GDC press release condemning President Barrow’s Statement on 2nd December 2018 while meeting WCR is erroneous, fallacious and deceptive according to Seedy SK Njie. Here is the full statement from Njie:

‘The purported statement from The Gambia Democratic Congress (GDC) condemned President Adama Barrow statement on December 2nd 2018 in Statehouse while meeting thousands of supporters from West Coast Region, Gambia’s biggest voter population is nothing but deliberate misrepresentation of facts and calculated to mislead Gambian and build seed of discord between Gambians and the presidency.

The GDC in its delusion stated that the president “make some threatening remark” that “had dictatorial tendencies” is in accurate and fallacious.

The GDC further rejected the president and accused him of what it called “the ECOMIG forces are here”….. “take repressive measures against the Gambian people” this statement from GDC is not only deceptive but fallacious and misleading and millions miles far away in planet Pluto from being the truth as they choose to falsely twist his words.

The president unequivocally  in his  statement rejected repression and illegal use of force and power by using an analogy of his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and  to dispelled notion that he had no powers and or he is scared rather, the president informed the gathering that in as much as he had security might and authority vested in him by the constitution as in the former regime adding that power can only be use in accordance with rule of law.

Below is verbatim of the president statement on his analogy of been vested same powers as former President Jammeh.

“Yesterday , people were scared, they said Yahya Jammeh had powers but I’m telling you the powers vested in Yahya Jammeh yesterday  are same powers or even more vested in me … he (Yahya Jammeh ) who was here yesterday , he had the army, police and SIS  (NIA)but me (I) have the army, police, SIS (NIA)and ECOMIG forces (laugh)….if you say ECOMIG forces , means the whole of 15 member ECOWAS bloc , but what’s important is to use that power and authority vested in you in accordance with rule of law , respect and human dignity that’s what is important ” said President Barrow in Mandinka.

Contrary to the GDC’S delusional and cooked up statement aimed at negating and twisting his words during a successful dialogue with the power house region  for political gains.  President Adama Barrow reaffirmed his zero tolerant for repression and informed that constitutional powers can only be use judiciously and through dictate of rule of law and fundamental human rights.

On Foni region, the GDC condemned what it called “uncalled for and seemed inappropriate” the GDC deception tactics only exposed their inability or weaknesses in reasoning and also indicates that, the  GDC picked up hoax and fake postings by impostors on Facebook and quickly rush to antagonized President Barrow without verifying such.

The statement about Foni, All well meaning should hailed the reconciliatory tone from the occupant of the country’s executive seat at  number one Marena parade.

On Foni, the president said the following “I listened to speakers from Foni region, I’m elated that Foni people and I reached a common understanding….without dialogue  certainly no mutual understanding or terms will be realised…I want all to understand that,  Foni is part of Gambia and under my leadership , …for Foni, like any other region and under my leadership ….under my leadership , any project or development programme bound for Foni I will never accept such to be diverted to other regions because Foni region do not support me , no,  no way all Foni bound development projects or benefits under my regime shall be delivered to the region because Foni is under my leadership and one Gambia ” President Barrow stated in Mandinka.

It is crystal clear that President Barrow assured Foni region that under his leadership all regions of the Gambia shall be treated equally irrespective of their political affiliation.

The GDC’S call for the international community including USA to “dialogue with the president to desist from using such threat to the people of the nation” this phrase is laughable as President Barrow issued no threat instead his comment were reassuring and speaks volumes of his democratic nature and resolves to building a vibrant and sustained democratic dispensation.

SEEDY SK NJIE.

The GDC has learnt with great shock and disappointment that the President of the Republic Adama Barrow made some threatening remarks saying that he has more power than former President Yahya Jammeh. He was quoted as saying:

“Gambians were afraid of Jammeh because he had the police, the army, and SIS. I have more power because I have the police, the army, SIS and the ECOMIG forces.”

This statement not only threaten our people and our democracy but has also proven that President Barrow has dictatorial tendencies. Mr President instead of priotising our development needs and strengthening our young democracy, you are focused on how to get a second term and dividing the nation by inviting regional and tribal groups.

The GDC therefore regard this statement as repulsive and threatening in the most callous manner by invoking that that ECOMIG forces are here for you to possibly use in your quest to take repressive measures against the Gambian people. Mr. Barrow you also told the people of Foni to understand that you are the president of The Gambia and that Foni is within the Gambia which they should accept.

This statement is uncalled for and seemed inappropiate, instead you should have addressed the people of your native Jimara where you have lost every election you ever contested. We therefore remind you that the ECOMIG forces are here for the security of every Gambian and not as a tool at your disposal for use to repress and threaten Gambians.

I call upon the ECOWAS, AU, EU and the US to dialogue with President Adama Barrow to desist from issuing such threats to the people of this nation. We have a young democracy to nurture and a nation to build. Enough is enough!

Signed

Hon. Mamma Kandeh GDC Party Leader.

The recently launched movie “Jangi Jollof”, a memoir based on The Gambia’s first university programme was one of the many films and their key players lined up for the Special Movie Awards (SMA) 2018 award night  held at Djembe Beach, Saturday December 1, 2018.

Monica Davies won the award for Best Female Actor for her role in Jangi Jollof, while the Best Screenplay award went to the author of the book “Jangi Jollof” that inspired the script that became the movie of the same title.

Momodou Sabally (AKA The Gambia’s Pen) received the award for best story/screenplay and in his acceptance statement at the event, he gave credit to the young director of the movie Bakary Sonko and his team of young Gambian actors and actresses that made the movie possible. Sabally, who is the executive producer of “Jangi Jollof”, further called on Gambians to dig into their rich heritage and come up with original Gambian stories to be developed into movies. He also thanked the organisers of the SMA awards through their CEO Wilfred Adams for the brilliant thought of initiating the Special Movie Awards.

Like the book that inspired it, the movie “Jangi Jollof” chronicles the life story of Momodou Sabally, who was one of the pioneering students that started university education in The Gambia.  It has been hailed by many as a great source of inspiration  for thousands of young Gambians needing the self-confidence and determination to stay at home and build their lives for effective participation in national development.

Omar Janneh

My Fellow Gambians, Please let us not allow anyone to fool us that this type of government-enabled migration is no different to people voluntarily migrating to another country for greener pastures. Let’s not listen to those self-serving individuals in the Barrow government who will not send their own sons and daughters or those of their family members to work as domestic workers in Saudi Arabia, under very inhumane conditions.

If the notion that it is impossible to get something for nothing is true, why does President Barrow or his government readily accept “gifts”? Could there be any correlation between President Barrow or his government’s love for free lunch, e.g. the so-called anonymous donationof money by a Saudi Philanthropist to Gambian pilgrims and the proposed Gambian government-enabled migration of our youthful population to Saudi Arabia to supposedly work in their hotel industry? I know of no responsible government that promotes the migration of her people to another country the way this government proposes to do it. If Saudi Arabia needs “our expertise”– whatever that means- to work in its tourism sector, they should openly advertise such posts so that suitably qualified individuals can compete for them.

Do we not need the input of our youthful population to help address the long list of priorities or dreams in the National Development Plan 2018-2021? Perhaps the NDP is all part of the Barrow government’s game of telling us what they think we want to hear, but that they have no workable formula to solve any of the issues in the NDP in the specified 3 years. These politicians have not mastered anything when it comes to public service, but have mastered – even before assuming office, the art of telling us what they think we would like to hear. They know/believe that telling us what they think we want to hear shoots down, without effort, all of our problems. If the Barrow government’s aim is to promote the migration of our youthful population to Saudi Arabia, you have to wonder who will be left at home to work on the projects in the NDP. I think the few who have not forgotten about the promises within the NDP may soon come to the realisation that the Consultants that put it together may be the winners, not the Gambian people.

The Tourism and Culture Minister, Mr. Hamat Bah embarked on an aimless trip to Saudi Arabia of no benefit to The Gambia, but of much benefit to himself through per diem payments. Honestly, I do not think Mr. Hamat Bah could tell the difference between an agent looking for domestic workers in Saudi Arabia and a government minister acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia wishing to establish bilateral partnership with The Gambia. It appears that Mr. Bah has foolishly risen to the bait during his trip to Saudi Arabia which no serious and experienced diplomat will consider touching. Does Mr. Bah not know that we have lost enough lives and talent through the back way due to the terrible policies and brutality during the Jammeh years? If nothing else, we should by now know, through the images and stories of the back way travellers,that some of our youthful and exceedingly desperate men and women would jump, even in the face of grave danger, at any perceived promise of a better future. And who can blame them? It should be clear us now that we elected a clueless government that is more preoccupied with feathering their own nests and overstaying than providing opportunities (jobs, good healthcare, education, security, infrastructural development and so on) and hope for the people.

It is totally irresponsible for this government to talk about such targeted migration to any country, especially to Saudi Arabia. It is my view that Mr. Bah deserves to be sacked and crowned the most gullible African Minister for he appears to be behind the proposed memorandum of understanding(MOU) between Saudi Arabia and The Gambia. If Mr. Bah is behind the MOU, then he is clearly very poorly informed; the appalling human rights track record of Saudi Arabia, including the rights abuses of foreign workers, especially of women is well-known. All of what Mr. Bah said when he supposedly cleared the air(- listen to the audio), is much of the dumb things he/they think we want to hear. If we fail to speak against these sorts of rubbish, it may be too late for some of our many desperate folks.

The proposed MOU will never receive the scrutiny it deserves in the National Assembly because I do not think there is sufficient expertise within the Assembly to do that. The only party (PDOIS, the idealistic dreamers) members that – some of the time – talk some sense, which no one seems to either listen to, understand or both, does not have the numbers to make any impact on any government policies. The proposed MOU will address nothing of significance, but targeted migration, heartache and pain as if we have an insatiable appetite for pain and suffering. We have definitely endured enough suffering; we need visionary and innovative leadership, jobs, good healthcare, good education and much more. If this MOU leads to our youthful population leaving for Saudi Arabia, there may be a commission of inquiry- someday- to investigate the rights abuses of Gambians in Saudi Arabia. But then we must ask ourselves what such an exercise would yield. Do we not know enough about the rights abuses of migrant workers in Saudi Arabiato warn us not to encourage our own people to go there as domestic servants? Why do we have to allow the same abuses to happen to our people before we learn lessons? Have any of the countries whose citizenswere abused and continue to be abused in Saudi been able to do anything? And have the international community and the negative publicity done anything to help regularise the attitude of Saudis towards migrant workers? Is it clearly not the case that Saudi Arabia is not ready to enhance its labour reformssufficiently enough to make it a safe place for domestic workers, especially for women? Even if they did, it would be wrong for our government to promote the target and organised migration of our youths when our own country needs them to help fix the widespread decay all over the country. We must also come to the realisation that this clueless government does not have what it would take to influence anything should our people encounter problems in Saudi Arabia.

It is the responsibility of the government to create jobs and provide enabling conditions for public-private partnerships, and private sector investments, but our own is passing the responsibility to Saudi Arabia, a country with repulsive human rights record. If our youths are so uninformed that they do not know that it is the government’s responsibility to find jobs for them in The Gambia, then we have more work in our hands than we realise. Why should it be rocket science to deal with the unemployment problems of a small country like The Gambia to warrant sending the unemployed to another country? Many sectors remain untapped and unregularised which if competently done could be a major coup in solving the unemployment problems in the country.

Now that the government half-heartedly joined the community of nations to condemn the brutal killing and dismembermentof Jamal Khashoggiwhich may have been ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, perhaps it will go much further to change its attitude to the proposed migration of Gambian youths to Saudi Arabia. If Mr. Bah and the Barrow government would wish to provide employment opportunities for the youths, e.g. in the country’s tourism sector – which has huge potential, they have had enough time to put in place noticeable strategies aimed at developing our tourism industry so that the workforce they intend to send to Saudi Arabia can be gainfully employed at home. It should be clear to us by now that this government has no clue and vision about doing anything – they are the “talk much do nothing” lot.

And to make matters worse, the man at the wheel confuses money in the bank with a pledge; he is as dumb as they come; he does not think before he opens his mouth; and he is increasingly losing his mind: He recently said that he is more powerful than Former President, Yahya Jammeh because he (President Barrow) has the police, the army, SIS, and the ECOMIG forces. Is this his way of saying to us that we must be even more afraid of him than we were of Jammeh? Perhaps he is too drunk on power to recall that it is the same Gambian people with the help of the International Community and ECOMIG forces that helped remove Jammeh and sent him on a lonely holiday.

Instead of promoting tourism, they intend to levy $40 on international passengers from January 15, 2019to supposedly help fund the immigration security and E-visa management services at Banjul International Airport. To plan to introduce such a poorly thought through hiked up levy after the announcement by aGerman tour operator, FTI to cancel its winter flights for 2018-2019 to The Gambiaseems very daft.

Even if the news of this cancellation by FTI is incorrect, any sensible government may consider delaying the introduction of such a levy until the sector, which was badly impacted in the Jammeh, is fully on its feet.  It is highly unlikely that this government will work to create enabling environments for tourists and tour operators which will result in increased weekly flights to The Gambia. It is my view that this government may be inadvertently killing the tourism industry, through its clumsy policy decisions, rather than reviving it. And it seems to me that to make up for their very poor policy decisions, they are working up this dodgy deal of proposing to send our innocent youths to Saudi Arabia to work in the tourism sector, but if it goes ahead, they will be working as domestic slaves. If they are serious about modernising the the security and border control systems at the Airport, they must radically sacrifice on the excessive glitzy travels, introduce some common sense into the per diem payments; stop some Commissions and use the money to care for the victims who sacrificed so much for our liberty; rethink the utility of our army; and stop many other wasteful practices. Such prudent fiscal policies WILL result in real terms savings which can pay for the planned airport upgrade and much, much more – but only under the stewardship of a competent and visionary leader, not Adama Barrow. He does not have what it would take to transform The Gambia.

Only a government that is clueless, irresponsible and without vision would actively seek to send her citizens to help drive the economy of another country when it has supposedly identified a bunch of priority areas (refer to the glossy NDP) needing development. Surely, the actualisation of such development plans would need a vibrant labour force on home soil. As long as I am fit and healthy, I shall not compromise on my principles just because I am poor, hungry and in need of free lunch. Will you?

It is indeed very scary and extremely disappointing to hear Chief Servant Adama Barrow claim that he has more power than Tyrant Yaya Jammeh simply because, just like Yaya Jammeh, he also owns the security institutions of this country as well as ECOMIG. That statement is utterly false, ignorant and a clear betrayal of the people. The truth is Yaya Jammeh never owned any public institution in this country even when he claimed to and misused them for his diabolical purposes. Therefore, any reference that Yaya Jammeh owned any state institution is a damn lie!

Let Adama Barrow know that he does not even own the seat he occupies as President of the Republic. That seat belongs to the Gambian People only and he is only entrusted with it to serve the citizens of this country hence he is nothing other than a mere Servant of the people. The CDS, IGP and Director Generals of all security sector institutions must educate Adama Barrow that he does not own any of those institutions and that these institutions belong to only the Gambian People.

Therefore Mr. Adama Barrow, President of the Republic of the Gambia, I wish to put it to you that no Gambian citizen, whether an elected or appointed official or private citizen owns any public institution. The Gambia’s public institutions are the creation of the Gambia Constitution based on the sovereignty of the people of the Gambia. These institutions do not operate based on the whims and caprices of any person, much less a president, but that they operate according to the rule of law as spelled out in the 1997 Constitution and other laws of the Gambia.

State institutions are sovereign institutions mandated to perform their functions on behalf of the people and for the welfare of the people as stated in Section 1 subsection 2 of our Constitution. That section in fact states, first of all, that the sovereignty of the Gambia resides in the people of the Gambia and all organs of the government derive their authority and legitimacy from the people. Hence Barrow’s own authority and legitimacy as president is derived from the people and not from himself or God. The same applies to the national army, police, NIA, prisons, immigration and customs all other state institutions.

Hence it is indeed scary and infantile for any elected or appointed official to claim ownership of any State institution. The security and civil sector institutions are national institutions that do not belong to any individual regardless of one’s status.

We recall how Dictator Yaya Jammeh used to call the University of the Gambia his private property just as how he claimed ownership of GRTS and its cameras as well as claiming to own government vehicles. That was a stupid, foolish and ignorant statement that can come only from a corrupt and unpatriotic president. It was precisely because of such blatant abuse of power and disregard of the rule of law that Gambians voted out Yaya Jammeh on 1^stDecember 2016 to elect Adama Barrow who took public office as president on 19^th January 2017.

That two years later we would see a democratically elected president like him to state that he also owns the country’s security institutions hence has power is the most undemocratic, ignorant, unpatriotic and hurtful statement any president could utter. Yaya Jammeh misused and subverted the constitutional and legitimate mandate of these security sector institutions to rape, torture and kill Gambians. That is not the mandate of the police or army or intelligence agencies of the Gambia. But these institutions became tools of oppression and misery for Gambians simply because there was a president who transformed these institutions into weapons against our people for which he had no power whatsoever to do so. Is this what Adama Barrow also wants to do now?

Hence it is very insulting that Adama Barrow could not find any better idea or decent example to properly express himself with pride other than to refer to the abuses of Yaya Jammeh as the basis for his own power and purpose. Is Adama Barrow telling us that the NIA was exercising their lawful mandate when they arrested and tortured Solo Sandeng to death. Is Adama Barrow telling us that the PIU and the army were exercising their lawful mandate when they used to arbitrarily arrest, detain, torture and shoot to kill Gambians? Is Adama Barrow telling Gambians that the Junglers and Bulldozer security units were lawful institutions since Yaya Jammeh created them?

Gambians need to wake up right now to directly confront the dictatorial tendencies and utterances of Adama Barrow. I cannot believe that any decent human being, much more a president who replaced Yaya Jammeh, would use the abuses, atrocities, corruption and illegality of Yaya Jammeh as a basis for his own intentions and actions. According to this audio by Adama Barrow it means therefore that Yaya Jammeh was a normal democratic leader who acted according to law. Otherwise why reference the illegality of a dictator as the reason for your own power?

I want to inform Adama Barrow that as president he has no power over the people of the Gambia. There is nowhere in our Constitution that gives him any power over the people. The only powers he has in our Constitution are OBLIGATIONS to respect and protect and fulfil rights and needs of Gambians through state institutions which are either security or civil in nature. Therefore, any decision and action he makes must be according to our Constitution which sets out the rule of law with checks and balances to ensure that he remains within the law.

After all, when Adama Barrow said he has more power than Yaya Jammeh, if he ever has, what does he intend to do with that power anyway? Let him tell us.

For the Gambia Our Homeland.

3^rdDecember 2018

Dear Sir,

The Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) was established by the Constitutional Review Commission Act 2017. The Act empowers the Commission to draft a new constitution for the Republic of The Gambia, and to submit the same to the president, who shall publish the draft within six months.

Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the CRC published an Issue Document containing 51point questions, public response to which, amongst other things, is expected to shape or influence the content of the draft constitution. The CRC is also, currently, embarking on a nation-wide tour soliciting public opinion on the questions raised. Among them are two questions concerning citizenship. However, the exercise is not restricted to Gambian nationals, which raises concerns as to whether the final outcome of the process would reflect the undiluted wishes and aspirations of the Gambian citizenry.

This letter will address one of the questions raised by CRC’s Issue document regarding citizenship.

Should a person born in The Gambia to non-Gambian parents become a Gambian citizen?

This question is basically asking whether birth right citizenship, otherwise known as jus soli based citizenship, should be recognized by the new constitution. Birth right citizenship can be defined as the unconditional right of anyone born in the territory of a state or country to the citizenship of that country.

Citizenship is not just about being born in a country. It is also about cultural and blood ties, and having a bond with the country. A period of continuous residence is therefore required to enable migrants and their children, who wish to become Gambian citizens, to fully integrate into the Gambian society, understand the culture, and be able to speak at least one major local language;

Under the current constitution, citizenship of The Gambia can be acquired in the following four ways:

1. Citizenship by birth: Born in Gambia to Gambian citizens (parents) or where one of the parents is a Gambian ( 9);

1. Citizenship by descent: Born outside Gambia to Gambian citizens (parents) or where one of the parents is a Gambian ( 10);

1. Naturalization: A person in The Gambia who is not a citizen but lives in the country for 15yrs can apply for citizenship by naturalization ( 12); and

1. Registration: A person who is not a citizen but married to a Gambian spouse for 7yrs and have lived in The Gambia for that period can apply for citizenship by registration ( 11).

Implications:

The ECOWAS protocol on free movement conferred on Community citizens the right to enter and reside in the territory of any member state, provided they possessed a valid travel document and international health certificate. The four supplementary protocols adopted between 1985 and 1990 also committed member states, among other things, to: provide valid travel document to their citizens, grant Community citizens the right of residence for the purpose of seeking and carrying out income-earning employment, ensure appropriate treatment for persons being expelled, not to expel Community citizens en-masse, limit the grounds for individual expulsion to reasons of national security, public order or morality, public health or non-fulfilment of an essential condition of residence. These treaty obligations also meant that The Gambia has very little control, if any, over who comes into the country, who remains, and how many. It is also largely responsible for the country’s migration-fueled population boom.

If the new constitution recognize automatic birth right citizenship, this would mean any person born within the borders of The Gambia and at our diplomatic missions overseas automatically becomes a citizen of The Gambia without any condition, whatsoever. It would no longer matter that none of his/her parents is a Gambian, whether he/she lives long enough in the country to have bonded, understand our culture and be able to speak at least one Gambian language, or does not even intend to remain in the country.

In respect of children, the situation, circumstance and legal status of their parents would also not matter, be it that the parents are criminals whose presence in the country is not conducive to the public good, have not lived in the country long enough to have bonded, do not speak or understand any of our languages, or have no intention, whatsoever, to remain in the country.

Depending on the operative wordings of the provision, the proposed law could also apply in retrospect, meaning any person who was born in The Gambia before the coming into force of the new constitution, but who is currently not a citizen of The Gambia, would automatically become a citizen of The Gambia regardless of whether he/she is living in the country or outside.

What is the Objective?

It is not clear why the CRC found the need to proffer this question. However, it does not appear that a change in law to allow automatic citizenship based on jus soli will serve any good purpose, let alone further our national interest:

The main sources of migration into The Gambia are countries within the ECOWAS region (the Economic Community of West African States), all of which recognize citizenship by descent. As a matter of fact, there is hardly any country in this world that doesn’t recognize this type of citizenship. Therefore, a child born to migrant parents (non- citizens), despite not being a citizen of The Gambia under the current constitution, is actually not stateless. He/she is a bona fide citizen of the country of his/her parents. Thus, making it possible for that child to acquire automatic birth right citizenship in The Gambia will only confer dual citizenship on him/her at the point of birth. This is clearly unnecessary and will serve no purpose whatsoever.

Furthermore, the lack of reciprocity in relation to the country of origin of the child and/or his/her parents, would also mean that automatic birth right citizenship will be diminutive of the value of Gambian citizenship.

Naturalization:

Under the current law, anybody who lived in The Gambia for 15yrs and intends to continue living in the country can apply for citizenship through naturalization. There is no suggestion that this position would change. Thus, a child born to migrant parents can make an informed decision as to whether or not he/she would like to become a citizen of The Gambia when he/she attains 18. If he/she wishes to become a citizen, he/she can demonstrate that desire by applying for naturalization. We don’t have to make that decision for him/her at the point of birth or at time when he/she is not born for there is clearly no necessity for that, and in any case not obligatory under any international treaty instrument.

Alternatively, the child’s parents can apply for citizenship on his/her behalf when he/she turn 15, which is the required residency period for naturalization in The Gambia.

Furthermore, the current laws on citizenship appears to be progressive, culturally compliant and of international standard. Any change in law would be retrogressive and incendiary to the many jus sanguinisGambian citizens (those with citizenship founded on blood ties), who will soon realize the implications.

The International trend:

The international trend on citizenship has massively moved away from automatic birth right citizenship (jus soli). There are only 30 countries (out of about 200) in the world that presently practice this. Two are in the west, United States and Canada, and the rest are mainly small island states in the Caribbean and Latin America. There are no African, European, Asian or oceanic countries that practice automatic citizenship based on jus soli. That also means if The Gambia enacts this proposal into law, there will be no reciprocity, whatsoever, in relation to the source countries of migration into the country. What then is there to gain, or the national interest to promote?

The exception countries need to be seen in the light of their own history and constitutional set-ups. For example, the United States is a settler country (the Gambian territory was already settled for several hundred years before the founding of the country in 1888) with a rigid constitution that has jus soli citizenship laws entrenched. That means any amendment or repeal of the constitution will require the votes of at least two-third in both houses of congress, and ratification by three-fourth of the state legislatures.

Notwithstanding, both Democrats and Republicans have introduced Bills in congress, which sought to abolish or restrict jus soli citizenship laws of the United States. For example, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation in 1993 that would have restricted birth right citizenship to the children of US citizens and legally resident aliens only. A similar legislation (Citizenship Reform Act 2005) introduced by the Republican Congressman, Nathan Deal, from the State of Georgia, would have restricted birth right citizenship to children born in wedlock to United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted into the country for permanent residence and actually maintain such residence.  A senate joint Resolution was also introduced in congress on the 6^thJanuary 2009. However, neither this nor any other proposed amendment was successfully passed.

Despite the growing support for amendment or repeal of jus soli laws of the United States (65% of Americans do not support automatic birth right citizenship – Rasmussen (2011 Survey)), the process involved is so complex and cumbersome that US politicians would rather concentrate on more pressing issues of utmost priority than trying to amend or repeal jus soli citizenship laws of the United States. Therefore, jus soli laws being in place in the United States has more to do with the constitutional and legislative complexities of the country than anything else, if any.

Furthermore, virtually every exception country is actually in full control of its borders and can decide who comes in, who stays within the country, and who goes out. That means they have the ability to put checks on population growth and the type of people they let into their countries. And unlike The Gambia, none of them is burden with any international treaty obligation that ties their hands behind their backs and makes them virtually powerless in the sphere of border control.

Wider Consequences:

Since the collapse of the first Republic (1970-1994), The Gambia has seen an unprecedented level of migration from the sub-region. The APRC regime exacerbated the problem by actively encouraging and facilitating migration from the Senegalese southern region of Cassamance on ethnic lines, and many of these migrants were given national documents and other privileges illegally. Migration is therefore one of the biggest factors responsible for population growth in The Gambia, at least in the last two decades or so; with foreigners accounting for about 25% of the population.

The APRC regime’s malevolent political expediency practices in relation to migration have already put strain on community relations in the country, particularly in the Fonis and Kombo, and also contributed, significantly, to the ethnically charged socio-political polarization that has currently taken grip of the country. Automatic birth right citizenship would exacerbate these problems and could potentially be a source of conflict down the line.

Given the history of foreign voter interference in our national elections in the past couple of decades (the Yahya Jammeh era), with foreign voters been used to scupper or dilute the will of the Gambian people, a repugnant practice that was loathed and did caused annoyance and distress to many Gambians, a change in law to allow citizenship based on jus soli can potentially lead to the kind of anger and resentment that precipitated Brexit in Great Britain, or possibly the kind of social tensions that led to the Ivorian civil conflict of 2002-2007. For this reason alone, any suggestion or proposal to allow automatic birth right citizenship should be opposed.

Gambia’s increased migration level has also put pressure on land (we only have a total land area of about 11,000sq. km), the infrastructure, our schools, hospitals and health centres, and other public service delivery facilities in the country. Automatic birth right citizenship will incentivize migration, which may have the effect of a sustained or increased pressure on our national resources, the public service delivery facilities, and the infrastructure. It would mean a continued struggle with our stock levels of vital drugs in our hospitals and health centres, our schools will continued to be overcrowded and teacher-pupil ratio unsatisfactory, and more farmlands will be turned into residential homes, thereby pushing many vulnerable farmers into abject poverty. Employment opportunities for our youths will also remain scarce.

The ‘Stateless People’ Justification

The Peoples Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS), through its Secretary General, has confirmed their support for a change in law to allow automatic birth right citizenship in The Gambia.  Without this, they posited, a lot of people in the country would either remain or become stateless. However, the party did not provide any basis for this position, not even a shred of it. Notwithstanding, I still consider it necessary to throw some light on the meaning of the term ‘stateless person’.

Under international law, the term ‘stateless person’ means ‘a person who is not considered as a national (citizen) by any state under the operation of its law’ (see UN Convention on Stateless Persons, art. 1). As explained above, a child born to migrant parents in The Gambia is a bona fide citizen of the country his/her parents come from, and is therefore not a stateless person. That makes the whole issue of ‘stateless people’ in The Gambia, nothing but an imaginative fiction.

Even if there are stateless persons in the country, the obligation under international law is not to allow them acquire automatic birth right citizenship, but rather to facilitate their assimilation and naturalization, as far as this is possible (see UN Convention on Stateless Persons, art. 32). They would remain subject to our laws on citizenship (art. 12(1)), and would have to satisfy any residency requirement other migrants ‘in the same circumstance’ other than being stateless, would need to satisfy in order to become eligible for citizenship (art. 6). Therefore, The Gambia has no obligation, whatsoever, to grant or make it possible for any stateless person living within its territory to acquire automatic birth right citizenship. That also makes the use of ‘stateless persons’ argument wholly untenable.

There are about 10 Million registered stateless people in the world (UNHCR 2014 est.), with only 715,089 registered cases in Africa (UNHCR 2017 figures), and no registered cases, whatsoever, in The Gambia. Thus, unless we start attracting migrants from stateless territories like Western Sahara and Palestine, which is presently not the case, the likelihood of statelessness becoming an issue in country is almost non-existent. In that respect, PDOIS’ position can only be seen as a ridiculous political hoax that is born out of nothing other than misguided idealism.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the CRC insinuated proposition to allow automatic birth right citizenship does not appear to have an objective, and is clearly at odds with international trend. Furthermore, our current citizenship laws appear to be progressive, culturally complaint and of international standard. Any change to allow automatic birth right citizenship will not only be retrogressive, but would also serve no purpose whatsoever. If anything, it will incentivize migration, which in turn could put extra pressure on resources, public service delivery facilities, and the infrastructure of the country. It would also be diminutive of the value of Gambian citizenship, and could potentially be a source of conflict and social tension down the line. For these reasons, a change in law is neither necessary nor is it desirable.

I commend this statement to the Nation.

Suntu S. Daffeh

Gambian Citizen living in the UK

Cc:

The Constitutional Review Commission

Issue to Macky Sall eroding Senegalese democracy…

Senegal is now a democratic model. Senegalese democracy has evolved greatly since the days of the Senghore’s era when Oumar Blonde Diop was imprisoned on Gorre Island and died at the age of 27 in prison for his political activism. Senegal has been recognized by the Liberal International as a democratic beacon of hope for Africa under Macky Sall. The Millennial Challenge Account is not an easy grant to achieve and Senegal has been a beneficiary to it in the value of 540 million USD. It is an initiative of the US Administration that consists of a partnership with countries that have achieved some performance in the following three areas: good governance in the management of public affairs; creation of an environment conducive to private initiative and commitment of the State to make significant investments in the Social sector.

Issue of President Sall’s Cronyism…

Macky Sall’s brother, Aliou Sall, the current DG of Caisse des dépôts et consignation (Cdc) was placed in this position by the President but this was after he had to resign from his private sector position due to conflict of interest. Also the President’s brother-in-law, Mansour Faye, the current Minister of Hydraulics is a founding member of Sall’s party, APR. Both Aliou Sall and Mansour Faye are mayors in Guédiawaye and St. Louis respectively. Positions they were elected by their constituents for.

Unlike Karim Wade, “Super Minister” / “Minister of Heaven and Earth,” the son of former President Abdoulaye Wade who was part of an entrenched corrupt system, with his father preparing him  for the Presidency. Karim simultaneously held the strategic positons of Minister of State for International Cooperation, Regional Development (Aménagement du territoire), Air Transport, and Infrastructure and later Minister of Energy. He was also President of ANOCI, whose mission was to prepare and organize the 11th Islamic Summit. He was accused of gross mismanagement of these funds. Karim Wade never held a position he ever worked for in his father’s government.

The issue of debt…

It is false to say that there is a great deficit and that the all the grand projects of Macky Sal will ‘sink Senegal.’ The reality is, the biggest and strongest of economies operate on deficit. The reason why Senegal continues to secure loans is to fund necessary infrastructure projects needed for its emergent. Loans are only a bad choice if one cannot service them and the reality is, Senegal is handsomely servicing its loans hence they are trusted on the global financial stage and a signatory to the Paris Club and continues to raise bonds in the billions.

Issue of French controlling Senegalese economy…

This is a fallacy. The Chinese are actually the biggest partners of Senegal, not the French. It is also an ideology that this government only gives business to the French. There is also a lot of knowledge transfer going on in international companies operating in Senegal. There is also a great transfer of technology in all the projects. The Senegalese government works with the French, the Turkish, Chinese…not only the French.

Issue of political witch hunt…

To say that the Karim Wade or Khalifa Sall cases were political is naive. Both men were convicted by the courts for crimes they committed. Khalifa Sall has accepted wrong doing. When a similar issue occurs in the West, no one calls it a witch hunt, as in the case ofthe FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton during her campaign.

Watch interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROgm8Z72vFc

By a concerned citizen.

Jawara’s father Almameh Jawara was no ordinary man. Perhaps, if he were the one born in 1924, he’d have been the president, owing to his mettle and foresight. Naturally, he was the first imposing figure in the young Jawara’s life.

The first memories he recalls, of his old man, is running after him, as he takes his manly strides to the mosques early morning, his young legs, not quick enough for his father’s pace. Evidence of the foresight of Almameh Jawara manifests in his doubling as a trader and farmer. Back then, most people were only one of the two. He was as successful a farmer, as he was a trader, and he juggled them with such dexterity, even the young Jawara couldn’t help but notice, and be impressed.

The former president must have borrowed his tenacity from his father. His father owned over twenty acres of farming land, and had married up to a whopping eight wives in his life! There came a time when his success earned him some envy, and he had to defend his ownership of the land in court, but he won it in a case decided by the late Fallai Baldeh. The shop he opened in Barajally catered to the needs of the farmers. He provided them with cutlasses, fertilizers, fabrics, all of what a rural farming community might need.

The shop became so busy and his business flourished to such an extent he hired two clerks who would come from Bathurst to help him keep his stock and do the books. We deduce therein, that he was a very wealthy man. At the time, most people frowned on western education, and the senior Jawara was no exception. At the request of his friend, Pa Yoma, to let him take Jawara to Banjul for the purpose of education, both parents were apprehensive, fearing that he would lose his ways as a result.

Their fears did prove true to some extent, but he relented, and that may be the single most important decision that made Jawara rule The Gambia for thirty years. Almameh Jawara lived to the ripe old age of 79. Although it was Aja Mama Fatty who would live to see their son become president, the senior Jawara also witnessed some milestones in the life of his boy. He passed away in 1961.

Follow us for more details on Sir Dawda.

Honourable Minister,

I salute you in your noble efforts to continue to serve our motherland despite the rocky terrains you had to traverse in that process. Indeed you are a patriot worthy of commendation.

You and I did cross paths in the service of our nation and for sure you know that it was not all milk and honey between us, especially in the light of some of the games you played that led to some really unpalatable outcomes during the time I served as Director of Budget and you were my boss as Finance Minister. The collateral damage that happened regarding your schemes at the time was actually worse but as fate would have it, we met under some strenuous circumstances and dusted off the past, thereby reconciling and moving on.

To be fair, I want to acknowledge that your tenure as Finance Minster back then around the year 2012 could surely be labelled a success in terms of reigning in fiscal profligacy and restoring correct practice in budget implementation. You were bold enough to say NO at a difficult time.

However, I am a bit alarmed at your recent pronouncement of a proposed 50% increase in salaries that has all but gotten the endorsement of the executive and is almost certain to be passed by the National Aseembly due to the excitement it has created in the country with obvious political advantage for the powers that be.

Honourable Minister, can you tell us where and when will you get the quantum of resources necessary to fund and sustain a 50% surge in the wage bill? In a budget where 3 quarters of the domestic resources are tied to the wage bill and debt service how do you increase salaries by 50 and still transform your social infrastructure?

What about the potential inflationary impact of the quantum leap in pay? In the face of the Central Bank’s weakening of our money market by crashing the policy rate without due regard to the potential impact on the money markets, how would you conduct open market operations as countervailing measures to mop up liquidity in the system (or shore up resources for deficit financing where necessary)?

Don’t get me wrong I am all for a significant increase in the salaries of public servants for myriad reasons but does that have to happen overnight at such an alarming rate without adequate explanation as to where and when the additional resources would come from? Can’t the proposed 50% increase in salaries be phased out over a reasonable period?

I repeat, I am not against improving the remuneration of the public servants but what would have made sense would be a complete overhaul of he pay structure itself through a well calculated system that would give fitting explanations to the “how’s” and “what-ifs” regarding the proposed salary increase. Perhaps you have the answers and the public needs to know, so let us hear you.

Honourable Minister, you know that your ministry had serious constraints in meeting the projected personnel emolument commitments plunged into the 2018 budget and this almost led to some social upheavals through industrial action. Would it not be more prudent to actually correct the errors committed in the 2018 budget process that included over-compensating public servants due to a policy failure in vehicle matters that never saw the light of day but yet the concomitant planned increase in allowances were implemented anyway?

Sorry for boring you but I am going to repeat again for the sake of clarity that I am not in anyway suggesting that the salaries of civil servants should not be increased. All I am saying is that it could and should be done in a more systematic and prudent manner because there is no excuse for a lesser alternative due to the obvious catastrophic impact of policy failure in this domain.

And beyond the domestic consequences of the apparent policy misstep, have you thought of its potential  impact on foreign direct investment? If I were to invest into this economy in 2019, I would certainly hold back a bit and wait to see the impact of this policy move before I come in. Any rational investor would look at your key macroeconomic aggregates and they don’t need to be trained economists to suspect the impact of such a move given the extant policy variables that are already unappealing.

Furthermore, Honourable Minister, given the revenue measures that are being traded around for this salary increase, what makes you think that your economic watchdogs in Washington will accept this move given your commitment with them in terms of debt issues?

Honourable Minister, I  know that there is a lot of pressure for the increase of pay and I know the desire of the current government to urgently take steps that will please the voting population. There is nothing wrong in pleasing the electorate but this kind of drastic move only reminds me of one of my mothers favourite Mandinka proverbs “may-ya kaanay dung moromontongo nyimo to!” ( a scintillating desire and whet appetite should not force you into to chewing a millipede!)

My dear brother, I  look forward to your answers to the above questions; yet knowing how sensitive you are, I am not expecting much of a response from you; this letter is likely to peeve you. I do apologise in advance for the inconvenience this missive is sure to cause you. However, the Wolof saying comes to mind “ku bort buki fog haj-yi bow la!” If you carry a wolf on your back then dogs are sure to bark at you!” And in this case what you carry is more contentious and more attention-grabbing than a wolf, you carry our national ‘arrangkess’!

Therefore I would still make bold to do the Halifa on this one and humbly invite you to a debate on this subject on national television.

Meanwhile, Honourable Minister, please accept the assurances of of my highest consideration and fraternal esteem.

Yours in National Service

Momodou Sabally

Former research economist and National Budget Director, Momodou Sabally has undergone extensive professional training in macroeconomics and public financial management at the IMF Institute, the Central Bank of England’s Center for Central Banking Studies, Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and holds a masters degree in Economics from Georgia State University in the US.

Microsoft has unseated Apple to rank as the world’s most valuable listed company, reclaiming the number one spot after more than 15 years.

The software giant ended Friday with a market value of more than $851bn (£668bn) compared with Apple’s $847bn.

The two firms have been vying for top place all week, with Apple remaining ahead at the end of each trading day.

But the iPhone maker, which has seen its share price plunge in recent weeks, finally lost its lead.

On Friday, Microsoft shares gained more than 0.6% to close at $110.89, while Apple shares finished at $178.60, down about 0.5%.

Apple’s shares have fallen almost 25% since October – more steeply than the market overall – amid concerns about slowing smart phone demand and the possibility of additional US tariffs on Chinese-made goods.

The sell-off has erased more than $200bn from the firm’s market value, which is calculated by multiplying the share price by the number of traded shares cited in the firms’ most recent quarterly reports.

By many measures – including annual revenue and profit – Apple remains the bigger company.

For now, however, investors are betting that Microsoft’s prospects are brighter.

The firm’s cloud services unit, which sells to other businesses, has driven the firm’s growth in recent years.

Apple, by contrast, depends on consumer spending, which investors are worried could slow.

Daniel Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities, said Microsoft is poised for significant growth, as more companies sign up for the firm’s cloud products.

Microsoft boss Satya Nadella is well-positioned to “further transform [Microsoft] into a cloud behemoth over the coming years,” he wrote in a research note.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Microsoft flourished in the 1990s and ranked as the world’s most valuable company in the early 2000s.

But the firm took a hit after a landmark anti-trust case and fell farther out of favour as mobile phones emerged to challenge desktop computers.

In 2010, Apple overtook Microsoft as the most valuable technology firm.

The iPhone maker unseated Exxon Mobil for the overall number one spot for the first time in 2011, and has held the title largely uninterrupted since.

It became the first trillion dollar company in the US this summer, but lost that distinction this autumn as its share price started to plunge.

BBC News