| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Aug 2006 : 10:50:08
|
QUOTES FROM UDP/NRP LETTER ON NADD
"The UDP/NRP Alliance wishes to draw NADD's attention to the fact that legally UDP/NRP cannot be part or members of NADD. The NADD Executive seems to be ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sallah and others Vs. The Clerk of the National Assembly and others. "
END OF QUOTE
What about decisions and resolutions agreed under a general consensus to institute NADD strategically committed to national political and moral obligations to save the Gambia democracy; emancipancipation of the Gambia from APRC regime as taking precedence over subsequent decisions to legalise NADD including decisions of the Supreme Court which accepts its legality without the existence of registration of other parties as you cannot be into two boats in the eyes of the law.
If you consider to commit to a national alliance do you need to clinch on individual parties and eventually disintegrate existence of the spirit of the national alliance. Any legal connotaions please teach me the law?
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2006 : 17:28:56
|
Yes sir kobo,
He can and I belief he definately can.["However ugly a dog might be,its teeth is white" coate from Cyrus]
peace
Janyanfara |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 16:14:35
|
Precedents overule as one of the legal basis for the most profound decisions that could be relied upon or considered for decisive judgements. So is the saying "National interests takes precedence over .......whatever". In my opinion, "considering making committment of forming a national alliance should take account that it consolidates and unify all the individual parties genuinely committed to it eventually overrides them to exist." Therefore what takes precedent over other parties is the creation of a national alliance and registering it to contest under one ticket rather than individual parties.
Janyafara and others please refer to points of law, legal and political reviews on the subject matter of this topic or in reference to the present impasse and the different standpoints between the opposition parties on formation and dis-integration of a national alliance; picking on from the quotes of Lawyer Ousainou Darboe above, please, please, please?
|
Edited by - kobo on 26 Aug 2006 16:25:02 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 16:41:43
|
The MOU is not a legal document and therefore not legally binding on any one. Notwithstanding that, those who left did so with clear conscience. They refused their intelligence to be insulted and their integrity impugned. The facts are stated in my numerous articles published in allgambian.net. I suggest you refer back to them. In the meantime, we have other important things to handle but if you choose to try us on this matter you shall be our guest.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 18:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
The MOU is not a legal document and therefore not legally binding on any one. Notwithstanding that, those who left did so with clear conscience. They refused their intelligence to be insulted and their integrity impugned. The facts are stated in my numerous articles published in allgambian.net. I suggest you refer back to them. In the meantime, we have other important things to handle but if you choose to try us on this matter you shall be our guest.
Thanks
The MOU can be initially considered a draft document until finalised formally and presented as signed, seal and delivered to make it legal. It was provided for consideration by all interested parties in forming a national alliance and UDP/ NRP's proposals were very important for its development and implementaion for strategic political objectives; in the interest of the nation; seeking better alternatives to rule other than APRC under Jammeh. |
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 18:37:16
|
Kobo,
The MOU is not legally binding on any of the signatories. It was a memorandum of understanding to form an alliance not a party. But by deceit or neglect someone went ahead and register the alliance as a party notwithstanding the advice of one of Gambia's luminary legal minds. That is one of the issues that culminated in the break up of the initial NADD project. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 19:26:44
|
Kobo, you said the MOU can be considered a draft. Please be informed that only the following are close to a legal document but they are not until finalized in the prescribed manner.
Public Law
1. draft constitution
2. draft statute/Act
3. draft statutory instrument/delegated legislation
Private Law
1. draft contract
2. draft covenant
3. draft will
Which of the above is the MOU nearing to? You Said it is a draft. That means it is not legal. So what is the fuss about somebody having to give it a bloody noise? You tell me.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 00:31:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bronx
Kobo,
The MOU is not legally binding on any of the signatories. It was a memorandum of understanding to form an alliance not a party. But by deceit or neglect someone went ahead and register the alliance as a party notwithstanding the advice of one of Gambia's luminary legal minds. That is one of the issues that culminated in the break up of the initial NADD project.
I disagree. If the MOU was signed it is legally binding on the signatories 100% and you are liable to its terms and conditions. There is no way to defend UDP/NRP if they actually signed the final document (actually the MOU) and backed out as no other than traitors. Their intentions and commitment to join forces with other opposition parties and form a national alliancewere duly expressed respectively. What is the fuss in not telling the truth? |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 00:33:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Kobo, you said the MOU can be considered a draft. Please be informed that only the following are close to a legal document but they are not until finalized in the prescribed manner.
Public Law
1. draft constitution
2. draft statute/Act
3. draft statutory instrument/delegated legislation
Private Law
1. draft contract
2. draft covenant
3. draft will
Which of the above is the MOU nearing to? You Said it is a draft. That means it is not legal. So what is the fuss about somebody having to give it a bloody noise? You tell me.
Thanks
You appear to be out of order and I don't understand what relevance is this to Darboe's flimpsy legal defence to justify UDP/NRP irrational decisions from the quotes above. |
Edited by - kobo on 28 Aug 2006 00:34:08 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 09:58:14
|
Nyarinkangbana please refere back why that legal provision came into existence. It came about to control, limit and eliminate politics of deception by scrupulous politicians on 'cross carpeting'. 'Cross carpeting' are double standards, dis-service, mis-representaions and betrayal of public confidence. Its the same somersault exercise simimilar to 'cross carpeting' that is the operative or technical principle and fundamental in interpretation of the law and the constitution in formation and registeration of any form of any party or alliance including UDP/NRP alliance.
NADD is regitered and now legal in all respects under the constitution to contest any elections. Thats where Lawyer Darboe and Hamat Bah had their prospects and chances of nominations for Presidential candidates and runner-up etc. If UDP/NRP alliance is registered there is no more UDP or NRP accourding to the spirit of the constitution. They have not even registered UDP/NRP alliance and therefore each party would elect its own Presidential candidate and contest separately as UDP against NRP in forthcoming elections. Lwayer Darboe knew about that 'dead trap' in place already for them and as stumbling block.
Thinking about this ALARMING FACT? See you later!
|
Edited by - kobo on 28 Aug 2006 10:29:28 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 12:18:10
|
Kobo. You said the Mou is legally binding. Please be informed that all legally binding documents are enforceable in court. Instead of Waa Juwara and Halifa Wasting all those time in the media, why don't they go to court then? Court rulings are always authoritative and that means if the court agrees with them, then their position on this matter would be valid and authoritative.
I think you are bit naive. The fact that you can come out with such an outlandish statement only goes to confirm your naivety. Notwithstanding this, you will not be spared in our scrutiny. Ok
On the question of NADD’s status, the question of cross-carpeting has no bearing on the issue of NAAD status for nobody has cross-carpeted.
The UDP/NRP alliance is a party-led alliance and like all other alliance [In fact it is the only sort of alliance permissible in law] it does not have to be registered because alliances cannot be registered with the IEC unless you want to transform it into a party as in the case of NADD. That is the ramification of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Halifa and others. Notwithstanding this, they are still capable of sponsoring one candidate to contest any election. That is what happened in 2001 with the UDP/PPP alliance and there was no problem and that is what is happening now with the UDP/NRP alliance and there is no problem. They have not joined each others parties. All what they have done is to put the efforts of the parties together. That is what is called an alliance and not what your master fantasist wants us to believe.
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 16:17:55
|
Daffeh,
You got the issue right. If Halifa and his PDOIS intelligentsia heeded the warnings of Lawyer Darbo and leave NADD as an alliance the legal limbo that followed will never have happened. But Kobo will want us to believe otherwise. I have no legal training whatsoever, but I know for sure that the MOU is not a legally binding document. Come to think of it, registering NADD as a political party was a ploy used by the lesser numerical parties in the alliance to blackmail the larger ones. Their scheme backfired and now you have Kobo telling us that the UDP/NRP will go through the same fate. Where she got that idea from I don't know. UDP and NRP formed an alliance with each party retaining its viability. All they are doing is putting their resources together to challenge a common opponent. That will never be ruled illegal by any stretch. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 18:15:54
|
You see all these arguments in hindsight looks futile and stupid (my regrets please). We cannot forget that NADD was a product of intense negotiations and transactions involving all interested parties including the much alluded lawyer , Ousainou Darboe.
NADD , a new party was created (MOU created and signed by all including Lawyer Darboe) and registered , APRC government sued for the resignation of Halifa , Hamat Bah , and Kemeseng, and they resigned following the supreme court judgment, a by-election was called where Halifa and others retained ( win back) their seats in the National Assembly and Hamat lost his. All was looking good until the selection of the flagbearer came to the table and darboe failed to get a unanimous support (like he always did in UDP). Let me say that in a democracy there will and should be no unanimous support for any candidate.Democracy is about contention. Then Darboe resigned in anger pulling with him NRP's Hamat Bah as his satellite.
So to sit down now and try to argue that "UDP/NRP cannot be part or members of NADD to potray ignorance of the origins of NADD.The fact is that UDP/NRP were NADD.The current mess is created by Darboe's resignation because of his personal ambition for power. Do you guys want to cut a deal with Darboe ?Does his want to accept the one five-year term limit, as required by agreements under NADD , after which he will retire from politics so there can be a level playing field ? I don't think Darboe is interested in any of these "nation-saving" ideals.
Again I am not at all familiar with the laws of the Gambia but when I heard about the the landmark supreme court decition that NADD members of the National Assembly must give up their seats i was shocked. I was my opinion at the time that the Supreme court would not make such a decision for the interest of publc policy. It was my opinion that the supreme court would limit the interpretation of the constitutional provision to the kind political cross-carpeting we have seen in Jawara-era House Of Parliament. There is no doubt that the Supreme court decision hindered the growth of multi-party democracy in the Gambia.
God bless you all. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 19:46:01
|
I think the solution is to vote APRC if the opposition cannot find a common ground. As far as i know there is a common ground in APRC. We may not like that, but certainly they are more consistent. Like them or not.
What NADD breakup indicates is disunity among opposition parties. So they should go back to the drawing board and prepare for 2011 buty in the mean time ask their supporters to vote APRC. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:26:50
|
If the MOU was not legally binding why did Hamat Bah (NRP) lost his seat and Kemeseng (UDP) through ruling of the Supreme court? Thats enough and no need to pursue the traitors who play double standards and pursuing their hiden agenda (best known to themselves).
I would appreciate to be referred to the legal authority or relevant Section of the constitution on alliance? |
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 01:30:22 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:49:07
|
Kemeseng and others lost their seats because they were found to be members of two parties contrary to the constitution. They thought they belong to a party that was part of an alliance created by the MOU. Halifa and co override that MOU, register NADD and consequently gave it a party status under the law. That is why those MPs lost their seats ok.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
