| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 17:26:45
|
kobo, there is no such thing as national alliance in the Gambia. Under our electoral laws, there is no room for registering an alliance. That applies only to political parties. Halifa have said that registering NADD is in line with the law. That is correct only if you are talking in terms of a party. So clearly, NADD is not an allaince but a partY. Why then do you keep talking about a national alliance. perhaps that is because you are too far from the Gambia.
The only sort of alliance we can practically have is a party-led alliance. The notion that PDOIS and NDAM are still separate parties within NADD is deceitful. Halifa, Seedia and Sarr have all resigned from PDOIS in order to hold seats in NADD executive and in Parliament. Without these people who then is PDOIS? You tell me. Waa Juwara have also resigned from NDAM and OJ disowned by PPP for the same reason. If Juwara is no more NDAM, Who then is NDAM? This deception will not survive scrutiny. Drop it for goodness sake.
Thanks for your thoughts |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2006 : 18:11:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
kobo, there is no such thing as national alliance in the Gambia. Under our electoral laws, there is no room for registering an alliance. That applies only to political parties. Halifa have said that registering NADD is in line with the law. That is correct only if you are talking in terms of a party. So clearly, NADD is not an allaince but a partY. Why then do you keep talking about a national alliance. perhaps that is because you are too far from the Gambia.
The only sort of alliance we can practically have is a party-led alliance. The notion that PDOIS and NDAM are still separate parties within NADD is deceitful. Halifa, Seedia and Sarr have all resigned from PDOIS in order to hold seats in NADD executive and in Parliament. Without these people who then is PDOIS? You tell me. Waa Juwara have also resigned from NDAM and OJ disowned by PPP for the same reason. If Juwara is no more NDAM, Who then is NDAM? This deception will not survive scrutiny. Drop it for goodness sake.
Thanks for your thoughts
What dis-service to the nation if you are not taking on politics to salvage a nation rather than serving only few leeaders who would like to clinch on leadership of a party as they are the priviledge ones rather than sacrificing for the national interest.
A national alliance is legal under the laws of the Gambia. Thats why it is registered to take precedent of registering another seperate party to contest as you cannot be in two boats under the constitution. Coming back to square one; that questions your integrity to show commitment UDP/NRP parties are ready to unite with others and salvage the nation and how guilty UDP/NRP are guilty in alienation and dis-integration of (I repeat!) a national alliance with all to fight together against APRC. The name doesn't matter. What matters is the strategic protocols and spirit of teamwork, collective efforts as nationals but not as a group of scrupulous, manipulative and tactical political group; whether PDOIS, NDAM, UDP, NRP, PPP and APRC. Hope its clear to you? |
Edited by - kobo on 26 Aug 2006 18:14:59 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2006 : 02:11:31
|
Kobo, whatever entity you have, once you registered it with the IEC, it is a party in the eyes of the law. That is not my interpretation but that of the Supreme Court in the case of Halifa Sallah and others v. the Clerk of the house. The IEC is only mandated to register political parties. So whatever organisation you have and no matter how you call it. If you bring it forward to the IEC for registration, you are registering a political party. That is what Gambian Supreme Court decreed. What can you do about it?
Please stop referring to NADD as a national alliance because it is not. Unless you want to continue making fool of yourself you may continue.
Thanks for your thoughts
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
sab
United Kingdom
912 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2006 : 12:40:58
|
Any update from yesterday's rally at Ebony Junction?
When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always. / Mahatma Gandhi. |
The world would be a poorer place if it was peopled by children whose parents risked nothing in the cause of social justice, for fear of personal loss. (Joe Slovo - African revolutionary) |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2006 : 17:55:17
|
Kobo, just to add, the only sort of alliance that will not upset our electoral laws is party-led alliance. That is what UDP/NRP is all about. Their doors are still open. If NADD wants to join and give it a national character, they are most welcome but UDP/NRP is not going to entertain any fantasist agenda. They are realistic in every thing they do. That is why I and most Gambians back them.
Thanks for your thoughts |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 00:20:03
|
Nyarinkangbana. NADD is properly constituted and legally registered under the laws of the Gambia as acknowledged by decisions of the Suprememe Court. UDP/NRP were initially interested parties but betrayed the course and backed-out to promote their own agenda or redirection. That's part of the causes of dis-integration of NADD which initially had a better national character when UDP/NRP were within. A national alliance can be in different forms. I rest my case as you don't appear to be with me at the same wave length on this topic about genuine legal and political motives, strategies, structures and legal interpretations.
Am not interested for you to emphasise your own convictions and hopes to us. Its about national issues but not about party politics. You can't change or dictate the realities on the ground. |
Edited by - kobo on 28 Aug 2006 01:04:55 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 04:58:02
|
Kobo, you are right in saying that NADD is properly constituted and legally registered under the laws of the Gambia but only as a party and not an alliance or if you prefer Halifa’s words [am sure you would] an umbrella party.
The issue before the Supreme Court was; whether NADD was an alliance or party. If it was an alliance then those members of parliament would not have to loose their seats because in that case they would not be in breach of the law. On the other hand, if NADD is deemed to be a party, the MPs would be in breach of the law because that means they are effectively members of two different parties [i.e. their original ones and NADD] in contravention with the relevant constitutional provisions in which case, they would have to loose their seats. These were the issues before the Supreme Court. In order for them to determine which of the status fits NADD, they had to look at the registration visa verse the relevant electoral laws on the subject. What was found [that was what Darboe told them] were:
1. That the IEC is only mandated to register political parties,
2. That there is no room for registering an alliance
3. That whatever organization is registered with the IEC, it got to be a party for that is what they are mandated to register.
On the basis of these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that NADD is a party and as a result those MPs belonging to it have to loose their seats because they were belonging to two different parties. It then went on to uphold the Clerk of the House’s decision to expel them from the chamber. That was the Supreme Court ruling.
Now let cross-check this ruling with the MOU. The MOU speaks of creating an alliance. That is what UDP signed up to. PDOIS people deliberately went and register it to alter its status from an alliance to a party without the approval of the UDP and despite a very sound legal advice against it from Mr Darboe. Registering NADD thereby giving it a party status is perverse on the MOU and therefore a complete grotesque. Well that is what they have done. You tell me now, who among these two is the betrayer?
You are right in saying a national alliance can be different in form but it can only be so if it conforms to the law. Unfortunately NADD formula is not recognized in law as an alliance but only as a party. That is not what the signatories signed up to. If you ask other parties/opposition figures to join such an organization, you are effectively asking them to resign from their respective parties to be able to do that. I have never seen/heard any leader of the biggest opposition party who has done that and I wonder why you expect Darboe and the UDP to do it but do not want NADD to join the UDP/NRP Allaince. Forget it. It wouldn’t happen.
The only alliance that is possible is the one that does not upset our electoral laws and that is Party-led alliance. It is simple, realistic and involves no legal complexities. That is what the UDP/NRP alliance is all about. If NADD is interest in unity, they got to depart from their fantasist agendas and embrace the only realistic option,which is Party-led alliance. The doors f the UDP/NRP are still open.
UDP have never been registered under NADD contrary to your postulation. It has always been a separate legal entity and shall remain so for good.
You people have made a lot of noise here spreading misinformation and malice. Well, those days are over now. We are here to handle your spinning machinery and grind it to a halt. Only the truth will survive.
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 09:53:08
|
Nyarinkangbana please refere back why that legal provision came into existence. It came about to limit and eliminate politics of deception by scrupulous politicians on 'cross carpeting'. Its the same somersault 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 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 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! |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 12:00:03
|
The of question cross-carpeting have 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 do 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. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 18:27:45
|
| Thanks Biraago. This is exactly the way i see it , period. But I am afraid it may take too long for Nyarikangbanna and Bronx to come around to what people are talking about. |
|
|
|
Bronx
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2006 : 21:01:19
|
Kayjatta,
You are really comical if the issues are not so critical. The way you see things is different from the way I see them. Does that make you more cognizant than Daffeh and myself? Your call bra. I am a stickler for what I believe and is not much you or anybody else can do about that. Live and let live. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:15:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
The of question cross-carpeting have 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 do 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.
An alliance exists or is constituted for political strategic reasons. It could be in various forms depending on the strategic objectives. NADD is more credible under the laws and the constitution of the Gambia. NRP can promote vote for Darboe as the Presidential candidate of UDP. The other protocols are private, civil protocols and/or political arrangements. NRP can decline nomination of a Prsedential candidate and rally behind UDP. |
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 01:17:12 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:34:46
|
Think this is relevant and answer some of your questions Nyarinkanbana and Bronx.
QUOTED from BAMBALAYE: "According to a Daily Observer article, NRP was scheduled to nominate a candidate at 13:00PM today and UDP at 14:00PM. Since NRP and UDP are nominating a candidate separately, is NRP nominating Ousainou?
The reason I asked this question is becaue word has been going round......????
On another note, it has been confirmed Hon. Halifa Sallah's nomination by NADD has been accepted without a hitch by the IEC.
See the Observer article at : http://www.observer.gm/enews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5575&Itemid=33 "
|
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 02:09:20 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:35:12
|
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
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 29 Aug 2006 : 01:44:48
|
| Please refer to quotes from Bambalaye. The credibility is reference to legality as an alliance for nomination of a Presidential candidate and contest as a unified party. I don't mind your confrontational words as am just interested in the facts and issues.Whatever you may describe me or being "naivety", am within my civic rights as a Gambian and trying to share with a fellow like you or whoever through this forum about the Gambian political situation. |
Edited by - kobo on 29 Aug 2006 02:10:24 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
