| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:55:49
|
Parties warming up for nominations under http://allafrica.com/stories/200608280243.htm
and the Point newspaper's report under http://www.thepoint.gm/headlines1149.htm
However please note from above article that "Sources from the IEC (Independent Electoral Commission) have said five nomination forms had been collected, but did not give any further detail. If all the forms will be returned then Gambians are out for some surprise as only four potential contestants are yet known." Who are those four potential candidates?
In my opinion, most likely to be incumbent 1. Yaya A.J.Jammeh (APRC), 2. Halifa Sallah (NADD), 3. Lawyer Ousainou Darboe (UDP0, 4. Hamat Bah (NRP), in compliance and according to the Electoral Laws and Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia. Thats within my limitations and limited knowledge of the Electoral Laws and Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia. However the detractors of constituting a proper national alliance would soon be exposed.
|
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 02:15:24 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 02:06:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
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
Thats the answer to show that The MOU is a valid legal document and legally binding on all parties that signed under its signatories. |
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 02:12:06 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 02:15:49
|
what do you mean when you say: that means the MOU is Valid. it is valid only as long as you want to honour it but if you choose not to, turf. It is not legally binding and therefore unenforceable in the legal sense.
Can you come up with something else because this one is absolute nuts.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 02:21:08
|
Ok if you think the MOU is legally binding, why don't you ask NADD to sue under it and leave me to sleep because you still haven't wake me up. Otherwise you might take a walk to the sydney Harbour. Maybe the sea breeze will afresh you.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 02:33:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Ok if you think the MOU is legally binding, why don't you ask NADD to sue under it and leave me to sleep because you still haven't wake me up. Otherwise you might take a walk to the sydney Harbour. Maybe the sea breeze will afresh you.
Thanks
Am sorry to consider you as a layman on law. The MOU is legally valid and you can't do anything about it. No need to sue for breach of contract. The dis-service, dis-loyalty, betrayal and breach of public confidence has more serious repercussions and setbacks to the nation than your trivialities and limiting your efforts to focus on few detrators with the ideology members of UDP/NRP only or UDP/NRP parties alliance, or UDP/NRP political club exclusively for its members; rather than advocacy of broader based national interests.
You are selfish, treacherous, full of hatred, creates enemies, slanderous, discriminatory, advocacy of sagregation and/or divide and rule policies; for UDP/NRP parties only without any compromise and not appreciating any sensible ideals and reasonableness! . |
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 03:09:33 |
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 03:23:13
|
Kobo wrote of Daffeh:
You are selfish, treacherous, full of hatred, creates enemies, slanderous, discriminatory, advocacy of sagregation and/or divide and rule policies; for UDP/NRP parties only without any compromise and not appreciating any sensible ideals and reasonableness!
Phew...somebody needs a drink. Calm down missy. The guy didn't agree with your layman's legal analysis and you went beserk. No matter how you slice and dice it, the MOU is not enforceable legally. What you halifarites failed to understand is the fact that the gig is over. The nominations were held on monday. Lets play game if you like sports metaphors that is. Cool those recriminations. Put your "renowned" programs in front of the electorate and don't get hangup on why the UDP/NRP left. It is a done deal and it happened months ago. It is spilt milk and the big enchilida is a month from now. The people you have to convince is not me or Daffeh but the Gambian electorate. I don't have a vote neither do you. So the name calling is out of line. I hope you will be woman enough to apoligize for slandering the character of your fellow citizen because they happened to disagree with ya. But I won't hold my breath for that.
|
Edited by - Bronx on 29 Aug 2006 03:24:50 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 08:48:46
|
Its not about enforceable but it is legally binding under civil matters and laws of contract. Enforceability is not cost effective and trivial issue. What is at stake is to fight together and winning the elections? UDP/NRP are the most untrust-worthy parties in double standards and politics of divide and rule policies. Lets analyse the facts about the nominations.
According to reports from the newspapers as follows:
The OBSERVER NEWSPAPER:
"About five Presidential aspirants are expected to have their nominations endorsed by the IEC, to enable them run for the race.
At least five nomination forms have been confirmed to be collected from the IEC Headquarters, a few weeks ago. However, the electoral body had since maintained that “the collection of a form is one thing, and returning to the IEC for nomination is another thing”.
Kawsu Ceesay, Chief Electoral Officer of IEC, told the Daily Observer that Nadd tops the list of nomination process at 10:00 a m, before APRC will come an hour later.
Mr Ceesay said the NRP, UDP, and GPDP, will arrive for nomination at 13:00 p m, 14:00 p m, and 15:00 p m, respectively. However, he noted that the scheduled times are tentative."
The POINT NEWSPAPER:
"The tentative schedule for the nomination is as follows: Hon. Halifa Sallah, presidential candidate for National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) will be at the IEC at 10:00am. That will be followed at 11:00 am by the nomination of the incumbent president, Yahya Jammeh, the candidate for APRC. At 2:00pm, the candidate for the UDP/NRP alliance, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, will file in his nomination while that of the GDPD leader, Henry Gomez, will come in at 3:00."
QUESTIONS EMANATING FROM ANALYSIS OF THESE REPORTS AS RELIABLE FACTS:
1) We have more than five opposition parties, why five forms issued?
Five forms are for 1. NADD, 2. APRC, 3. UDP, 4. URP 5. GPDD
2) How fragile is UDP/NRP alliance legally and politically?
It appears UDP/NRP has no legal basis under the Electoral Laws and the Constitution and inevitable legal and technical complications may arise subsequetly.
3) What effect and how can NRP nominate or endorse Darboe as its Presidential candidate since the IEC approved nominations of UDP for Darboe as its Presidential candidate or vice versa?
|
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 09:00:42 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 10:52:44
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Kobo, what do you mean when you say NADD is more credible under the law? All the parties in the Gambia are constitutionally constituted by virtue of their registration with the IEC. So how can one party be more credible under the law than others? Again, this only goes on to further expose your naivety.
Look, I have just return from the Nothing Hill Carnival and I am dead. Please wake me up with something sensible not this scrap ok.
Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I clearly declare that NADD is more credible not only under the laws of the Gambia but politically more viable, dynamic and ultimately the best alliance with proper national colours to unite the opposition under one umbrella. The testimony is seen in the Presedential nominations. NADD solidifies PDOIS, NDAM and PPP but UDP and NRP backed out. If they were committed it would have shown great impact in the Presedential nominations because instead of five it would have been three (APRC, NADD and GDPD). Please rule out GDPD as the leader does not reside in the Gambia in the last five years and may not qualify. Therefore eventually it would have been between APRC and NADD (as UDP and NRP also would solidify) for political and strategic reasons. Thas legitimate, valid and legal in the interest of the nation. You are the crabs crawling and the nuts to crack your strong shell as hard as stupidity.
You can't deny the facts above? Can Lawyer Darboe teach us the law also on this legal and political national alliance.
GOOD LUCK TO YOU! NO FURTHER COMMENTS! LONG LIVE NADD!
|
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 10:06:39
|
Within the last 24 hours there are interesting developments to revitalised on this topic about legal issues, political advocay and strategic decisive decisions.
However for legal reasons and accepting NADDs nominations, I tend to enquire whether leaders of UDP and NRP who signed NADDs MOU ever formally resigned, declared rescinding or revoked their signatories on the MOU? Where any resignation letters filed to the IEC after the Supreme court's ruling or forwarded through any courts of law? Are there any declarations or resignations published in the Gambia Gazette on this legal issue. There could be some technical matters on this issue. You can filed an application but approval of that application is based on its merits and validity. We need a lot of answers and updates. Its politics and APRC could take Darboe and Hamat with a bombshell!
It is premature to think that all Presidential nominations are officially approved. Therefore the debate is lively and goes on! |
Edited by - kobo on 30 Aug 2006 10:48:05 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 17:19:15
|
KOBO:
It is my understanding that Darboe and Hamat Bah are not National Assembly members. So their switch from NADD to UDP/NRP does not bear any consequences of losing any seat in the legislature. Also resigning form NADD or any party does not require a court procedure. All it takes is to communicate your resignation in writing ( or even verbally).
It is true Darboe and Bah appended thier signatures on the MOU and other agreements that established NADD and their withdrawal could appear as a breach of contract ( under contract law),but is their a basis for legal action ? What damages could be claimed , and by who ? |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2006 : 18:03:21
|
No claims or damages can be pursued. In as much as one has a right to associate so does the constitution guarantee your right to not associate in the first place?
For me the debate raging on is of no use. If only it will get more votes then i might want to contribute. As it stands, it is nothing more than what the mandinka's call BUWAL LA NYO TO FO. (A pot calling a kettle black).
I wish this energy were used to keep the party together. I had at one time promised to write my congratulatory letter to the APRC after the elections but i am thinking of writing it earlier. I do not want to preempt the decision of the electorate, but the trend seems to be against the opposition.
There is a lot the opposition needs to learn from the APRC if they have to win. Recognizing one’s weakness and being prepared to accept mistakes is a good recipe for success.
|
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 02 Sep 2006 : 23:36:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
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?
Yes brother kobo,
Thats not even far its under your very nose..ie the Dpp v NADD where the court ruled that the opposition parliamentarians should reseek their seats are they're made vaccant by the formation of NADD.
This Ousainou had said at the meeting at fahter Farrel memmorial meeting that it will lead to when NADD was being debated I was there but then I knew very little about law and now, now I have seen what he saw then.There are so many silent clauses that contradicts each other within our constitution and you know what type of government you have. |
Edited by - Janyanfara on 02 Sep 2006 23:38:41 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2006 : 00:35:16
|
| I don't understand what your technical points or legal issues you are referring from above posts. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2006 : 08:28:26
|
UDP filed Darboe's Presidential nomination and endorsed by NRP as I understand it and representing a UDP/NRP Alliance.
What am not sure about under the following:
a) Was it separate nominations through separate applications filed by UDP and NRP or a single nomination jointly endorsed together by UDP/NRP alliance and a single application filed or forwarded by UDP/NRP together to IEC?
b) From reports 5 nomination applications were issued, therefore what happened with NRP's nomination? Was it filed or forwarded to IEC before, during (together for UDP/NRP alliance) or after UDP's nomination?
c) Blue is UDP banner and White or Yellow for NRP, what is the banner of UDP/NRP alliance?
d) Do they have to promote any special banner for an alliance at the ballot box for the Presidential candidates or the banner of its main party?
e) Any legal issues for compliance with banners for the individual parties respectively?
Please help me resolved these issues? Thanks! |
Edited by - kobo on 03 Sep 2006 08:31:49 |
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2006 : 21:22:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by kobo
UDP filed Darboe's Presidential nomination and endorsed by NRP as I understand it and representing a UDP/NRP Alliance.
What am not sure about under the following:
a) Was it separate nominations through separate applications filed by UDP and NRP or a single nomination jointly endorsed together by UDP/NRP alliance and a single application filed or forwarded by UDP/NRP together to IEC?
b) From reports 5 nomination applications were issued, therefore what happened with NRP's nomination? Was it filed or forwarded to IEC before, during (together for UDP/NRP alliance) or after UDP's nomination?
c) Blue is UDP banner and White or Yellow for NRP, what is the banner of UDP/NRP alliance?
d) Do they have to promote any special banner for an alliance at the ballot box for the Presidential candidates or the banner of its main party?
e) Any legal issues for compliance with banners for the individual parties respectively?
Please help me resolved these issues? Thanks!
Do you remember when UDP/GPP/PPP made an alliance in the last presidential Election?
If you do then why ask such questions?
A coalition of independent parties are set on principles.
Though am no supporter of UDP/NRP,but they do have every right under our constitution to form a coalition and the fact of the matter is they did.
It is the confussion of the so called IEC and its sheep in wolves' clothing staff who are misleading and contradicting themselves thinking they are confusing the voters.
I was there when Ousainou/Hamat and entourage came to nominate their joint candidate and there was no question of two nominations being signed by them As far as I know,only one nomination was done and that was Ousainou's so I don't know what you mean if you are to go by the word of some media houses compared with the fact on the ground.
As for their joint coalition flag?Well I saw supporters wearing a joint yellow/blue shirts worn by militants.
I know the colour of UDP was Yellow and NRP Blue.Maybe they've change but not to my knowledge as you claimed.
Ask the APRC/NCP Alliance what banner /colour they used when they jointly formed an Alliance!
Brother kobo,Blue had been the former ppp and when NRP came to use it,ppp was left with no choise but choose another colour which I think was brown and udp uses yellow still I think for they millitants are seen wearing Yellow shrits every where.
So I don't know where you got that information that UDP uses Blue?Are you still dreamliving in the Jawara era?
As to your last question,well the legal issue is all parties can freely form an alliance with any other party of their choice based on fullfilling all the constitutional requirements.
And yes I think they[UDP/NRP Alliance] have fullfilled those based on the so called IEC's endorsement of their joint nomination of a single candidate on monday.
peace
Janyanfara |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
