 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Nov 2009 : 11:40:55
|
| Was NADD a merge, an alliance or a coalition? |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2009 : 14:20:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Was NADD a merge, an alliance or a coalition?
Please read properly NADD M.O.U and then re-visit interviews especially Lawyer Darboe and Halifa to sort you out as you appear to be dis-orientated or confused
Merger is clearly stated under The Gambia constitution. A constitutional lawyer can help.
Alliance and the coalition came strategically or tactically created during 2006 elerctions for a united front of opposition on equal footing inorder to defeat A.P.R.C under one umbrella! For the technicalities and legality please refer to The Gambia Constitution, I.E.C rules and Supreme Court rulings clarified by Hon. Halifa Sallah and Lawyer Darboe's interview may not help you.
|
Edited by - kobo on 27 Nov 2009 03:51:07 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2009 : 02:03:01
|
Bro Kobo, thanks
You did not only miss my point of departure but the whole point. Defeating A.P.R.C is not the final solution to the political quagmire furthermore A.P.R.C can not be defeated by such uncertainty of mind.
NADD was a superstition not a political solution hence it lacked the clear-headedness and ability that clearly and comprehensively defines the political objective.
If anybody is disoriented, it is you hence; you are not able to differentiate between constitutionality and commons sense. The ongoing blindfolded-superstitious-adoration- cult will sink us deeper in the quicksand of dreams. Thank GOD Gambians are not sleeping …
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2009 : 02:46:41
|
FREEDOM NEWSPAPER Online
Gambia: Micheal Scales Assures Halifa Sallah Supporters
................... Under normal democratic Principals, the UDP being the strongest opposition party with the most individual votes, would by such principal expect the leader of that Party, Mr.Darboe would automatically become President.
However, Mr.Bah, OJ, and Mai Fatty and of course Mr. Sallah, would form a coalition government and would have to take only supporting roles in that government.
That is of course unless there is a common agreement between the leaders of the A,B,C and D parties to conclude a ballot based upon the combined membership. As Mr. Darboe would have the majority of voters....it is likely that he again would win the Presidency on the majority will of this secondary process.
The third scenario could be thus. That there would be a national referendum to select a President. I would suggest the majority of APRC ticket holders included in this ballot would then choose Mr. Sallah...and by the majority verdict of the people...he would become the people’s choice for President.
My own opinion for what it’s worth...and I respect Mr.Baldeh's view that I should mind my own business....is that NADD will never work ...not in a thousand years................................... |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 27 Nov 2009 : 09:57:52
|
I do not like it at all when people, simple people make sweeping generalizations. I mean people who can't even tell what is going to happen in the next hour trying to tell us with inflated confidence that something will or will not happen in a "thousand years". Michael Scales has just fallen prey to a condition called "straight line thinking", because he thinks that since NADD is not working today, it will never work "for a thousand years". Scales and his proponents fail to appreciate that there are reasons for NADD's current failure, but what if those reasons or factors change? Wouldn't it be possible for NADD to work 'next month' or in 2011 if the factors that hinder it are resolved? Please do not tell me that those factors cannot or will not change. They are variable factors, and like in every conflict there are three ways to resolve:
1. to change your opponents in the conflict (usually by doing more conflict until you win).
2. to change the terms of the conflict (usually by compromising and lowering your goals). This is effective but often time consuming, and I think NADD is currently stalled in this stage/method.
3. to change yourself (usually by abandoning the issue in the conflict and agree with your opponent). This is the easiest but rarely used method.
A great 20th C scientist, the great Rutherford, is quoted to have once bragged that it will never be possible to split the nucleus of an atom. Several months later in his own lifetime the first chain reaction was unleashed. Does that sound embarassing? Never brag about what will or will not happen in the future. Remember Heizenberg's 'Uncertainty Theory'. It is in deed an "...Uncertain World", Robert Reuben. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 27 Nov 2009 10:14:52 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2009 : 16:12:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
FREEDOM NEWSPAPER Online
Gambia: Micheal Scales Assures Halifa Sallah Supporters
................... Under normal democratic Principals, the UDP being the strongest opposition party with the most individual votes, would by such principal expect the leader of that Party, Mr.Darboe would automatically become President.
However, Mr.Bah, OJ, and Mai Fatty and of course Mr. Sallah, would form a coalition government and would have to take only supporting roles in that government.
That is of course unless there is a common agreement between the leaders of the A,B,C and D parties to conclude a ballot based upon the combined membership. As Mr. Darboe would have the majority of voters....it is likely that he again would win the Presidency on the majority will of this secondary process.
The third scenario could be thus. That there would be a national referendum to select a President. I would suggest the majority of APRC ticket holders included in this ballot would then choose Mr. Sallah...and by the majority verdict of the people...he would become the people’s choice for President.
My own opinion for what it’s worth...and I respect Mr.Baldeh's view that I should mind my own business....is that NADD will never work ...not in a thousand years...................................
These are opinion of a deluded person on Gambian politics who have the guts to even baselessly recommend that Fatou Jaw Manneh can stand for Presidency and win. Full information from Freedom online Newspaper that is on smearing campaign against Halifa Sallah under http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/4686/GambiaMicheal-Scales-Assures-Halifa-Sallah-Supporters/Default.aspx
The reasoning of A, B, C and D does not equate with NADD's formula for a united front. I would re-iterate that you don't read properly and dis-orientated. Views of Michael Scales are foreign and hope this report from The Daily news will assist you on views of Gambians on the ground/at home; what they think about the opposition leaders, parties and N.A.D.D (since you stated that "Thank GOD Gambians are not sleeping")under Bantaba topic Gambians Challenged Opposition Leaders http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8178
Please re-visit Bantaba Gambian politics topic Darboe and Hamat's Pull Out From NADD http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8358
Hopefully Nyarikangbanna, Santangfara, D Baldeh and Dalton 1 can assist on NAAD AS MERGER, ALLIANCE & COALITION ; IF YOU CANNOT TAKE NOTE OF SALIENT POINTS FROM INTERVIEWS
Thanks to Kay for those coments aboove! Will come back to the issues, comments and questions later! |
Edited by - kobo on 28 Nov 2009 16:44:02 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2009 : 16:47:22
|
Bro kobo, thanks
Why are you and your kind not able to understand Micheal Scales critique within the context of his hypothesis and stop arguing outside the context if you have any tangible argument at all?
As I said in my previous post, the cultist attitude will lead nowhere …
Secondly, to critique or have a different point of view with someone does not equate to hate or smearing. In fact I dare say the critical voices are more genuine, more concern, more reasonable,engaging...
Lastly, was NADD intending to register as a political party from its inception or was it forced by the circumstances that arose later on?
At least you would agree with me that time is not on our side to engage in fruitless bla bla-ing |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 28 Nov 2009 16:57:11 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2009 : 03:06:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Was NADD a merge, an alliance or a coalition?
I hope the following Bantaba Gambian politics topics would help provide suitable clarifications from Lawyer Darboe & Halifa Sallah save the situation!
References below came from related topics as follows:-
1. Halifa: THE WAY FORWARD FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8158
2. Darboe Explains Reasons Behind NADD’s Failure under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8286
Definitions:-
a. Merger is a management concept and meanings;
i.a statutory combination of two or more corporations/entities by the transfer of the ownership, authority & properties to one surviving corporation/entity.
ii. any combination of two or more entities into a single entity.
iii. an act or instance of merging.
iv. Related words for merger; amalgamation, uniting, fusion & unification.
b. Alliance
i. the act of allying or state of being allied.
ii. a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations/entities to cooperate for specific purposes.
iii. a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations.
c. Coalition
i. a combination or alliance, esp. a temporary one between persons, factions, states, etc.
ii. a union into one body or mass; fusion.
Brief background information culminating to establishment of N.A.D.D
For 2006 General elections, N.A.D.D was launched after mobilisation and sensitisation done by SAVE THE GAMBIA DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION (S.T.G.D.F). S.T.G.D.F organised meetings, fora or discussions supported by Professor Sulayman Nyang & Abdoulie Saine in U.S. to promote its agenda and encourage the opposition parties to form a coalition or challenge under one umbrella (as united front) against ruling party.
Halifa Sallah:"It is necessary to digress to give a historical perspective to the answer. In 2003, I was given the responsibility to bring the opposition together. I made two proposals. One option was for opposition parties to continue their campaign to increase their support base from 2003 to 2006 and then sit down to determine which party or political leader would be supported to lead a coalition during the Presidential elections and which seats would be contested by each given party during the National Assembly elections. I proposed that one option was to allow one party and its leader to be the flag bearer. I indicated that if this option is adopted all parties should go ahead and promote their own agendas and come to the negotiation table six months before an election to decide which party and its leader would be allowed to lead.
The second option entailed the establishment of an Umbrella Party right away which would select a Presidential Candidate either through unanimity or the holding of a primary at which the party chairpersons, male and female of each ward as well as the youth leaders would select the candidate through a voting process. The candidate would belong to all the parties and would only serve one term and would not take sides in subsequent elections.
The leaders accepted to form an umbrella party instead of waiting to select the Presidential candidate of one of the political parties six months prior to the presidential elections. A memorandum of Understanding came into force on the 17 of January 2005. In order to ensure the integrity of the office of coordinator and Chairperson, Part II of the memorandum indicated that both positions are advisory and that “neither the Chairperson nor the coordinator or the deputy coordinator shall have voting powers.” Furthermore, Article 17 of the memorandum put an end to my mandate as coordinator upon the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The executive members who were the two representatives of the parties had to elect a new coordinator.
On 17 January 2005, the mandate given to the coordinator at the Atlanta meeting in 2003 came to an end. Interestingly enough, I was elected again to be coordinator. NADD came into being and was launched. It could not put up candidates in its name until it was registered.There was no law providing for the registration of an alliance. The Constitution however made room for a merger of parties. The IEC also has power to make decisions on electoral matters where laws were absent."
More extracted views from opposition party leaders; especially Lawyer Darboe and Halifa Sallah.
The comments on whether N.A.D.D was a merger, alliance or coalition
Note that opposition parties intended to form a coalition (or united front) and N.A.D.D was established as a tactical alliance!
Lawyer Darboe:"Mr.Ceesay in 2004, all the parties agreed on the need to form an alliance for opposition parties and this need became more urgent and apparent when the constitution was amended by introducing a simple majority for Presidential elections. Hitherto a Presidential candidate would be declared duly elected if he obtains more than 50% of the votes validly cast at the elections. We all felt it made more sense to have an alliance of opposition parties so that we do not have split votes to the opposition. The UDP was very committed to the idea and because of that we agreed to be at par with all other opposition parties. We agreed to have equal representation and equal voice with even an untested party like NDAM,we agreed to have equal voice and equal representation with a party such as PPP which had a committee only in Serrekunda.We also agreed to be at par with PDOIS which did not even poll more than 5% at the 2001 Presidential elections. I know as a fact that non of the leaders of these parties would have accepted this sort of arrangement if they had the political dominance UDP enjoyed. We conducted all the negotiations on the basis of having an alliance of opposition parties. We did not discuss and agree on the merger of political parties or the creation of new political parties.The opening words of the preamble are “We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties, who seeked to establish an alliance…….” Under part one of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the alliance was established and article one states “an alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) with the acronym (NADD).Then article four states amongst other things “all opposition parties who are signatories to this MOU shall be founding members of the alliance. The selection of candidate for the alliance for Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections should be by consensus but if there is an impasse then selection must be by Primary election which will be restricted to party delegates and there would be equal member of delegates comprising a chairman and youth leader of every party from village, ward and constituency. "
Halifa Sallah: "The IEC was approached to register NADD while the Coordinator was attending a meeting of the Pan African Parliament in South Africa. Upon his return,the Coordinator inquired whether it was clear to the IEC that NADD was a by-product of the coalition of parties. No clear answer could be given. The Executive committee had failed to be conclusive regarding the issue of merger before the registration of NADD even though the Memorandum has left no one in doubt that a merger had occurred. When the IEC was consulted they did indicate that they saw NADD as a merger of parties and even proceeded to draft rules to guide the formation of Alliances and Mergers. The draft rules were forwarded to the parties for discussion. The membership of NADD by some members of the National Assembly eventually led to court action. The counsel of the IEC argued that NADD was a merger but the Counsels for NADD held a different opinion.The issue of whether NADD is a merger or not was left hanging by the court since it was not used as a defence to retain the seats of the National Assembly Members who had become members of NADD. Despite the declaration of the seats of the National Assembly members vacant, NADD weathered the storm and won by- elections and led the APRC of Jammeh in the popular vote."
Daily News questions: "Is it a requirement of the signed MOU that NADD could be registered as a political party? "
Differences of opinions between Lawyer Darboe and Halifa Sallah as follows:-
Halifa Sallah:"The agreement is for NADD to put up candidates in the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections. This is clearly stipulated in article 8 of the memorandum of understanding. Allow me to quote it in avoidance of doubt. It states: “The selection of the candidate of the Alliance for the Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus: provided that in the event of an impasse selection shall be done by holding a primary election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency. Article 16 states that the Alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol…” There is no doubt that NADD was formed with the intention to put up candidates under its umbrella. It is the election laws which say that NADD could not put up candidates in its name until it was registered with the IEC. The election laws did not have any provision on how to register an alliance. The IEC had mandate to decide on issues that are not provided for by law. The Executive committee decided to prepare for NADD’s registration under the existing laws and leave the IEC to decide the final outcome."
Lawyer Darboe:"These are some of the most important provisions in the MOU, what we have opted to do by MOU is to set up an alliance of opposition parties. Obviously the criteria set for the selection of candidates could be met only by the UDP. PDOIS did not have the following to meet the criteria, nor did the PPP or NRP.It was only UDP that had the capacity and following to meet this criteria. It is common knowledge that the MOU was signed in 2005.At that ceremony something happened which would have aborted the signing ceremony. The UDP delegation comprising me and my deputy Mr.Yahya Jallow went to that ceremony to sign the MOU on behalf of UDP and make a statement that is appropriate on such occasions. Before the commencement of the ceremony I was given a document virtually an oath declaring commitment.OJ told me he was seeing it for the first time and I was going to either walk out or refuse to sign the declaration. But there were four gentlemen in the assembly, Mr. Sam Johns,Dr.SJ Pama,Alagie Ba Trawalley and Dr.Sheriff Ceesay to whom I deferred because I have enormous respect for these people and I think it would be out of place for me not to conform with this unexpected development. This development to me showed insincerity and a lack of openness on the part of whoever might have drafted that declaration and brought it to the ceremony without consulting my party. Nonetheless UDP remain committed to the MOU. After the signing of the MOU some members of the alliance conscious of UDP’s dominance came to the conclusion that if a Presidential candidate were to be selected under the MOU, the UDP being the dominant opposition political party would produce a candidate and they did not want to support a candidate running in the name of UDP.So they flouted and the discussion to register NADD as a political party really took at least three months. In fact I presented a scenario to them if the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) were to invite me to a meeting as leader of UDP while I am also a member of NADD,a registered political party and an issue arises between UDP and NADD which one will I support. I continuously advised them against the registration of NADD as a political party. During one of the meetings when I came very hard in my arguments one of the party leaders walked out of the meeting called some people in the United States to say that Darboe and UDP are creating obstacles for us. And before we left the meeting it was on the Freedom Newspaper, and me and my party are being portrayed as anti-united opposition when infact the anti-united opposition are those who refused to accept the reality of the fact that the MOU signed did not call for the establishment of a new political party. And I remember, I think it was on the 16 April 2005,I said since you are insisting go and register it. When the constitution of NADD, the political party, was presented by Managing editor of Foroyaa Newspaper Sam Sarr to the IEC for registration he reported he was asked certain questions. This made the Chairman Mr.Hassan Musa Camara to ask Sam Sarr to go and withdraw the document he submitted at the IEC for registration but it was too late."
Daily News questions: what followed the Registration of (NADD)?"
Lawyer Darboe:"All the opposition seats in the National Assembly were lost, although three of them were regained following the bye-elections. And in fact when the court made the ruling I told all of them that with my little understanding of the Gambian constitution I know this is what would have happened. I also hinted that I will be considering my position in NADD viz a viz UDP because it is legally impossible for me to be a member of two different political parties and I cannot abandon UDP for a new party."
Daily News questions: Can you tell us what justifies the registration of NADD after knowing that it would lead to the lost of opposition seats in the National Assembly?"
Halifa Sallah: "I have already said that it was a requirement of the law for a political entity to be registered with the IEC before it could be put up as a candidate. We formed an umbrella Party and had to register it for any body to stand as a Candidate in its name. The constitution has provided for the formation of an Umbrella Party in the form of a merger. In such a case no seat would be lost. Moreover the advantages of establishing NADD outweighed the disadvantages of losing the seats which could be regained in a bye election which is what happened."
Omar Jallow (alias O.J) on N.A.D.D: "In an interview with The Daily News, OJ said since 2001 when the ban on opposition parties was lifted, their problem has been, and still is how they can bury their individual interests, our party, tribal, and ideological interests to serve the bigger picture, that is the Gambia."
“The Gambia to me is far more important than any of our party or all the parties, coming together. And until and unless the opposition are aware of this and become more responsible by coming together to serve the interest of those people who look to us for salvation and upliftment, then we have failed the Gambians”, OJ asserted.
"He said they came very near to achieving their objective when they came together to establish an alliance called NADD. “NADD was an institution to which all Gambians can identify irrespective of which party, tribe, religion or ideology. NADD became a common product that can be owned by each and every Gambian. And the success of NADD can be measured when we had the six by-elections during NADD existence and we won all the four elections and APRC won very marginally, the two other seats. But unfortunately, few months before the election, two of our partners withdrew and devastated the whole opposition front, and the confidence that the people had in us”, OJ explained, adding that this was reflected in the voter turn-out in the 2006 presidential and parliamentary elections and local council election in 2008; that nearly 50 percent eligible voters did not even vote. "
Daily News questions Waa Juwara: "Why did you [opposition parties] decided to come together to form National Alliance for Democracy and Development?" "We have said it over and over. It was because we wanted to be a credible challenge to the ruling Alliance for Patriotism Reconstruction Construction (APRC). They [Darboe and Bah] walked out and that was the end. Darboe spearheaded the walkout simply because he said he should lead. What right does he have to lead without the consent of the people? He hold the people to contempt, betrayed the people. Why doing that, when the people have decided to disown him. They are dead! Tell OJ where is PPP."
Daily News questions Waa Juwara: "What was the actual reason for NADD’s failure?" "Disintegration! Darboe and others left because he wanted to lead. Instead of going for primaries, which we agreed on, he handpicked himself to lead."
"Daily News questions Waa Juwara: "Darboe and others left, and you also did, why?" "I did not pulled-out. I stayed until after the election was over, and then I left because NADD has a definite lifespan."
THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE GAMBIA CONSTITUTIONS READS UNDER:-
Tenure Of Seats of members of the National Assembly 91
(1) A member of National Assembly shall vacate his or her seat in the National Assembly-
(a) on the dissolution of the National Assembly;
(b) subject to subsection (2), if any circumstances arise which, if he or she were not a member, would cause him or her to be disqualified for election as a member or nomination as a member;
(c) if he or she resigns his or her office as member;
(d) if he or she ceases to be a member of the political party of which he or she was a member at the time of his or her election;
Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall apply on a merger of political parties at the national level where such merger is authorised by the constitution of the parties concerned;
(e) if, having been elected a member as an independent candidate, he or she joins a political party
(f) if he or she is recalled by the writing electorate in accordance with an Act of the National Assembly to give effect to section 92;
(g) if, without the permission in writing of the Speaker or reasonable cause, he or she is absent from ten or more sittings of the National Assembly during any period that the National Assembly is in session and continued to meet;
(h) if he or she is found in contempt of the National Assembly and is expelled on a resolution supported by not less than three quarters of all the members of the National Assembly.
(2) An Act of the National assembly may, in order to permit any member who has been-
(a) sentenced to death;
(b) convicted or found guilty of any offence or subject any offence or subject to any finding to which subsection (1) of section 90 refers;
(c) adjudged to be of unsound mind; or
(d) adjudged or otherwise declared to be bankrupt, to appeal against any such decision in accordance with any law, provided that, subject to such conditions as may be specified, the decision shall not have effect for the purposes of this section until such time as may be so prescribed.
(3) The Clerk of the National assembly shall immediately inform the Independent Electoral Commission of any vacancy among the members of the National assembly.
|
Edited by - kobo on 30 Nov 2009 04:39:53 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 23:38:59
|
Thanks Kobo
Note that opposition parties intended to form a coalition (or united front) and N.A.D.D was established as a tactical alliance.
Kobo, do you mean the intention was not to register NADD but use it as a working name to organise a coalition or an alliance? If not, what is the tactic you are alluding to?
Darboe: We conducted all the negotiations on the basis of having an alliance of opposition parties. … So they flouted and the discussion to register NADD as a political party really took at least three months. … I continuously advised them against the registration of NADD as a political party… When the constitution of NADD, … , was presented by Managing editor of Foroyaa Newspaper Sam Sarr to the IEC for registration he reported he was asked certain questions. This made the Chairman Mr.Hassan Musa Camara to ask Sam Sarr to go and withdraw the document … but it was too late."
Sallah: … The Executive committee had failed to be conclusive regarding the issue of merger before the registration of NADD … When the IEC was consulted they did indicate that they saw NADD as a merger of parties and even proceeded to draft rules to guide the formation of Alliances AND Mergers … The membership of NADD by some members of the National Assembly eventually led to court action. … The issue of whether NADD is a merger or not was left hanging by the court …
… what followed the Registration of NADD?
Darboe: … lost of seats…
…what justifies the registration …knowing it would lead to the lost of opposition seats …?
Sallah: … it was a requirement of the law for a political entity to be registered with the IEC before it could put up a candidate. … The constitution has provided for the formation of an Umbrella Party in the form of a merger. In such a case no seat would be lost.
Could it be because there is no need to register an alliance or a coalition, hence they are forms of teamwork/collaboration/joint effort different from the form of a merger/ fusion/union/amalgamation. This implicates; had the form of cooperation been an alliance or coalition there would be no seats lost.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 05 Dec 2009 13:23:09 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 14:32:29
|
What did the registration of NADD accomplish?
What I find interesting is, if the negotiations were on the basis of an alliance and the Executive committee was not conclusive about a merger, on whose initiative was the registration made, hence its clear there was no agreement, no consensus.
Secondly, I find this statement below very interesting;
“The IEC indicate that they saw NADD as a merger of parties and even proceeded to draft rules to guide the formation of Alliances AND Mergers”
How can IEC draft rules for both Alliances and Mergers at the same time and about the same thing even whereas the constitution did not provide for Alliances.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2009 : 00:05:06
|
Halifa Sallah’s Part Two Reaction To Freedom Newspaper Editorial
As Sallah Raises Pertinent Political Issues!!!!
...One of the leaders even claimed that he was pressured to sign something like an oath at the eleventh hour. Some are asking whether NADD aimed to be an Alliance of political parties, a coalition or a merger. Some are asking why it was necessary to go to the extent of creating NADD when a coalition of parties could have been initiated and led by the party with the majority of supporters. Some have referred to alliances in Sweden and other European Countries in the formation of Governments. Conspiracy theories and intriguing prognoses of what happened are being hatched and machinations of all sorts are being alleged...
... The second option entailed the establishment of an umbrella party which obliged the political parties to pool their material and human resources in order to contest elections under the same party tag, operate a transitional Government and create a level ground for genuine multiparty contest after the transition. This was unanimously endorsed without any conditionality or reservation expressed by any party...
... The question now arises: Why didn’t the leaders of the UDP insist on a UDP led Alliance when we met in 2004 as they are doing now? Why did all opposition parties irrespective of size agree to sign a Memorandum of Understanding which guaranteed the sovereign equality of all member parties for the period of the transition? Was it out of generosity or a by product of historical necessity? Was the appropriate candidate for a flag bearer obvious or were we compelled to open the post for contest? Was there any need for a primary or was it engendered by greed?... |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2009 : 15:42:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Thanks Kobo
Note that opposition parties intended to form a coalition (or united front) and N.A.D.D was established as a tactical alliance.
Kobo, do you mean the intention was not to register NADD but use it as a working name to organise a coalition or an alliance? If not, what is the tactic you are alluding to?
Darboe: We conducted all the negotiations on the basis of having an alliance of opposition parties. … So they flouted and the discussion to register NADD as a political party really took at least three months. … I continuously advised them against the registration of NADD as a political party… When the constitution of NADD, … , was presented by Managing editor of Foroyaa Newspaper Sam Sarr to the IEC for registration he reported he was asked certain questions. This made the Chairman Mr.Hassan Musa Camara to ask Sam Sarr to go and withdraw the document … but it was too late."
Sallah: … The Executive committee had failed to be conclusive regarding the issue of merger before the registration of NADD … When the IEC was consulted they did indicate that they saw NADD as a merger of parties and even proceeded to draft rules to guide the formation of Alliances AND Mergers … The membership of NADD by some members of the National Assembly eventually led to court action. … The issue of whether NADD is a merger or not was left hanging by the court …
… what followed the Registration of NADD?
Darboe: … lost of seats…
…what justifies the registration …knowing it would lead to the lost of opposition seats …?
Sallah: … it was a requirement of the law for a political entity to be registered with the IEC before it could put up a candidate. … The constitution has provided for the formation of an Umbrella Party in the form of a merger. In such a case no seat would be lost.
Could it be because there is no need to register an alliance or a coalition, hence they are forms of teamwork/collaboration/joint effort different from the form of a merger/ fusion/union/amalgamation. This implicates; had the form of cooperation been an alliance or coalition there would be no seats lost.
All your questions and concerns have been thoroughly dealt through Foroyaa online newspaper article HALIFA SALLAH AND THE FREEDOM EDITORIAL PART 2 under http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4087
Please note that:-
1. N.A.D.D was tactically established to contest election under one umbrella with a flag bearer for President and legally should be formally registered.
2. The Consitution provide for MERGER but with "fusion" under meanings of both ALLIANCE & MERGER; or COALITION TO MEAN AN ALLIANCE they can be term to be same in my opoinion. |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2009 : 17:18:15
|
Thanks bro Kobo
Mr. Sallah´s historical perspective did clear some dust. He is praiseworthy for saying his mind. Now we await response from say; the leader that claimed he was pressured to sign something like an oath at the eleventh hour and PPP etc. |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2009 : 14:46:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Janko
Thanks bro Kobo
Mr. Sallah´s historical perspective did clear some dust. He is praiseworthy for saying his mind. Now we await response from say; the leader that claimed he was pressured to sign something like an oath at the eleventh hour and PPP etc.
That's why I observed that "Lawyer Darboe's interview cannot help you!" Did you take note of the inconsistencies and insincere statements that he made under these sequence of events & activities outlined below:-
Brief background information culminating to establishment of N.A.D.D
For 2006 General elections, N.A.D.D was launched after mobilisation and sensitisation done by SAVE THE GAMBIA DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION (S.T.G.D.F). S.T.G.D.F organised meetings, fora or discussions supported by Professor Sulayman Nyang & Abdoulie Saine in U.S. to promote its agenda and encourage the opposition parties to form a coalition or challenge under one umbrella (as united front) against ruling party.
Extracted from HALIFA SALLAH AND THE FREEDOM EDITORIAL: Part 1 under http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4007
Halifa Sallah: "It is necessary to digress to give a historical perspective to the answer. In 2003, I was given the responsibility to bring the opposition together. I made two proposals. One option was for opposition parties to continue their campaign to increase their support base from 2003 to 2006 and then sit down to determine which party or political leader would be supported to lead a coalition during the Presidential elections and which seats would be contested by each given party during the National Assembly elections. I proposed that one option was to allow one party and its leader to be the flag bearer. I indicated that if this option is adopted all parties should go ahead and promote their own agendas and come to the negotiation table six months before an election to decide which party and its leader would be allowed to lead.
The second option entailed the establishment of an Umbrella Party right away which would select a Presidential Candidate either through unanimity or the holding of a primary at which the party chairpersons, male and female of each ward as well as the youth leaders would select the candidate through a voting process. The candidate would belong to all the parties and would only serve one term and would not take sides in subsequent elections.
The leaders accepted to form an umbrella party instead of waiting to select the Presidential candidate of one of the political parties six months prior to the presidential elections. A memorandum of Understanding came into force on the 17 of January 2005."
Darboe's interview: "Mr.Ceesay in 2004, all the parties agreed on the need to form an alliance for opposition parties and this need became more urgent and apparent when the constitution was amended by introducing a simple majority for Presidential elections. Hitherto a Presidential candidate would be declared duly elected if he obtains more than 50% of the votes validly cast at the elections. We all felt it made more sense to have an alliance of opposition parties so that we do not have split votes to the opposition. The UDP was very committed to the idea and because of that we agreed to be at par with all other opposition parties. We agreed to have equal representation and equal voice with even an untested party like NDAM,we agreed to have equal voice and equal representation with a party such as PPP which had a committee only in Serrekunda.We also agreed to be at par with PDOIS which did not even poll more than 5% at the 2001 Presidential elections. I know as a fact that non of the leaders of these parties would have accepted this sort of arrangement if they had the political dominance UDP enjoyed. We conducted all the negotiations on the basis of having an alliance of opposition parties. We did not discuss and agree on the merger of political parties or the creation of new political parties.The opening words of the preamble are “We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties, who seeked to establish an alliance…….” Under part one of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the alliance was established and article one states “an alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development (NADD) with the acronym (NADD).Then article four states amongst other things “all opposition parties who are signatories to this MOU shall be founding members of the alliance. The selection of candidate for the alliance for Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections should be by consensus but if there is an impasse then selection must be by Primary election which will be restricted to party delegates and there would be equal member of delegates comprising a chairman and youth leader of every party from village, ward and constituency."
Note: Lawyer Darboe's lame defence to avoid responsibilty for dis-integration & failure of N.A.D.D; " We did not discuss and agree on the merger of political parties or the creation of new political parties."
1. Where is it stated under N.A.D.D M.O.U that was signed that all opposition parties were to join U.D.P led coalition or that a U.D.P led coalition was in the agenda or ever discussed from interviews gathered so far
2. If a U.D.P party led coalition were to be; would that not be a merger like U.D.P/N.R.P alliance inoder to nominate a presidential candidate
3. Why didn't he gave expert legal advise on The Gambia constitution, registration or any constraints to properly established a good coalition that serves the interests of both parties; for Halifa tabled different options for the coalition
4. Why did they decided to form a new coalition after N.A.D.D tasted success having undergone trials through by-elections N.A.D.D dis-integrated after those successful by-elections and selfish interests (i.e Presidency & flabearer) were pursued! It has nothing to with N.A.D.D M.O.U and the coalition originally created as a united front for all opposition parties on equal footing;
i. (according to lawyer Darboe "We agreed to have equal representation and equal voice with even an untested party like NDAM,we agreed to have equal voice and equal representation with a party such as PPP which had a committee only in Serrekunda.We also agreed to be at par with PDOIS which did not even poll more than 5% at the 2001 Presidential elections. I know as a fact that non of the leaders of these parties would have accepted this sort of arrangement if they had the political dominance UDP enjoyed." )
ii. Other opposition party leaders corroborated to point i. from interviews of Omar Jallow alias O.J & Waa Juwara!
5. Was N.A.D.D not a baby of S.T.G.D P Why does he have recourse to made reference on discussions for a united front with Mr Manneh (current Secretary General of SAVE THE GAMBIA DEMOCRACY PROJECT); in his video interview under Bantaba Gambian politics topic UDP leader's video comprehensive interview under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8483
6. Finally Kukoi Samba Sanyang political statement in Gambia Journal nail the campaign against Jammeh's government under
http://www.thegambiajournal.com/Top-News-and-Analyses/576.html
i.Quoted from above:"NO MORE TIME TO WASTE FOR INTELLECTUAL SHOW BOY CASES BUT OUR DEAR OPPRESSED AND EXPLOITED PEOPLE DEMANDE ONLY CONCRETE PATRIOTIC ACTION TO RESCUE SINKING GAMBIA FOR THEIR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE LEAVING ASIDE THE UTOPIAN DISCOURSES OF INVETERATE THEORETICIANS."
ii. Anyone who pursues only selfish interests to achieve being a President of The Gambia and does not want to sacrifice that to SAVE THE GAMBIA DEMOCRACY is fooling himself for dream will never materialised under Jammeh's watch
7. I beg to leave topic as conclusive and being exhausted on this topic!
|
Edited by - kobo on 09 Dec 2009 15:50:45 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
