On this day 27 years ago, former president Jammeh and Edward Singhateh marched from Yundum Barracks to Banjul and seized State House. As they were marching with their loyal soldiers, former President Jawara managed to get on an American military ship in the sea behind State House. Jawara’s time as president after 30 years was definitely up. Jammeh, 29 years at the time, then ascended as Gambia’s new leader.

Jammeh oversaw a two-year transition as a military head of state and in 1996, elections were held where he ran as a civilian after retiring from the army. He won that election and then went on to win three other elections, in 2001, 2006 and 2011. While Jammeh had done well in terms of infrastructural and other developments such as the University of The Gambia and GRTS TV, the man had also committed some terrible things. He doesn’t have the best human rights record and the TRRC has confirmed he over 200 murders occurred during his 22 years rule. Soldiers from his so-called death squad have explained to the TRRC how they took orders from him and executed both citizens and non-citizens.

In 2016 Jammeh decided to seek re-election. It was going to be the fifth time. And while casting his vote, Jammeh looked confident, smiling all the time. But Jammeh dramatically lost election to Adama Barrow, his main challenger.  And silence fell on State House as the electoral commission chairman Alieu Momar Njai said Mr Barrow was Gambia’s new president.

Jammeh initially called President-elect Barrow and congrajuluted him. A week later, he went on State TV GRTS and said he was annulling the election because he was cheated. A bitter political impasse erupted but it ended in January 2017 with Jammeh leaving the country as ECOWAS troops entered the country seeking to remove him from power.

Jammeh’s rule will be remembered for him wanting to rule for one billion years only for that to end prematurely in 2016. Jammeh would have been in power today if fate had treated him kindly. He is now living in exile in Equatorial Guinea.

The concept of “Free Speech” does not exist, like the oxygen we breathe, because it has a value in and for itself. There are many societies, and many social situations, in which “Free Speech” has been considered to be a bad thing explicitly – or implicitly through social and cultural norms.

“Free Speech” In The Political Space Of A Democratic State

“Free Speech” is considered vital in a democratic state because it allows the citizens, the ultimate sovereigns in a democratic state, to make informed decisions about their government; informed decisions about those to whom the citizens will entrust state power between elections.

Reputation Of Others & Limitations On “Free Speech”

In Lombardo, the European Court of Human Rights held that it was “only in exceptional circumstances” can limits on free speech be justified to protect “the rights or reputations of others”.

In other words, Free Speech is a sacred cow in democratic societies and the courts will bend over backwards to protect it. The 2013 Defamation Act here in UK has extended that Free Speech protection, more so to journalists where public figures are involved. It is virtually impossible for a public figure in Lawyer Darboe’s position to win a libel/defamation case in UK: because reporting on Lawyer Darboe would be considered a matter of important public interest – because he is a politician and aims to obtain the publics’ trust to run the country.

Baba Jah’s Justification For His Actions

Baba Jah’s argument is that Lawyer Darboe is vying for public office. Baba says that he has known Lawyer Darboe for some twenty-six years and it is his, Baba’s, opinion that “Lawyer Darboe is not fit to be President”. Thus far Baba Jah’s opinion, with which the thousands of UDP supporters would disagree, is protected Free Speech. But …

Did Baba Jah Go Too Far?

Both in the interview with The Fatu Network and later with Freedomnewspaper, Baba Jah was careful NOT to divulge any information about the child who he referred to as “Lawyer Darboe’s Child”. Neither did Baba Jah divulge who the child’s mother is. To that extent, Baba Jah seems to have complied with privacy laws as they are in UK and USA. Of course, the same privacy laws cannot be invoked to protect a public figure – as both Boris and Trump found out when caught in the beds of women who are not their wives!

Prevention Of Disorder & Free Speech

The European Court of Human Rights has held, also in Lombardo, that “prevention of public disorder” is a “legitimate aim” allowing authorities’ interference with Free Speech. In Africa, we can think of “Radio Rwanda” broadcasts that led to the 1994 Genocide, and in South Africa last week Zuma Jnr’s tweet urging Zuma supporters to “Loot Responsibly”! The European Court of Human Rights has also denied the Prophet Muhammad Cartoons the protection of Free Speech – because the cartoons could lead to “public disorder”.

Would Baba Jah’s “Insult” of Lawyer Darboe Lead To “Public Disorder”?

From the reaction of Lawyer Darboe’s followers on-line, it is clear that such utterances could have led to “public disturbance” in The Gambia if Lawyer Darboe were President. But then if Lawyer Darboe is Head of State, there will be other laws to deal with “insults” to the Office of The President.

The Vital Importance Of Free Speech Generally

Clearly all governments will try to stifle Free Speech (Julius Assange is still rotting in a British jail without trial). Those in power, and the criminals and the corrupt, would want to stifle Free Speech and Press Freedom because “their business” thrives best in the dark. Publicity and day-light is bad for corruption and abuse of office … and that is why in The Gambia people like Deyda Hydara and Chief Manneh had to die and the Independent Newspaper has to be burnt down. Free Speech and Press Freedom is a continuum. and thus it has to protect even the likes of Baba Jah, however distasteful some may find his opinions and mode of delivery. Thus it is important for those in public office and for aspirants in public office to develop “thick skins” to withstands the slings and arrows that come with having Free Speech and a Free Press.

Dida Jallow-Halake,

Notting Hill, UK.

By Sulayman Gagigo

As things stand, UDP has the highest chance to win an election under a single party contest. The past local government and parliamentary election results served as enough evidence to prove this claimed. Both APRC and NPP have recognized this political reality and the danger of watching that to happen.

Because UDP constitutes hate, aggression and arrogance. And as highly predicted, allowing the party to win the election on December 4th will mean endorsing revenge, minority oppression, Barrow’s and Jammeh’s prosecution. Not only that, the worst also awaits Foni, APRC and the NPP heavyweights.

To avert these fears, many more threats pose by a UDP government, APRC and NPP showed the need to settle all past differences, strike a compromise, unite efforts and defeat the UDP to save the nation from division, suppression, ethnic tension, aggression and hate. This is the basis for inItiating the NPP – APRC talks.

The whole rationale is to bar UDP from forming the next government so that revenge, tribalism and oppression will be averted. While averting this national tragedy on December 4th, new space will be opened to foster reconciliation and social cohesion under a climate of humility, peaceful environment.

APRC recognized the challenge she, her based and supporters continue to face under Barrow, most of which are the results of UDP early yrs in government. Fonis militarization and the selective removal of her natives from the civil and public service were the making of UDP and GMC.

Similarly, the experienced of coalition 2016 has been noted. The party is also aware of the lack of enforceable legislative provisions in the 1997 constitution to obligate the executive to respect gentleman arrangements over national constitution.

That is why, to commence this process, the party has smartly put forward unnegotiable demands to NPP as preconditions for coalition talk. In addition, other accountability, control mechanisms like a 50-50 parliamentary seats are being studied too.

These demands are being reviewed and how Barrow handles them will, to a greater extend, decide the coalition. In fact, safe to say that its these demands that are being discussed, not coalition.

A major beneficiary of this coalition, if succeed, will be president Jammeh and Foni whose faith are strongly anchored on the December 4th election. How?

The prosecution of Jammeh, a section of Foni citizens, and the continuous militarization of Foni rest in the decision of December 4th. We APRC supporters must realize this fact, learn very fast to catch up with the prevailing realities. Sentiments and emotions can’t never be solutions.

God forbids, this coalition fails, UDP ascends to power, APRC and Jammeh should prepare for prosecution, suppression and even lifetime opposition. Because once UDP ascends to power, expect that all apparatus of government will be changed to suit their rigging system so as to enable them cling onto power forever.

Hence, those claiming that this coalition isn’t in the interest of Jammeh and APRC should visit the coalition formula  properly.

As an adversely mentioned perpetrator in the 1995 gruesome murder of Ousman Koro Ceesay; the then Finance Minister, Yankuba Touray was availed of the opportunity to give his side of the story to prove his innocence or accept culpability. The former Local Government Minister was ill-advised and continued to be under the illusion that the so-called constitutional immunity was enough to barricade him from testifying at the TRRC and any subsequent prosecution for the wanton act that snuffed the life out of Koro. He resorted to a contemptuous behavior that left the Chairman of the TRRC with no choice but to order for his arrest. This contemptuous behavior ignited a chain of events that emanated from the TRRC, rippled around the metropolitan area, and ultimately changed his life.

Two years from his arrest, Yankuba Touray would be convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The strong reactions from his family, friends, and loved ones clearly show that they are struggling to come to terms with a conviction they see as unfair and outrageous. That kind of reaction from the groups of people mentioned above is to be expected and understandable. However, it is important for all and sundry to exercise restraint and allow the justice system to address such issues that have legal ramifications. There is another option at Yankuba’s disposal, and his lawyer did say that they are going to file an appeal. That is an alternate legal route they can take, the outcome of which again will be determined by the courts. The truth be told, Yankuba did not get engulfed in this sticky situation by accident. Therefore, he cannot be absolved of responsibility because his disobedience or disrespect towards the Commission in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority of the TRRC expedited his prosecution even before other adversely mentioned perpetrators would learn their fate nested in the TRRC recommendations which are in the offing.

Many people argued that the conviction of Yankuba is unfair to him because he is not the only adversely mentioned perpetrator in that gruesome murder, or that he did not act alone. Well, an opportunity was given to most if not all of them to prove their innocence or accept culpability, but he is the only one that chose the constitutional immunity route, even when offered unsolicited legal advice from the lead counsel as to how his contemptuous behavior could boomerang on him. He was determined to stand his grounds, again under the illusion that the constitutional immunity barricade was enough fortification against all possible legal actions. It is often said that a house built on a weak foundation will always crumble.

What the families, friends, and loved ones of adversely mentioned perpetrators ought to understand though is that those they are trying to defend are alleged to have participated in wanton acts that snuffed the lives out of others or ravaged them beyond repairs. So, there have been irretrievable losses and irreparable damages and the sad reality is that many grieving families still do not get closure. Pronouncements or actions that are uncompassionate and inconsiderate are not recipes for reconciliation and will not heal the wounds either. A lot of heinous crimes and gross human rights violations have occurred in The Gambia between 1994 and 2016, and the perpetrators are our very own people. While your family member, friend, colleague or loved one may be your hero, they are some other family’s worst nightmare because their ferocious predatory actions irreversibly changed that family’s life. We cannot change the past unfortunately, but we can certainly right the wrongs of the past and most importantly, learn from it. Getting closure for grieving family and serving justice are pivotal in this arduous journey. No judgement or ruling will be seen by all and sundry as justice served because our expectations and preferences are different.

By Dibba Chaku, United States

By Madi Jobarteh

The public holiday announcement by the State House is unconstitutional. The State House must realise that there is a Public Holidays Act which specifies who can declare a public holiday and which days are to be declared a public holiday.

In the Act, the President can only declare a public holiday for days marking Eid-il-Fitr, Eid-ul-Adha and Maulud Nabi. Period.

The other statutory days are New Year’s Day (Jan 1), Good Friday, Easter Monday, Independence Day (Feb 18), Feast of Assumption Day (Aug 15), and Christmas Day (Dec 25). For these days, it is the Minister who declares them as public holidays. For any changes to these days, whether to drop an existing day or include a new day as a public holiday, it needs to be gazetted.

Therefore, even though Section 76 of the Constitution confers Executive Power on the President, this section cannot however be relied upon to declare a public holiday since there is already a distinct and definite act for that purpose. So, let us tell the President and his technocrats to follow the law.

Hence the latest press release from the State House that the President has allocated two days for the observance of Tabaski and Koriteh is unconstitutional and illegal. Similarly, the Public Holidays Act has not provided any public holiday for Boxing Day.

Therefore, let the President be advised to review the Public Holidays Act so that it is amended in line with current realities. Until then, the several declarations of public holidays in the country by both former Tinpot Dictator Yaya Jammeh and current Pres. Adama Barrow are unconstitutional and illegal.

That aside, the Public Holidays Act in itself needs urgent review. It was created in 1904 and last amended in 1965! It is utterly outdated. We are in 2021 today.

For The Gambia Our Homeland