 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Apr 2008 : 22:30:27
|
Mansasulu,
To help the situation, can we retrack the issue. Yes, PPP might have failed Gambians in bigger ways and they stayed in power 30 or so years. That is not the point. The question is about legality of A/FPRC CONTINUITY.
Before the deadly emergence of A/FPRC, Gambians felt fine going through a process of voting for parliamentary and presidential positions. That was seen to be normal. For our representatives to fail delivering, that is simple FAILURE in the most. They would have been LEGALLY MANDATED to deliver, then they FAILED. That has not nullified their mandate. Because of such mandate, even the least productive Member of Parliament MP was free to FAIL as long as s/he was able to DECEIVE voters to return him or her in the house of reps. Get that very clear.
On 22 July 1994, Yaya Jammeh and his A/FPRC cronies JUMPED THE CIVILISED QUEUE by force of arms. That is what constituted their ILLEGALITY. Will you accept that other decent Gambians already felt the need for change and could have done so within the legal provisions.
All that apart for now. Can you justify the military robbing of government? Gambia is worse off now not by economic concerns alone. Fear, treachery, banditory, killings, economic crime by the ruler and his cron ies etc. Will you deny that? If you are still happy that the coup constitutes legality your opinion deserves respect even if not agreeable. |
Karamba |
 |
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2008 : 23:34:22
|
Karamba
I know that the November Revolution in Ghana was banned from being celebrated. That was the first coup by Rawlings when he removed a deocratically elecetd Govt. Ghanains took their junta to court and won. However they celebrated his second coup in which he removed a military Govt.
It was a matter of principle that you could not celebrate removing a democractically elected Govt. by means of force and then claim to be democratic. It does not add up. It flies in the face of a Republican Constitution which guarantees that power is derived from the people. |
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way 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.” |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 07 Apr 2008 : 23:59:47
|
"We refuse to be blinded by the fury of the PPP haters as we are called Yahya haters but the fact remains that Yahya and The AFPRC stole our democracy !!!! ehem.Jawara was voted in even if he too stayed on for too long." - Kaaniba
"Karamba
I know that the November Revolution in Ghana was banned from being celebrated. That was the first coup by Rawlings when he removed a deocratically elecetd Govt. Ghanains took their junta to court and won. However they celebrated his second coup in which he removed a military Govt.
It was a matter of principle that you could not celebrate removing a democractically elected Govt. by means of force and then claim to be democratic. It does not add up. It flies in the face of a Republican Constitution which guarantees that power is derived from the people" - Kondorong
Mansasulu,
Still message delivery failure or software inadequacies? |
Karamba |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 14:28:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Karamba
Is it proper to dismantle one legal platform and build an illegal order without due legal process?
Karamba, I am very encouraged by this phrase of yours "PPP might have failed Gambians." i believe it is a huge turn around from your very initial posting. May I implore you to read your own word again and for the benifit of those who joined this topic late I have posted the portion in question again. I know you wish you could take that back!
If you think Democracy is achieved only by holding elections as you posited and again I quote you "Before the deadly emergence of A/FPRC, Gambians felt fine going through a process of voting for parliamentary and presidential positions." you are sadly mistaken or may be you dont understand what democracy is all about. Unless, you keep the trust given to you by the people as a sacred trust you have no "legality" claims whatsoever.
There is no question and I will say this again that the APRC regime has failed. However, you cannot be serious when you claimed that the PPP regime is legal solely because they held voting for paliamentary and presidential positions. Clearly, there is a lot wrong with that statement. The sooner you accept that the better it is for you. If you still holding on to any glimmer of hope that the PPP will come back, you must be very naive my friend! |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 19:19:34
|
Mansasulu,
Will you stop for one moment and lift your head up to avoid suffocation in the hot sand your head is deeply buried in. It was you who brought the issue of PPP. I have nothing to do with that. This thread was introduced by a simple and clear issue. A/FPRC came into being by force of arms. That is illegal. Do you agree or not? For them to continue without subjecting the situation to legal scrutiny makes a great wonder. You are running around in circles and going nowhere. If Gambian people are happy to accept A/FPRC stay without due legal admission, that is up to the million and half brotherhood. What you want to do with DEMOCRACY, PPP, so on, that is up to you. The illegal manner of A/FPRC ascension to power and how long they stay without proper laundery is an issue for concerned persons.
Add anything to that, but keep it clear that A/FPRC came illegal and continues being illegal until properly judicious process determines the contrary.
For you to stick your nose on the mud that PPP was illegal, that is not a subject for me. Let those who know about PPP take that up with you. I am not competent enough to take that up. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 20:12:11
|
Karamba, the reality is that the Gambian people have spoken. as they frequently have during the PPP regime's 30 year rule that they want the APRC. May I remind you that in 1996, 2001 and 2006 the Gambian people went to the polls and voted for the APRC. This was through the same mechanism and process that the PPP made you believe they were legitimate.
I dont have a problem with any grievance you habour against the current regime. In fact we should all be outraged with the deplorable conditions in Gambia. What I cant stand and watch is you trying to pass an argument that the PPP regime was based on a legal foundation. Clearly the Gambia people have spoken through the same medium the PPP established and time they have decided they want Jammeh. I am just troubled that you cannot get that message.
Oh! now you are not competent enough to talk about the PPP. Was it not you who claimed they were standing on "a legal platform"? Quit trying to play us for fools. You make outlandish statements and when you are pressed on them, you not only abandon them, but go on a tirade. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 20:35:30
|
if my understanding is not wrong, what karamba is eluding to is that, the ppp came into power through the ballot box in the first instance with sir dawda as the party leader. whilst the aprc with it's leader yahya jammeh came into power through force. that behaviuor is technically illigal. the ppp and the current aprc are both corrupt. the issue is not about corruption or human rights here, it is about the method of gaining power. if we accept that any corrupt and bad government should be removed from power by force and then election are held ,the leader then claim legitimacy, our country will never go forward. karamba's basis is on the method of coming to government. if yahya has set up his own party and then contest against the former governments ,the legal issue wouldn't have been raised. today yahya has accepted the a.u proposal to ban coup in africa. he forget that he himself uses the sbeen ame means to gain power. the aprc will not have arround without the afprc. this two party or group are one and the same. the frst one military and the second one ,civilian. for yahya to have avoided the legal query he should have done just like amadou toumani of mali did. then his crdibility would have been intact for arguement sake. but yahya today knows very well ,coups are an illigal method to take power that is why he locked up my friend Alieu Jobe. if coup aren't illegal then why did yahya authourise and allowed the gambian courts to sentence the alleged coup ploters?
karamba is not to my humble understanding defending the ppp or any party but he is asking legal minded gambians to argue over the legitimacy of a government that stem from coupish. the african continent has withnessed several coups but not one has resulted in progress .nigeria has been destroyed by power hungry soldiers, nkurumah was removed by soldiers. yahya still today believes he is a soldier and that is the key reason why he doesn't deal leniently with his ooponents. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 20:48:19
|
Mansasulu,
You are still running in circles. Can't you answer the simple question regarding the military takeover being legal or not? Historical records indicate that no other political organisation in Gambia came into being by brutal force of arms. It began with A/FPRC. I am not the authority presiding over that. It just happened. If you wish to cement your notion that PPP or any other political party in Gambia was illegal, keep it up. You will only need to struggle far enough.
About having grudge with the regime. You are wrong in that. I have no personal grudge. It matters to me that a gang of persons robbed a nation only for selfish reasons. I have NO PERSONAL STAKE. This is a national issue. If you hold the belief that only personally disgruntled victims of the regime rise to challenge the illegal state of affairs, how do you get to that? By such feelings, a bitter insult is being dished out to all sincere persons who choose to challenge the corrupt dealings and ugly history of this group in power.
Can we conclude that you stick with the belief about A/FPRC being legal. Stay on that. There are people who share that same view.
Gentleman, if you consider this to be just another child play, that is up to you.
An extension of this illegal state of affairs is now fully blown as mob justice becomes the norm at Gambia's only airport where ordinary people are empowered to take the law in their own hands. Where in this day and time will you call that normal? Big man, think again. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:19:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
[quote]Originally posted by Karamba
you are sadly mistaken or may be you dont understand what democracy is all about. Unless, you keep the trust given to you by the people as a sacred trust you have no "legality" claims whatsoever.
I have followed the debate, but di respectfully want to differ with your sentence above.
There is a difference between "trust" and "legality". In a Democracy, that is why the system allows for a review of the performance of political representatives every five years. If they earn their trust then they are voted in power. What that trust means depends on who is casting the vote.
Its the aggregate ot the individual votes, or should i say individual trusts, which culiminate into a majority that determines the public trust.
The issue of trust is that part of our constitution which guarantees citizens' right to associate or not to associate.
Well, i am also happy to see that you have put the word legality in quotes in which case you seem to mean a semblance. The topic is about legality in its true meaning and not "legality" as a semblance. A constitutionally elected government cannot be illegal. In the same vein, a legally constituted authority cannot be illegal although its decisions may be illegal. This is what leads to appeals in a judicial system forexample.
A court can be a constituted authority, but the court can err hence giving rights to appeal. That does not make the court illegal if such court is legally constituted.
This issue of legality is the reason why Rawlings was banned from celebrating his first coup in which he removed a constituted government. Like i said yesterday, it runs in the face of a Republican constitution.
You cant hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.
Keep the debate flowing. I am enjoying both yours and Karamba. Small fish like me can only watch from a distance drinking from the fountain of wisdom that you bring to the topic.
|
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way 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.” |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:21:01
|
There you go again. You cant stick to one topic, instead you wail about everything that is irrevant to the topic at hand. Some time ago, I told you that there no lines to toe here. If you have a problem people challenging the baseless arguments you make, perhaps you should reconsider them before you post them.
Clearly your obsession has blinded you to the facts. You can conlude anything to want and may I tell you that we are not the least bemused by your empty rhetoric. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:31:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
[quote]Originally posted by Karamba
you are sadly mistaken or may be you dont understand what democracy is all about. Unless, you keep the trust given to you by the people as a sacred trust you have no "legality" claims whatsoever.
I have followed the debate, but di respectfully want to differ with your sentence above.
There is a difference between "trust" and "legality". In a Democracy, that is why the system allows for a review of the performance of political representatives every five years. If they earn their trust then they are voted in power. What that trust means depends on who is casting the vote.
Its the aggregate ot the individual votes, or should i say individual trusts, which culiminate into a majority that determines the public trust.
The issue of trust is that part of our constitution which guarantees citizens' right to associate or not to associate.
Well, i am also happy to see that you have put the word legality in quotes in which case you seem to mean a semblance. The topic is about legality in its true meaning and not "legality" as a semblance. A constitutionally elected government cannot be illegal. In the same vein, a legally constituted authority cannot be illegal although its decisions may be illegal.
Koto Kondorong, to clarify, I am not comparing legality to trust. What I am insinuating is that one can have no right to claim one if you have no respect for the other. In a way, it is akin to claiming to hold on to a particular right without fulfilling the due responsibilities of that particular right.
Bases on your following points I guess we can conclude that the APRC government is legal afterall, since it was "constitutionally" elected on three different election cycles. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:36:10
|
Mansasulu,
Lack of preparation on your part does not impose an emergency on my part. You can never use cheap shots to drag me in petty personal you this, you that. I am looking at issues and not at personalities. Your views don't matter to me as mine may not matter to you. In all your hard efforts, the pursuit to engage me the way you choose will only earn you zero. If you have problems with what I post, better not read them. If you choose to break in, focus on the ISSUE. To think that you bother me, be happy if that keeps you cool but certainly that is not holding water. Now that you have exposed your motive, have a nice time. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:47:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
[quote]Originally posted by Karamba
you are sadly mistaken or may be you dont understand what democracy is all about. Unless, you keep the trust given to you by the people as a sacred trust you have no "legality" claims whatsoever.
Koto Kondorong, to clarify, I am not comparing legality to trust. What I am insinuating is that one can have no right to claim one if you have no respect for the other. In a way, it is akin to claiming to hold on to a particular right without fulfilling the due responsibilities of that particular right.
Bases on your following points I guess we can conclude that the APRC government is legal afterall, since it was "constitutionally" elected on three different election cycles.
That is a murky water i am not competent to throw myself into with you. There are better legal minds than me.
However, if we look at the transition from AFPRC to APRC, and agreeing that the former led to the latter, and if we agree that the former is illegal, and treasonable if we go by the constitution, then as to whether APRC is legal or illegal depends on how justice is dispensed.
If we agree that all crimes must be prosecuted, and if we agree that the junta was granted immunity by themselves and not by the people, whose laws were broken in the first place, then i believe that the citizens have a case pending to be tried in a court of law. Until that time, i rest my case and allow others more competent to jump in.
I am no law student and therefore incompetent to answer your question.
I will give you an exmaple of a ruling made during the estate of a gambian. It happened that the deceased fathered an illegitimate child while he was married.
When he died, this child was refused inhertance according to Shariah but he took his appeal further.
An old but rational man happen to pass by at the appeal session and joined in the discussion.
He asked if the deceased was subjected to shariah which should have put him to death and they answered no. He asked if the illegitimate child has younger siblings and they said yes.
He ruled that if the younger siblings although "legtimate", would not have been born to inherit if their father was subjected to shariah law. He asked if they ever saw a deadman having children. They said no. Then he conclude that the younger siblings are children born of the dead and as such if they can inherit, then the older ilegitimate sibling should inherit.
You either apply the law or not apply it. To pick and choose only makes injustice continue.
Keep the debate flowing |
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way 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.” |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 21:52:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Karamba
Mansasulu,
Lack of preparation on your part does not impose an emergency on my part.
That phrase is so overused that it has no substance today. The point is you made a statement that is being examined and you are trying to absolve your self from any responsibilities to. Man up and stand by you words instead of trying to divert attention to soemthing else. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 22:16:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
[quote]Originally posted by Karamba
you are sadly mistaken or may be you dont understand what democracy is all about. Unless, you keep the trust given to you by the people as a sacred trust you have no "legality" claims whatsoever.
Koto Kondorong, to clarify, I am not comparing legality to trust. What I am insinuating is that one can have no right to claim one if you have no respect for the other. In a way, it is akin to claiming to hold on to a particular right without fulfilling the due responsibilities of that particular right.
Bases on your following points I guess we can conclude that the APRC government is legal afterall, since it was "constitutionally" elected on three different election cycles.
That is a murky water i am not competent to throw myself into with you. There are better legal minds than me.
However, if we look at the transition from AFPRC to APRC, and agreeing that the former led to the latter, and if we agree that the former is illegal, and treasonable if we go by the constitution, then as to whether APRC is legal or illegal depends on how justice is dispensed.
If we agree that all crimes must be prosecuted, and if we agree that the junta was granted immunity by themselves and not by the people, whose laws were broken in the first place, then i believe that the citizens have a case pending to be tried in a court of law. Until that time, i rest my case and allow others more competent to jump in.
I am no law student and therefore incompetent to answer your question.
I will give you an exmaple of a ruling made during the estate of a gambian. It happened that the deceased fathered an illegitimate child while he was married.
When he died, this child was refused inhertance according to Shariah but he took his appeal further.
An old but rational man happen to pass by at the appeal session and joined in the discussion.
He asked if the deceased was subjected to shariah which should have put him to death and they answered no. He asked if the illegitimate child has younger siblings and they said yes.
He ruled that if the younger siblings although "legtimate", would not have been born to inherit if their father was subjected to shariah law. He asked if they ever saw a deadman having children. They said no. Then he conclude that the younger siblings are children born of the dead and as such if they can inherit, then the older ilegitimate sibling should inherit.
You either apply the law or not apply it. To pick and choose only makes injustice continue.
Keep the debate flowing
There is a saying that possession is 9/10th of the law. Under the current constitution, which I assume you had a chance to vote on during the referendum in 1996 (I am tempted to ask how you voted on that referendum, but I won't) and the Gambia people ultimately and overwhelming adopted, we enshrined the legality of the coup of 1994 because in essence we accepted everything in it (including the immunity for coup plotters) and rejected the 1970 constitution.
Now, we all may have our own opinion as to why the APRC regime ought to go. However, too often there is a feeling from some members on this forum that any sentiment or enthusiamm that is not up to "their" standards is equal to support of the current regime. This is not necessarily true. Too often our own personal biases creep into our arguments why the ARPC is bad. I am sure we all in one way or the other have close friends or family members who are wronged by the APRC. Gambia and its direction is bigger than all of those sentiments, may I submit. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
Edited by - mansasulu on 08 Apr 2008 22:20:28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
