's response. I was part of the discussion then. I am not satisfy with his flimsy excuses then especially with regards to the indemnity clause that essentially shield Yahya and his cohorts from crimes they may committed during the transition period. Look at how he wriggle his way out in trying to explain why he supported a flawed document.
"In my view, I had lived with those flaws under the 1970 constitution. Hence, if I could get a constitution with more advanced provisions to the 1970 Constitution with the same flaws all the better."....Halifa
That was your saint speaking. A very principle man indeed. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 09:37:30
|
We reached a climax under the then military junta (AFPRC)where a deal must be done with them to restore a civilian rule and a civilian government. They dictated the terms in their favour and that annesty was very crucial for the package negotiated. Its Jammeh and others who betrayed Gambians on the Constitution and contradicting what they advocated when PPP was toppled. To remind you; ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARANCY, ANTI- RAMPANT CORRUPTION, ANTI-DICTATORSHIP, JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY. Do you forget those messages and the spirit of patriaotism or confidence reposed on them for rectification and development?
Halifa cannot be revered as a Saint but a good statesman, politically mature and a heavyweight in Gambian politics. NOT TO FORGET THAT HE IS A VERY HUMBLE PERSON, NOT SELFISH, NOT GREEDY OR MATERIALISM All his latest letters were elucidite appeals to work with Darboe, Hamat Bah, UDP/NRP and others for NATIONAL UNITY OF THE OPPOSITION PARTIES to fight, uproot and topple a weak and a very corrupt government and make Gambia a better place you want to be proud of. From research and analysis, he knew the popular votes collectively can make a difference for the opposition and for success they should be prepared to work as a team.
Enouigh is enough BRONX, NYARINKANBANA AND JANYAFARA. Please leave Halifa alone and forward any proposal through this forum to make Darboe, Hamat, Halifa, Waa, O.J, Landing Jallow Sonko, Hassan Musa Camara and other potentials from the opposition parties to work together and salvage the situation you want Gambia to be. It has came to the crunch that I would endorse Darboe's flagbearership and Presidential candidacy if that would bring the success envisged in election 2006. However that may be an arbitary decision, premature, undemocratic, weakness and politically unrealistic to act in such ways. Therefore a proper platform must be arranged to formalise the structures and negotiations. Is there any solution to challenge them to work together.
One must lead and others follow Can you refer us to any objections from Halifa for not willing to work with Darboe or Hamat? Thats the deal and more progressive rather than attempts to tarnished or discredit him |
Edited by - kobo on 20 Aug 2006 10:19:31 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 12:28:18
|
Bronx, Thanks for your observation. Halifa have encouraged, condoned and approved the culture of impunity, and that was simply because the victims were PPP stalwarts. Your reference to the Indemnity clause said it all. He has no sense of natural justice and he is deceitful. That is a fact. That is why I stopped attending his symposia when I was in form 5 at Gambia High School. Think about what happen to the likes of OuSAINU Njai. Everything was said against him but he was never brought before any commission or judicial authority but they still seized almost all his properties. What sort of justice is that? Let him be the son of jawara, I don't care. If he is accused he should be tried and punished through the due process of the law, not jungle justice. Thanks to Halifa's backed indemnity clause, the man kept fighting a fruitless battle until he was neutralised by death. This is inhumane. If a member of my family had suffered like that I would have given Halifa a bloody noise.
As for Kobo, I can understand your feelings but forget it. The nuisance has blown it all up. He was given skeletal proposals to consider as set out agendas for the meeting he was invited to. Instead of coming to the meeting with his opinion and engage those who invited him, he stood at the Bantaba [media] vilifying everybody. The truth is the man wants to stand at all cost. Don't believe a single word he said. He is just trying to justify his decision to stand hence the countless ranting. So be aware. He is interested in power and he is going to stand.
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 13:46:33
|
| I also wish to suggest that as Halifa did in reconciling us with an arbitrary costitution he can move a further mile by sacricing his stance an honourable one to accommodate a union with Ousainou which i believe is a better move than the former which has left us with a blemished constitution only fit to used as toilet paper as the document is worth zero butut. Like i said earlier we all have our choice of whom we want to lead us and that could blind us but here i stress that the need is for sacrifice which either Ousainou or Halifa should make, I will urge all parties to consider this option. Let no one dig heels in and resist the pull, the one who sacrifices most in this case would be our hero; so who will bell the cat? Please lets go for the alliance , flawed in our various opinions but the best option right now. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 20 Aug 2006 : 15:44:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Bronx, Thanks for your observation. Halifa have encouraged, condoned and approved the culture of impunity, and that was simply because the victims were PPP stalwarts. Your reference to the Indemnity clause said it all. He has no sense of natural justice and he is deceitful. That is a fact. That is why I stopped attending his symposia when I was in form 5 at Gambia High School. The nuisance has blown it all up. He was given skeletal proposals to consider as set out agendas for the meeting he was invited to. Instead of coming to the meeting with his opinion and engage those who invited him, he stood at the Bantaba [media] vilifying everybody. The truth is the man wants to stand at all cost. Don't believe a single word he said. He is just trying to justify his decision to stand hence the countless ranting. So be aware. He is interested in power and he is going to stand.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I disgree to some of your allegations. He does not own all the clauses incorporated in the constitution. That constution went through a process, many fora, many organs and hands. Its about a NATIONAL PROGRAM, THE LAW, ITS CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT STEERING THE STATE ORGANS. A lot of stakeholders and don't use Halifa as a scapegoat. He was one of those victims under the military and present APRC government. How many times he appeared in courts on politics and challenging injustices, bad laws and its enforcements |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
