 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jun 2015 : 19:32:46
|
THE ELECTORAL REFORM PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE HOW WILL THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY REACT? WHAT ARE THE REFOPM PROPOSALS OF THE OPPOSITION?
Foroaa: Published on June 17, 2015
It has come to the notice of Foroyaa that there is plan to introduce a bill which would make it a requirement for Presidential Candidates to deposit a non refundable fee of 1 Million Dalasis instead of a refundable fee of 10,000 Dalasis if one has 40 percent of the votes.
If the bill is passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President, candidates during National Assembly would pay a non refundable fee of 100,000 Dalasis instead of a refundable fee of Five Thousand Dalasis if one has 20 percent of the votes cast. Mayoral candidates would pay a non refundable fee of 50,000 Dalasis instead of a refundable deposit of 2500 Dalasis if one has 15 percent of the votes cast. Councillors would pay a non refundable fee of 10,000 Dalasis instead of a refundable deposit of 1250 Dalasis if one has 15 percent of the votes cast.
Section 26 of the Constitution states “Every citizen of The Gambia of full age and capacity shall have the right, without unreasonable
restrictions –
(b) to vote and stand for elections at genuine periodic elections for public office, which elections shall be by universal and equal suffrage and be held by secret ballot; (Emphasis ours)
In a country where only three candidates have been standing for Presidential elections for the past 10 years despite the deposit being fixed at 10,000 Dalasis, there is no justification for raising the deposit to 1 Million Dalasis. Hence the amendment is unreasonable and unjustifiable and would constitute an unreasonable restriction in the exercise of political rights as enshrined in Section 26 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the executive is seeking to make it a law for political parties to pay a registration fee of 1 Million Dalasis and a registered membership of 10, 000 members with at least 1000 members from each administrative area.
The Executive members of the party would have to be resident in the Gambia and the party has to have a secretariat in each administrative area.
However, nothing is mentioned in the Bill regarding state funding of political parties.
Section 25 Subsection states that freedom to political Association. Any imposition of non refundable and exorbitant fees without provision of state funding of political parties. Electoral reform is not a one sided affair. The country has a mature opposition which also has interest in political reform. What is needed is the convening of an interparty conference to review all proposals for electoral reform and form a consensus. Anybody who is afraid of such a move does not have the nation and people at heart.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2015 : 19:31:07
|
FOROYAA’S ADVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OPPOSITION
Foroyaa Editorial: Published on June 19, 2015
Self perpetuating rule in Syria, Egypt, Libya and many other parts of the globe has resulted in transforming the sovereign people of the world into refugees. 60 million people are now refugees. It is amazing that this is taking place at a time of plenty and many of the refugees are the cream of their society.
The ruling party has been very unilateral in its pursuit of electoral and constitutional reform. There is no sign that it is consulting the opposition in its designs. The outcome of its unilateral action is the drafting of a Bill which intends to build a “money-cracy” instead of a democracy.
The Opposition has informed the public that it has its own agenda for electoral reform which is yet to be made public.
The ruling party should suspend the introduction of the bill and instead open up consultation with the opposition to reach a consensus on electoral reform.
If this proposal is rejected then the people should get a clear signal that they should become decisive in preventing self perpetuating rule from prevailing in 2016.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2015 : 19:34:26
|
The amendment should be approached with caution
The Point Editorial: Friday, June 19, 2015
The Elections Act, the principal law that governs the conduct of elections in The Gambia, is in the process of being amended, once again.
According to the schedule of the National Assembly, the amendment will be tabled on 23 June for endorsement by the people’s representatives at the parliament.
The Point was privileged to have gone through a copy of the entire amendment. Quite a few points in the new bill are positive, as they could strengthen internal democracy and vibrancy of the political parties.
On the contrary, there are many clauses, when they are let go, could kill multi-party democracy in The Gambia by making it almost impossible for opposition parties to contest in elections.
One of the very positive things about the amendment is that it would certainly lay to rest the perennial problem between opposition parties and the police about permits.
With the passage of this new bill, granting of permits for political activities like rallies will no longer be done by the police, but the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).
Also, very positive about the amendment is making it mandatory for all the parties to have an internal congress, every two years. It is good that the amendment captures this salient point to make it a legal requirement for the parties to go into congress, where they can possibly elect a new executive. This will change the customary practice of the same people leading a party for decades.
On-the-spot counting is also well captured in the amendment.The new amendment now obliges the IEC to conduct vote counting at each polling station. This is necessary to promote transparency and accountability, and do away with the fear of election rigging.
One thing that we are ambivalent about is the provision that all executive members of political parties have to be resident in The Gambia.
We thought this should not be an issue because as long as you are a Gambian and have the interest of the development of the country at heart, it should not matter whether you are in or out of the country.
With the passage of this clause, Gambians on international appointment and on foreign mission will be disqualified for the executive post of any party.
Having said that, one of our main concerns with the amendment is regarding the increment of fees.
With this amendment, the registration fee for political party has increased to a staggering D1 million.
Not only that, it requires parties to pay a non-refundable amount of D1 million to have the candidature of their presidential candidate endorsed in each presidential election. Previously, it was only D10,000.
Just like presidential candidates, parliamentary candidates have to ‘deposit’ D100,000 instead of D5,000 to contest in elections.
Similarly, mayoral candidates have to also deposit D50,000 instead of D2,500; and councillors D10,000 instead of D1,500.
Yes, we agree that some of the initial deposits, particularly that of presidential candidates, were very minimal. But the way it is increased is really on the high side, considering the fact The Gambia is a least developed country and one of the ten poorest countries in the world.
Certainly, it will not be too good to compare the presidential deposit of The Gambia with other countries, whose economies are far bigger.
Before comparing how much presidential candidates in other countries are paying, one should also compare the gross domestic product and the per capita income levels of both countries as well.
We are concerned that passing these amendments would amount to legally obstructing the participation of opposition parties, in the democratic process of the country.
In addition, obliging political parties to be submitting yearly audited accounts to the IEC should also be reconsidered. These things happen mostly in countries where political parties received a subvention from the government.
Now the ball is in the court of the National Assembly members, and the whole nation is watching.
May we remind all of the paradigm shift in the adage that “the evil that men do lives after them”; now it has become “the evil that men do lives with them”.
So, Mr/Mrs Parliamentarian, be cautioned and cautious in going about passing the bill, knowing that the future of our democratic processes now lies in your hands.
“It is in your moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.”
Tony Robbins
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2015 : 22:42:54
|
“It is in your moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.”
Tony Robbins
===================================================================================================
Very interesting quote from The Point Newspaper EDITORIAL,have a read of the link below: 
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it_is_in_your_moments_of_decision_that_your/191119.html |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 19 Jun 2015 22:43:32 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2015 : 00:46:42
|
PDOIS’ POSITION ON THE BILLS REQUIRING A MILLION DALASI TO REGISTER A POLITICAL PARTY AND EXTENDING THE DEATH PENALTY TO CRIMES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH KILLING
THE EXECUTIVE IS ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH LAW, REASON AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
Events of far reaching political significance are unfolding right before our own eyes. Many lessons of fundamental significance to our existence as a people need to be drawn. History teaches us that those who are to be equal to the task of being the architects of their own destiny must neither be driven to a state of despair or desperation. Despair leads to passivity and resignation while desperation leads to adventurism and over-reaction. A Sovereign people must always be in charge. They must never fear difficulty. They must be ready to make all necessary sacrifices to surmount every challenge to be in charge of their own destiny.
ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH LAW AND REASON
Two Bills are already published in the Gazette. Gazette No: 13 of 1st June 2015 publishes a Bill aiming to amend the Elections Act which includes key clauses which are unreasonable and unjustifiable and whose implementation, if enacted, would contravene the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Allow us to start with the amendments proposed for Section 105 of the Elections Act which deals with the registration of political parties.
If the Bill is enacted, political parties would be required to pay a registration fee of one Million Dalasis among other requirements. Why are these amendments on a collution course with law and reason? The answer is simple.
APRC, GMC, GPDP, NRP, PDOIS, PPP and UDP are already registered political parties. These parties cannot be de-registered for not complying with a law which was not in existence when they were registered. This is clearly stipulated under Section 100 Subsection (2) (c) of the Constitution. It leaves no ambiguity in stating that “The National Assembly shall have no power to pass a bill to deprive any person retroactively of vested or acquired rights. The National Assembly should heed the command of law and seek not to deprive any party of its acquired rights. Any such attempt could be challenged.
Needless to say, if the bill is enacted to govern the registration of new parties without the retroactive application of the law an absurdity would be engendered. In short, one would have two different standards for registration for parties which should have equal rights. This would also be unconstitutional since section 33 of the Constitution has stated without ambiguity that “Subject to the provisions of subsection (5), no law shall make any provision which is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.”
It defines discrimination as “affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject, or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description.”
Hence PDOIS calls on the executive to withdraw this Bill, open up consultation with the opposition to reach a consensus on credible electoral reform and set the Gambia on the trail of free, fair and genuine elections starting with Presidential elections in 2016.
There is no way of escaping a formidable opposition in 2016. No bad law could stop a people who are determined to take charge of their destiny. The greater the obstacles, the greater becomes the resolve to overcome them. Only the chicken hearted try to cheat destiny and they do so without any honour due to them. The lion hearted always look at destiny squarely in the face. History will tell how our current decision makers would be classified.
The second amendment is published in Gazette No. 14 of 10th June 2015. It seeks to amend Section 18 Subsection (2) of the constitution which states: “As from the coming into force of this Constitution, no court in The Gambia shall be competent to impose a sentence of death for any offence unless the sentence is prescribed by law and the offence involves violence, or the administration of toxic substance, resulting in the death of another person.”
In short, the Constitution is saying he or she who has not used violence to kill any one does not deserve to be sentenced to death. This is a just and reasonable law.
The executive of the Gambia is however not satisfied with the law. It wants Subsection (2) to be amended by “deleting the words appearing immediately after the word “law”.
Hence if the amendment happens to be enacted the constitution would permit the sentencing to death of any person for offences other than using violence or toxic substances to kill another person. In short, once a law is passed in the National Assembly allowing a sentence of death for economic crimes, sedition , libel, false news , etc it could be enforced by the courts.
This matter should not be taken lightly. In fact, in 2010 the National Assembly and the executive enacted a law which imposed the death penalty for crimes associated with drugs. We are among those people who exposed that the law was unconstitutional pointing out that it contravened Section 18 Subsection (2) which does not permit any body to be killed who has not killed another person by using violence or toxic substances.
Eventually, the state had to repeal the law in 2011. Now they want to amend Section 18 Subsection (2).
What then are its objects and reasons for proposing an amendment?
It is strange that the executive only stated the policy direction of the bill without stating what they wanted to remedy.
It simply states that “the amendment seeks to amend the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia to provide for the application of the death penalty in circumstances other than where there is actual violence or administration of toxic substance resulting in death.”
Why would the executive aim to apply the death penalty on people who have not killed? Which mind or conscience could justify such logic? The Constitution was however sensible enough not to give them the final say.
Since life is very precious the Constitution decided to give the final say to the people to decide on such an amendment through a referendum.
This is why the executive mentioned the following in the bill:
“However, since Section 18 falls under the entrenched clauses of the Constitution the amendment Bill will also have to be subjected to a referendum after it is passed by the National Assembly.”
However, the constitution is categorical in stating that a Bill of the National Assembly altering any of the entrenched provisions, “shall not be passed by the National Assembly or presented to the President for assent unless-
“before the first reading of the Bill in the National Assembly, the Bill is published in at least two issues of the Gazette, the latest publication being not less than three months after the first, and the Bill is introduced into the National Assembly not earlier than ten days after the latest publication;
Hence the Bill cannot be tabled at the National Assembly before September 2015 when the three months and ten days would have elapsed as required by the constitution.
It is at this point that the Bill would be subjected to a second and third reading at the National Assembly and if supported by three quarters of the members the National Assembly it would then be referred to the Independent Electoral Commission by the speaker. The Commission is required to hold a referendum within 6 months.
Before an amendment could take effect fifty percent of the persons who are entitled to vote in the referendum must vote and at least seventy five percent of those who voted must support the Bill.
If a Bill is supported the Commission must issue a certificate indicating compliance with all the constitutional procedures which must be presented to the President with the Bill for his assent which must be done within seven days for the amendment to take effect after publication in the Gazette.
Power belongs to the people. PDOIS will leave no stone unturned in doing its duty to raise the awareness of the people and organise them so that they would be conscious of their transformative powers. The type of people we have will determine the type of society we are going to live in. We are all in it together. Together we will make history in rejecting any attempt to use death as a punishment for crimes which entitle a person rehabilitation and in refusing for “Money – cracy” to prevail over democracy.
The people will prevail since they possess superior power. This is the verdict of history and it is irrevocable.
The End
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2015 : 10:49:50
|
UDP could challenge proposed amendments to Elections Act
By: Lamin Jahateh
The Point: Published on June 23, 2015
The leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) has said they would not sit by and allow the proposed amendments to the Elections Act to be enacted into law, without being challenged.
Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, secretary general of the party, said there is an option of challenging the bill to stop it from becoming law, even if it is endorsed by the National Assembly.
“We are not going to accept it from the National Assembly,” he told The Point newspaper in an exclusive interview on Monday at his chambers in Banjul.
However, Darboe did not categorically state how his UDP will challenge the amendments, but emphasised that it could “certainly be challenged”.
The Elections Act, the principal law that governs the conduct of elections in The Gambia, has been amended, once again. The amendment is scheduled to be tabled on 23 June at the ruling party-dominated National Assembly for endorsement.
Among other things, the amendment proposed a D1 million registration fee for a political party, increasing it from not more than D5,000. It also obliges presidential candidates to pay D1 million for their candidature to be endorsed by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), in each presidential election. Previously, it was D10,000.
Parliamentary candidates have to also pay D100,000 instead of D5,000 for election; mayoral candidates have to also deposit D50,000 instead of D2,500; and councillors D10,000 instead of D1,500.
“The proposed amendments are preposterous and ridiculous,” the leader of Gambia’s biggest opposition party said. For Lawyer Darboe, the amendment is an attempt by President Jammeh regime’s to create a single party state.
Under Section 100 of the Constitution of The Gambia, the government cannot pass any legislation creating a one party state, but Darboe said the proposed amendment is “certainly an attempt to create one party state”.
“The people should have as many choices of (political) parties as possible, and there should not be any restriction,” he said.
“After all, why register political parties at D1 million when registration for big commercial businesses is not up to D1 million, and these businesses are involved in profit-making undertakings whereas political parties are not,” he added.
According to Darboe, it is possible that when “this horrible legislation” is not in place, new political parties may emerge that Gambians identify to be their choices and they prefer them to the APRC, prefer them to the UDP and all other existing political parties.
“But they [the ruling party] are trying to prevent the emergence of such political parties with this horrible condition, a condition that is incongruous with the right to freedom to form and belong to a political party,” he said.
For the payment for presidential candidates, Darboe said it is not only “preposterous” but it also runs against democracy.
“It is brought to ensure endue restriction on the rights of Gambians who are better presidential candidates, and who the people can vote for in elections,” he said.
He said that when the APRC government took the reins of power in the country, they said they did so to bring democracy and development.
“But they are the ones who day-in day-out are working, making pronouncements, and putting policies in place that are going to kill democracy in this country,” he said.
The bill also obliges parties to be submitting their yearly audited accounts to the IEC.
“If we are given public funds, we will account for it,” he said. “But if I sell my plot of land - I have done that several times - or my family provides funding for the activities of the UDP, what is the business of the IEC to know what my brother has given me; what is their business with what my sister-in-law in the United States has given me?”
“I have absolutely no problem with submitting accounts provided that public funds are given to us, provided that the government funds our activities; which actually happens in other countries,” he said.
The new amendment requires all political parties to have a secretariat in each administrative region of The Gambia.
“We have a bureau in Basse, Bansang, Soma, and Banjul. But the APRC doesn’t have any bureau: you point to me any bureau of the APRC, because the one in Kanifing (the APRC national bureau) is a confiscated property. They use offices of the governors and mayors for their political activities,” he said.
According to Darboe, if the National Assembly members pass the bill, they would be digging their own graves.
“None of them can raise D100,000 on his own to pay and contest in parliamentary elections. When this bill is passed, I can tell you, members of the National Assembly will have their payment paid by (President) Yahya Jammeh not the party and then you become hostages for him.”
Under the proposed amendment, the monetary conditions required to be satisfied by any person who wishes to contest for any of the elective offices constitute unreasonable restrictions to the exercise of guaranteed rights to do so, according to the opposition leader.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2015 : 13:26:07
|
Tabling of two controversial bills postponed
By Lamin Jahateh
The Point: Published on Wednesday, June 24, 2015
The tabling of the proposed controversial amendments to the Elections Act and the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia at the National Assembly has now been postponed until 30 June 2015, The Point newspaper can announce.
The amendments were supposed to be tabled by the Attorney General and minister of Justice, Mama Fatima Singhateh, yesterday, Tuesday, for approval or rejection by the National Assembly members.
The Point got to know that some of the clauses of the amendments are being reconsidered.
Among other things, the proposed amendment to the Elections Act – the principal law that governs the conduct of elections – provides for a D1 million registration fee for a political party, increasing it from not more than D5,000.
It also obliges presidential candidates to pay D1 million for their candidature to be endorsed by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), in each presidential election. Previously, it was D10,000.
Parliamentary candidates have to also pay D100,000 instead of D5,000 for participation in any election; mayoral candidates have to also deposit D50,000 instead of D2,500; and councillors D10,000 instead of D1,500.
Similarly, the Gambia government has proposed an amendment to Section 18 (sub-section 2) of the constitution to make provision for application of the death penalty, in circumstances other than where there is actual violence or administration of toxic substances resulting in death.
The two amendments have sparked widespread discussions by concerned Gambians both in and out of the country, and both online and off-line.
The opposition parties were particularly swift in their condemnation of the proposed changes to the law.
One of the parties, the People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS), said the amendments to the Elections Act include key clauses which are “unreasonable and unjustifiable”.
The party said in a statement that the amendment should be withdrawn.
The leader of the United Democratic Party, Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, said the two proposed amendments are “preposterous and ridiculous”.
He said the amendment to the Elections Act is an “attempt to create a single party state”.
The UDP secretary general mauled the possibility of challenging the amendment to stop it from becoming law.
The leader of the National Reconciliation Party said the proposed amendments to the Elections Act “will kill” multi-party democracy in The Gambia by making it almost impossible for opposition parties to contest elections.
Hamat Bah said the amendment “should be rejected completely”.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2015 : 08:20:22
|
Elections (Amendment) Bill Still Hanging
By Muhammad Bah
Foroyaa: Published on July 1, 2015
The proposed Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2015 which is scheduled to be tabled before the National Assembly by the Secretary General and Minister for Presidential Affairs was withdrawn from the order paper at the sitting yesterday, Tuesday, 30 June.
Making the announcement before the deputies, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Abdoulie Bojang, said the tabling of the Bill is re-scheduled for Tuesday, 7 July 2015. No reason was advanced as to why the bill was not tabled.
The order paper which was circulated earlier indicated the tabling of two bills including the Independent Electoral Commission (Amendment) Act Bill, 2015. However, this order paper was eventually withdrawn and replaced by the one that scheduled the Industrial Property Act (Amendment) Bill 2015 as the only matter for debate.
This is the second time that this controversial bill has failed to be tabled for debate by the law makers at the National Assembly. The first attempt was last Tuesday, when the deputy speaker, Fatou Mbye, who chaired the session, adjourned the sitting to 30 June without making any mention of the bill.
The nation is waiting for the outcome of this bill which has generated so much controversy from political opponents and pundits, who largely view it as a move by the ruling APRC party to stifle the opposition parties in the Gambia as the country heads for a presidential election in 2016.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11855 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2015 : 10:04:15
|
PDOIS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON THE ELECTIONS (AMENEDMENT) BILL OF 1st JUNE 2O15
29th June 2015 Halifa Sallah
FOR THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
How Seasoned Parliamentarians Would Handle The Debate
1. Introduction
The Legislative power of the Gambia is exercised by the National Assembly members by passing Bills which become law when assented to by the President and published in the Gazette.
Bills are introduced either by members of the Cabinet or a National Assembly member. To register the unalloyed interest of the executive in having the Bill passed it is introduced by the President of the Republic.
This however should not be given much weight by seasoned parliamentarians who are fully conscious of their oversight role and are not oblivious to the fact that the President is not immune to making errors of judgment.
The conduct of Parliamentarians should be bound by their oath of office or affirmation to uphold and promote the principles engraved in Section 112 paragraph (b) of the Constitution which states:
“.... all members shall regard themselves as servants of the people of The Gambia, desist from any conduct by which they seek improperly to enrich themselves or alienate themselves from the people, and shall discharge their duties and functions in the interest of the nation as a whole and in doing so shall be influenced by the dictates of conscience and the national interest.”
Hence National Assembly members are supposed to be servants of the people who are ready, at all times, to discharge duty in the interest of the whole nation and in doing so, are bound by the dictates of conscience and the national interest.
2. The Defective Nature of The Explanatory Memorandum of The Bill
Section 101 Subsection (2) of The Constitution states that,
“No Bill, other than a Bill referred to in subsection (5), shall be introduced into the National Assembly unless it is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail the policy and principles of the Bill, the defects which it is intended to remedy and the necessity for its introduction.”
The Elections (Amendment) Bill 2015 contains the following explanatory memorandum which deserves interrogation:
OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Elections Act which have been a cause of concern for the Independent Electoral commission in the conduct of public elections in The Gambia. This includes deleting the provisions of section 34 dealing with returns on deaths and sections 35, 36 and 37 dealing with transfer of registrations. The Bill also seeks to amend the provisions relating to the withdrawal period for candidates vying for elections as well as providing for counting of votes on the spot at the polling centres.
More significantly the Bill seeks to vest the power of granting permits for political processions and rallies in the Commission both during and outside of election periods. The Bill also seeks to ensure that political parties are highly organised and run by serious people by providing for certain minimum standards for the registration and functioning of political parties in The Gambia.”
The content of the objects and reasons could be divided into four components. The first indicates the attitude of the Government to the recommendations of the IEC. The amendments are not only pitifully inadequate if weighed against the recommendations of the IEC but are also not the least insightful since the memorandum does not lay bare the defects highlighted by the IEC which their recommendations intend to remedy since such explanation would expose fraudulent registration practices proven in court by PDOIS activists, which were made possible by the use of attestation aided and abetted by the introduction of a law which ousted the powers of registering officers to inquire into the validity of documents presented to them for determination of citizenship which included attestations by ghost elders.
It is important to note the silence on the issue of enfranchisement of Gambians abroad and the absence of the Constituency Boundaries Commission to properly demarcate constituencies which has been shoved under the carpet since 2001. However, one cannot fail to notice their keenness in formulating amendments aimed at promoting self perpetuating rule. This is the first point.
Secondly, the explanatory note went further to promise the introduction of a law which would grant the Commission authority to issue permits for political processions and rallies during and outside campaign periods but did not mention a single provision in the Elections Act which should be amended to give effect to the issues mentioned. Hence the explanatory note is evidently misleading. Both the Elections Act and the Public Order Act would have to be amended if the objectives mentioned are to be attained. The Bill is therefore grossly defective in this respect since its content does not, in part , speak the language of the explanatory memorandum.
Thirdly the explanatory memorandum indicated the object of introducing amendments aimed at ensuring highly organised political parties run by serious people by establishing standards for the registration and functioning of parties.
The assumption is that the ruling party is an organised party run by serious persons and could therefore establish standards to determine which party is to exist or perish.
The explanatory memorandum aims to redress the problem of disorganisation and seriousness of leadership but it did not explain the characteristics of an organised party and the attributes of a serious leadership, highlight the failings of parties and identify the remedies that are necessary to redress the defect.
Finally, the explanatory memorandum did not explain the object and reason for increasing the deposits of the candidates. It did not highlight the defects of the current deposits and explain the necessity for increasing them.
THE CONTENT OF THE AMENDMENTS
There are a number of proposed amendments which are among the recommendations made by the IEC and the opposition which could have been a component of a more comprehensive and credible electoral reform package. We will therefore concentrate on the controversial aspects of the Bill.
Amendment of Section 105
What is the content of section 105? What is the content of Section 43? What defects have the executive identified in the Sections? What Amendments are being proposed to redress the defects? Are the proposals credible?
Section 105 and Section 43 of the Elections Act are designed to provide the procedures necessary to facilitate the implementation of Section 60 of the Constitution.
Section 60 deals with the registration of political parties. It states:
“(1) No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public elections.
(2) No association shall be registered or remain registered as a political party if---
(a) it is formed or organised on an ethnic, sectional, religious or regional basis;
(b) its internal organisation does not conform with democratic principles; or
(c) its purpose is to subvert this Constitution or the rule of law.
(3) An Act of the National Assembly shall make provisions for the better implementation of this section.”
In simple terms, a Political party is an association which has the right to sponsor candidates to stand in public elections under its name. The Principle that should govern the conduct of the party is that it must not be formed or organised on ethnic, sectarian or religious basis. Its internal organisation must conform to democratic principles.
It must not subvert the Constitution or the rule of law. This is the minimum standard established for the registration of a political party and no Gambian has ever complained that the standards are prohibitive or unreasonably restrictive.
Subsection (3) of section 60 asserts that an Elections Act must make provisions for the better implementation of section 60.
It is clear that no unreasonable and unjustifiable precondition has been established by Section 60 for forming and registering political parties.
The reason for this is simple. Section 60 is a provision aimed at fostering the better implementation of the rights enshrined in Section 25 Subsection (1)(e) of the Constitution. It reads:
“Every person shall have the right to - (e) freedom of association, which shall include freedom to form and join associations and unions, including political parties and trade unions;”
A political party is therefore an association like any other association. Nothing is more ridiculous than to establish a condition that an association must have 10000 members before it could be registered to become a trade Union.
In fact, since sovereignty resides in the people the right to political participation and representation is not restricted to members of political parties. Section 26 states:
“Every citizen of The Gambia of full age and capacity shall have the right, without unreasonable restrictions -
(a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) to vote and stand for elections at genuine periodic elections for public office, which elections shall be by universal and equal suffrage and be held by secret ballot;
(c) to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in The Gambia.”
This is why a person could even stand as an Independent candidate.
Hence no unreasonable and unjustifiable restriction should be placed on the path of a Sovereign citizen to bar his or her participation as candidate in one’s individual capacity or through an Association or to vote.
These are the fundamental principles of the Constitution. An Elections Act and Commission are established to facilitate the better implementation of such constitutional principles and provisions, which should guide the letter and spirit of any amendment.
The Commission is to ensure fairness and transparency in the supervision of elections and in performing its responsibility. In this regard, it must not be subjected to the direction and control of any other authority. Section 43 states:
“In the exercise of its functions under this Constitution or any other law, the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”
Any law or practice which hinders the implementation of such principles is defective and should be redressed.
Where then does the proposed amendment of Section 105 and Section 43 of the Elections Act stand? Do the provisions contain inherent inadequacies or defects deserving remedy?
First and foremost, the Elections Act must complement sections 25, 26, 43 and 60 of the Constitution.
This is why Section 103A of the Elections Act states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Part, political parties may be established to –
(a) participate in the shaping of the political will of the people;
(b) disseminate information of political ideas and on political, economic, and social programmes of national character; and
(c) sponsor candidates for public elections.”
This is in line with the letter and spirit of section 60 of the Constitution.
Section 104 states among other things that:
“(1) The conduct of elections into an elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall be based on party politics.
“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who is qualified to be registered as a voter under the Constitution and this Act may contest as an independent candidate in any election.
“(3) The number of political parties shall not be limited by law and every citizen of The Gambia shall have the right freely to choose whether or not he or she becomes a member of a political party and which party he or she supports.
“(4) A political party shall not be formed on sectional, religious, ethnic or regional basis.
“(5) Every political party shall conform to democratic principles, and its actions and purposes shall not contravene or be inconsistent with the Constitution or any laws.
This is in line with the letter and spirit of section 25, 26 and 60 of the Constitution.
It goes without saying Section 105 of the Elections Act cannot oust section 60 of the Constitution. It must be connected to, dependent on and determined by the content of section 60.
Section 105 states:
“The Commission shall, on the written application of a political party in the prescribed form, register the party, if the Commission is satisfied that
(a) the principal object of that political party to participate in the promote election under this Act including
(i) the nomination of persons as candidates for such election;
(ii) the canvassing for votes for a candidate at such election, and
(iii) the devotion of any of its funds or any part thereof to the election expenses of any candidate taking part in such elections;
(b) the internal organisation of the political party conforms to democratic principles;
(c) the purposes and actions of the political party do not contravene or are not inconsistent with the constitution or other laws; and
(d) the political party has a national character and is not formed on any sectional, religious, ethnic or regional basis.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by
(a) the political party’s constitution;
(b) the political party’s name and full address
(c) the names and addresses of all the registered officers of the political party;
(d) the full address of the political party’s secretariat;
(e) the political party’s emblem, colour, motto and symbol which shall have no ethnic, religious or regional connotation;
(f) a declaration signed by at least five hundred members of the political party whose names appear in the register of voters to the effect that such voters support the registration of the political party and seek its registration as a political party;
(g) such fee as the Commission may determine; and
(h) a written undertaking that the political party shall abide by the code on election campaign ethics which the Commission may from time to time prepare.”
These provisions are in line with section 60 of the Constitution. No stakeholder had ever taken up issue with the provisions as defective or unreasonable.
However the executive seeks to amend section 105 by adding the following controversial provisions
“(e) all the political party executives are resident in The Gambia;
(f) a declaration signed by at least ten thousand members, with at least one thousand members from each Administrative Area of the political party whose names appear in the register of voters to the effect that such voters support the registration of the political party and seek its registration as a political party;
(g) a registration fee of one million dalasis;”
It is even clear from section 105 Subsection (2)(g) that it is the commission which should establish the fee for registration which should reflect a modest administrative cost for registration.
Hence the executive aims to even usurp the powers of the IEC by proposing a registration fee of one Million Dalasis.
One must now question how would the imposition of a registration fee of One Million dalasi signify the quality of organisation of a party and the seriousness of its leadership. On the contrary, any billionaire would be able to Pay a Million dalasis to register a party while a civil servant with a PhD who had selflessly served the country on hand to mouth wages, for decades would have to get a patron to register a party. The fee aims to restrict the right to form a political association of once choice based on economic status
Furthermore, Independent candidates have even won elections while the ruling APRC with many members lost to them. Hence having ten thousand members does not make a party a formidable force in elections. In short, out of 187000voters in KMC only about 25 000 voters voted for the ruling party. The electorate should be left to determine the worth of a party.
A billionaire could bribe 10000 people to establish an autocratic party where only he has a voice. This does not signify quality of leadership or seriousness.
Lastly, Section 25 Subsection (2) states that
“(2) Every person lawfully within The Gambia shall have the right to move freely throughout The Gambia, to chose his or her own place of residence within The Gambia, and to leave The Gambia.”
Hence it does not matter where a Gambian resides. A Gambian is not automatically deprived of citizenship by being temporarily resident abroad. Gambians resident abroad still have political rights including rights to form or belong to political parties as enshrined in section 25 and to vote as enshrined in Section 39 of the Constitution. Gambians are only deprived of occupying the office of President under Section 62; Ministers under Section 71 and National Assembly members under Section 90 if they acquire the citizenship of another country .
To restrict a Gambian resident abroad from holding offices in political parties based in the country would be unconstitutional.
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 43
ON DEPOSITS
The IEC has been administrating the Elections Act for 18 years. In its strategic plan 2015 -2019, it has stated the following at pages 13 and 14:
“A person wishing to stand as president shall be nominated by not less than five thousand voters whose names appear on the register of voters, with at least two hundred drawn from each administrative area and make a payment deposit of ten thousand dalasis at the time of nomination.
In the case of nomination of a member of the National assembly, he or she shall be nominated by not less than three hundred voters whose names appear on the register of voters for the constituency for which he or she seeks to be elected and make a payment deposit of five thousand dalasis at the time of nomination.
To be nominated for the position of Mayor/ Mayoress, a person shall be nominated by not less than one hundred and fifty voters whose names appear on the register of voters for the electoral division (region) for which he or she seeks to be elected and make a payment deposit of two thousand five hundred dalasis at the time of nomination.
To be nominated for the position of councillor, a person shall be nominated by not less than seventy five voters whose names appear on the register of voters for the ward for which he or she seeks to be elected and make a payment deposit of one thousand two hundred and fifty dalasis at the time of nomination.”
It is clear from the strategic plan issued by the IEC covering 2015-2019 that it had no plan to recommend any increase in the deposits which would certainly make it impossible for youths and women in particular and most qualified Gambians in general to stand for elections.
It is undoubtedly the machination of the executive to not only increase the deposit to unprecedented heights but to also make it non refundable by proposing the amendment of section 44 of the Elections Act which makes deposits refundable in line with the constitutional provisions such as section 47 of the Constitution which some legal minds abroad have already taken note of to project the illegality of the proposed amendment.
Let us now look at the deposits being proposed to examine whether they are to remedy any defects.
ON DEPOSITS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Currently, Section 43 makes provision for a candidate to the office of President, to deposit or cause to be deposited with the returning officer the sum of ten thousand dalasis. No stakeholder has ever complained about the deposit. Needless to say, Section 44 of the Elections Act makes the fee refundable if the candidate receives nothing less than 40 percent of the votes cast for the elected candidate. This is in line with section 47 paragraph b of the Constitution which indicates that deposits in presidential elections shall be returned to the candidate “.. if he or she receives not less than forty percent of the valid votes cast at the elections.”
No stakeholder has ever considered the provision for refundable deposit established by the elections Act for Presidential candidates for the past two decades to be unconstitutional, prohibitive, unreasonable or defective.
The Amendment Bill 2015 proposes a non refundable deposit of one million dalasis which is against the letter and spirit of section 47 of the Constitution. Hence, instead of providing remedy for a defect the bill itself is defective in letter and spirit by aiming to make non refundable under an Act what is refundable under the constitution. It also aims to impose unreasonable and unjustifiable financial obstacles to the exercise of the right to stand as a Presidential candidate by competent women, youths and men who are not financially endowed.
ON DEPOSITS FOR NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CANDIDATES
Currently, Section 43 has made it a requirement for Candidates contesting National Assembly Elections to deposit a refundable sum of five thousand dalasis. There has been a proposal by PDOIS for the sum to be reduced since it is not a revenue earning measure and qualified candidates, especially young people and women have had problems in contesting parliamentary elections because of lack of enough money to pay deposits. Some even dropped the idea of contesting as Independent Candidates to become party candidates because of finance. Political parties that are not financially endowed have also been putting up few national Assembly candidates because of the deposit. Hence to eliminate the financial restrictions placed on qualified men, youths and women to contest National Assembly Elections should have provided a remedy for the chronic practice of having uncontested seats.
Instead of addressing this defect the Amendment seeks to worsen it by proposing a non refundable deposit of 100,000 dalasis for candidates contesting National Assembly Elections.
Since the Constitution has made deposits of Presidential Candidates to be refundable upon getting 40 percent of the votes cast, it stands to reason that the provision in Section 44 of the Elections Act which makes a deposit for National Assembly Elections refundable if the candidate has twenty percent of the votes cast is speaking the language of the Constitution and should not be amended. In fact, it was stipulated in Section 52 of the Constitution before its amendment in 2001.
MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ELECTIONS
Currently, Section 43 of the elections Act requires Mayoral Candidates to deposit a sum of two thousand five hundred dalasis which is refundable under Section 44 if the candidate acquires 15 percent of the votes. This is speaking the language of the constitution and should be retained. The Amendment which seeks to increase a non refundable deposit for mayoral candidates to 50,000 dalasis does not speak the language of the Constitution and would impose financial restrictions on men, women and youths in the exercise of their rights to stand and contest to become representatives.
In the same vein, the candidates for councillor elections are currently required to deposit the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dalasis which is refundable if the candidate has fifteen percent of the votes cast. This speaks the language of the constitution and does not impose any unreasonable financial restrictions hindering the candidature of men, women and youths especially.
The amendment is proposing a non refundable deposit of 10,000 dalasis for candidates in councillor Elections which does not speak the language of the constitution. It aims to impose unreasonable financial restriction to the candidature of men, women and youths in councillor elections who are not financially endowed.
CONCLUSION
The IEC has made it very clear in its strategic plan that defective electoral laws affect its effectiveness. It has identified the inconsistency and restrictiveness of the law on the demarcation of constituency boundaries.
In 2000 the IEC under the Chairmanship of Reverend Tilewa Johnson exercised its power under Section 50 of the Constitution to start the process of demarcating Constituencies. Before giving the demarcation legal effect through publication in the Gazette unilateral action was taken to remove the Chairman when the IEC was getting ready to host a joint meeting with the Interparty Consultative Committee, to work on evening the political landscape. In 2001 the most intrusive constitutional amendments were carried out which abrogated provisions dealing with National Assembly elections such as Section 52 (c) which provided for a refund of deposits if a candidate has no less than 20 percent of the votes cast. In fact Sections 51 -57 of the Constitution were deleted as well as Sections 58 and 59 which dealt with Chieftaincy and Alkaloship elections.
Section 50 was amended to ensure that there would be no demarcation of constituency boundaries without constitutional amendments by removing the powers to demarcate constituencies from the Commission and entrust it to a non existing Constituency Boundaries Commission. Now the Commission is given a caretaker role to demarcate constituencies under Section 50 only when constitutional amendment of the number of constituencies is effected under Section 88. In effect it is the executive and the National Assembly who must conspire to demarcate constituency boundaries in accordance with their whims and caprices before any demarcation takes place. This is why gerrymandering is the order of the day. The Elections (Amendment) Bill 2015 did not undertake to fill this lacuna in the law.
The IEC has identified low voter turn out in National Assembly and Local government elections as a defect and has even proposed the aligning of Presidential and National Assembly elections, which would require constitutional amendments as a remedy. This has not been taken onboard by the Elections (Amendment) Bill 2015.
The IEC has proposed the adoption of paper ballot. That is honoured with disregard by the Elections ( Amendment) Bill 2015. We could go on and on.
Suffice it to say that the Opposition too has concerns for electoral reform.
Hence, if the Government was not a unilateral one it would have never submitted a Bill on Electoral reform without a tripartite meeting taking place, comprising the Government, the IEC and the opposition to determine an acceptable package of reforms.
Collective review and adoption of a reform package gives rise to collective responsibility. Unilateralism breeds incompetence, impunity, arrogance and conflict. The proposal for the deletion of Section 34 of the Elections Act which provides for periodic deletion of the names of those who pass away from the registers of voters without adding a more ideal procedure confirms the shallowness of the thinking behind some of the proposed amendments. We could go on and on to prove why the bill should be withdrawn or diplomatically killed by referring it to a Committee of the National Assembly for further review. The real solution is to take a tripartite approach to electoral reform involving the Government, the IEC and the political parties.
By 2016 the Electoral system which was carved in 1996 to usher in the era of the second Republic would be 20 years old.
As a new generation brought up and bred under the second Republic take their rightful place as sovereign voters in order to determine the destiny of the country, they should take a look at and gauge the credibility of an electoral system which a government that has presided over their affairs for 20 years aims to bequeath to them.
While PDOIS is proposing proportional representation system to ensure one third equity between men and women and significant youth and physically challenged in all representative institutions the APRC is bent on a programme of political exclusion of competent Gambians who are not financially endowed.
Those who intend to impose such huge non refundable deposits cannot claim to be progressive liberators of a people. They would qualify to be seen as self perpetuating patrons bent on subverting the Constitution by using their parliamentary majority to promulgate laws which galvanise self perpetuating rule. The time has finally arrived for Gambians to take their destiny into their own hands and save themselves from self perpetuating rule. All should note that only a government which concedes to a term limit could eradicate self perpetuating rule. Only parliamentarians who put conscience and national interest before personal and partisan interest would refuse to be accomplices of self perpetuating and monarchically designed leadership which is unsuitable for a Republic.
History is standing in judgment. It is recording the evidence point by point. It will deliver its verdict. The National Assembly and the executive should take note. What type of history would they want to leave behind? Do they really care? Posterity will know which parties are really ready to empower the people, especially the women and youth and which intends to behave like gods and monarchs above them. The future will tell.
THE END
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2015 : 18:51:30
|
| The regime is determined to APRC in power for good. |
Karamba |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
THE ELECTORAL REFORM PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE
