• To ensure i get what’s rightfully mine, I made sure the anointed one, you, were appointed to your birthright position of VP(ByForce) before your 57th birthday

• To win the affection of the masses and to sow my royal oats, I performed all the recommended mosque-hopping by praying at 57 different mosques and shaking 57 thousand hands in less than 57 Fridays.

• To buy the integrity of the legislators, I sacrificed the recommended 57 vehicles(Shoutout to me Anonymous Friend), unlike the Can-He-Lie Monster who, despite having access to Allah’s bank, only sacrificed cows before he became the Malabo Mouse.

• To drive out the demons left in the Castle by the Can-He-Lie Monster, I got 57 Anonymous Pissers to urinate in cups, which we then mixed in the paint we used to repaint the Castle. (I learned that one from our mango-stealing days as children. It broke all the mankanis.)

At the outset, I wish to declare my disagreement with the Supreme Court that the Public Order Act is in line with the Gambia Constitution 1997. I hold the view that certain key provisions of the Public Order Act are directly and unequivocally in contravention to the Constitution and inimical to democratic society hence should have been declared unconstitutional.

The contentious issues in the Public Order Act are Section 5 on processions and Section 6 on the use of a loudspeaker. It states that to embark on a procession within Banjul or Kanifing Municipality one needs to apply to the IGP or to a Governor in case of a region for a permit. For the use a loudspeaker within the Greater Banjul Area the Act says one needs to obtain the consent of the IGP or the Governor in the case of using a loudspeaker in the regions.

The Public Order Act is a 1961 law, which was first amended in 1963 and then further amended in 2009 to make it even more draconian. Therefore this Supreme Court ruling can be classified as a colossal blow that throws the Gambia back to colonialism and dictatorship.

The letter and spirit of the Gambia Constitution guarantee the right to protest first and foremost. Like many other rights, the right to demonstrate or protest peacefully is not absolute. There are restrictions imposed on the right as in Section 25 sub-section 4 for the purpose of protecting public morality, national security or contempt of court among others. However these restrictions, according to international human rights norms have to be set in law and necessary in a democratic society as well as serve a legitimate interest.

While these limitations give the power to the state to stop a protest, yet it does not mean that for citizens to protest in the first place they have to first request a permit to be approved by the police or not. By giving such power to the police effectively means the decision to enjoy that right has been taken away from the citizen and handed over to the state, i.e. the IGP or the Governor or any other person authorized by the President. Such power constitutes a violation because it means that the IGP and the Governor hold a power that is beyond and above the limitation prescribed in both the Gambia Constitution and the African Charter. A limitation does not justify a violation of a right.

The unconstitutionality and undemocratic nature of sections 5 and 6 lie in the discretionary or arbitrary nature of the decision of the IGP or a Governor to grant or deny a permit. Section 5(2) states that the IGP or Governor can only issue a permit if he “is satisfied that the procession is not likely to cause a breach of peace”. In the case of the use of loudspeaker, the Act under Section 6(1) merely empowers the IGP or Governor to consent or not without stating any reasons or standards. These provisions therefore place the right to protest at the whims and caprices of the IGP or the Governor regardless yet the Supreme Court decided to ignore the unconstitutionality of these provisions.
If the Justices of the Supreme Court had paid enough attention to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, then they would have realized that there is no more any need to give extra powers to the State to impose extra limitations. This creates double layer of limitations for which the end result can only be a violation of the right to protest and consequently of the Constitution.

These provisions do not even cater for spontaneous protests that could emerge in the spur of the moment as citizens are compelled to react to urgent issues of legitimate public interest or concern. This means the Public Order Act either severely dilutes citizens’ right to enjoy Section 25 at best or outrightly violates the Constitution at worse or both.

In fact in his book, ‘The Law of the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and People’s Rights (2007), the Chief Justice Hassan Jallow spoke to the issue of limitations of a right and justification for the violation of a right in the mind of the African Commission. He quoted the Commission as stating that no restriction justifies States to violate a human right either through claw-back clauses or such powers as created by the Public Order Act. Chief Justice Jallow noted that, “local law cannot impose limitations to the rights which do not fall within those permitted by the Charter (pp164).” Yet here is the Public Order Act of the Gambia directly imposing and justifying restrictions that clearly violate Article 11 of the African Charter!

Any law or entity that denies citizens to enjoy an entrenched right clearly violates the Constitution. The unconstitutionality and undemocratic nature of the Pubic Order Act can be viewed from another angel, i.e. freedom of speech, which is also guaranteed in the Constitution. Yet no citizen is required to seek a permit from the IGP or Governor first before one expresses his or her opinion. But we know that a citizen can express a hateful or violent speech anytime, which can threaten national security or public morality.

What is expected in that case is that any citizen who expresses such hateful speech is arrested and prosecuted for violating the law. But one cannot ask citizens to first request a permit before they express an opinion. Such a requirement will deny a right to free speech hence violate the Constitution. Why then justify the existence of a law to further restrict the right to peaceful assembly when the Constitution already has the necessary limitations stipulated? Are those not enough?

A request for permit is a restriction of the right to protest hence a violation of freedom of assembly hence a limitation to democracy, which is a contravention of the Constitution. The purpose of the Gambia Constitution is to create a democratic society based on the sovereign rights of citizens. This is why there is Chapter 4 entitled ‘Fundamental Rights and Freedoms’. These are entrenched rights for which the aim of the Constitution is to protect citizens or Right Holders to enjoy them and to put an obligation on the State or the Duty Bearer to protect citizens to enjoy their rights. Hence the Constitution does not envisage a system that will limit the enjoyment of these rights through a permit regime.

This decision by the Supreme Court is therefore a terrible setback and disgrace for the Gambia especially given the current trends within the sub-region and Africa and the world at large.

For example the Nigerian Federal High Court had ruled way back in 2005 that the country’s Public Order Act “is an aberration to a democratic society.” In a suit brought before it by 17 political parties against the IGP, the Court noted that “no police permit or any authority is required for holding a rally or procession in any part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and that “the provisions of the Public Order Act, which prohibit the holding of rallies or processions without police permit are unconstitutional having regard to section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter”

Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution, which is almost identical with Section 25(d) of the Gambia Constitution, stipulates that, “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.”

Yet completely dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court the Inspector-General of Police of Nigeria appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja in 2007 whose Justices unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court that the “Public Order Act is unconstitutional.” We also know that in 2015 the Supreme Court of Seychelles also ruled in favour of two opposition parties and a citizen that the country’s Public Order Act was unconstitutional for the same reasons as made by the Nigerian courts.

Furthermore and quite significantly, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights adopted what it called ‘Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa’ at the Commission’s 60th Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger, from 8 to 22 May 2017. Section 71 of the Guidelines provides that, “Participating in and organizing assemblies is a right and not a privilege, and thus its exercise does not require the authorization of the state. A system of prior notification may be put in place to allow states to facilitate the exercise of this right and to take the necessary measures to protect public safety and rights of other citizens.” This provision is in recognition and protection of Article 11 of the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides for freedom of assembly:

“Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.”
The restrictions regime in this provision just as in the Gambian or Nigerian constitution does not imply a permit rather they merely indicate that the right is not absolute and could be restricted for specified and legitimate reasons. Hence the police cannot and do not have the authority to grant or deny a permit a priori because that would practically mean that the right to protest is in the hands of the police to give or not to give.
Therefore what the Gambia need is a notification regime where the police are informed within reasonable time about protests in order to make the necessary preparations to provide the necessary security to all. But even there the African Commission said in their Guidelines, Section 71(b) that failure to notify is no ground to deny the right to protest or make an assembly illegal.

One will find this same notification regime in the UK Public Order Act of 1986 where organizers are expected to notify the police at least 6 days before their protest. But the UK law allows spontaneous, small and customary assemblies to take place without notification. And even where an organizer fails to notify the police, the law provides that one can give defense that circumstances prevented you not to notify under Section 13(4) hence commit no offence.

What the Nigerian or Seychelles Supreme Court or the UK Public Order Act demonstrates is that protests are the heart of democracy and good governance. They further show us that to protest is a fundamental right on which hinges many other fundamental rights such as the right to petition, freedom of expression, political participation, freedom of the media and the freedoms of association, worship, movement and opinion among others. Hence to create any law that therefore places the right to demonstrate in the control of any entity is indeed a direct contravention of international human rights norms, democratic principles and the Gambia Constitution.

What I expected the Supreme Court to do was to declare Section 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act as unconstitutional so that the Government could address the matter by going to the Parliament to review and amend the whole Act to bring it in line with the Constitution and therefore make it democratic. It must be noted that every society needs a public order law, but this law must be to expand and protect the right to demonstrate and not to infringe on it in any way or manner. The Public Order Act must empower and encourage popular participation in order to enhance democracy and good governance. It must not do the reverse.

This decision by the Supreme Court therefore is a huge reversal of the incredible gains Gambians registered on 1 December 2016. It is indeed sad that just as we are about to mark the first anniversary of that landmark defeat of dictatorship, the Gambia’s Supreme Court has nothing to offer to Gambians to celebrate other than bring back one of the most potent tools of oppression of that dictatorship.

It was under the auspices of this Public Order Act that 16 Gambian children and a journalist were shot to death in 2000 when they protested the murder of a fellow schoolboy by fire service officers and rape of a fellow schoolgirl by paramilitary officers. It was because of this obnoxious Public Order Act that UDP former Campaign Manager Femi Peter’s was sentenced to one year in prison with hard labour in 2009 for using a loudspeaker at a political rally without a permit. It was because of this Public Order Act that Solo Sandeng was killed and scores of citizens tortured and raped in April 2016 for protesting for electoral reforms. It was because of this Public Order Act that the core of the UDP leadership and members including their party leader Ousainou Darboe were persecuted and incarcerated in prison in July 2016 for marching to demand the body of Solo. Yet today the Gambia’s Supreme Court could still maintain that this criminal law is indeed constitutional!

Despite these above-mentioned facts still one wonders whether indeed if the Supreme Court was influenced by the law or by politics to reach the kind of decision they reached. In my view I think the Supreme Court’s decision is political aimed at protecting this Government knowing that a growing awareness and activism is brewing up among Gambians to now stand up to protect their rights and demand efficient services.

Since January 2017 we have seen various communities and scores of citizens and associations raising their voice and demanding transparency and accountability. The height of these citizen actions reached the climax when young people recently sought to occupy Westfield to demand better electricity services. This action has dawned on the State that henceforth a new Gambian is on the scene who will not settle down for inefficiency, poor services, corruption and lack of responsiveness from the State but to stand up for democracy and good governance as required by the Constitution. One would expect that the Supreme Court would therefore allow these constitutional rights and duties of a citizen to flourish and not to stifle them.

I think the Supreme Court has disgraced the Gambia, which is the origin of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights otherwise called the Banjul Charter as well as seat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Yet even when that Commission adopted the globally acclaimed Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, the Gambia’s Supreme Court deliberately ignored this groundbreaking advancement in human rights by maintaining such a stinking law. After 22 years of unconstitutionality and human rights violations that earned the country a pariah status, the general expectation is that the new dispensation will live up to the standards of the African Charter and international human rights norms and more so to the letter and spirit of the Gambia Constitution.

From the day of that unfortunate ruling, Gambians must now know that the biggest obstacle to democracy and good governance in the Gambia is the Supreme Court of the Gambia. By maintaining the Public Order Act, it means the Supreme Court has further empowered the Gambia Government to deny citizens to hold it to account by demanding transparency, efficiency and responsiveness of state institutions. It means citizens have been restricted in the way they can combat corruption in this society and demand quality products and services and value for money from private companies. It means the space for the perpetration of abuse and violations leading to impunity have been proclaimed in the Gambia by this unfortunate ruling of the Supreme Court.

The task now is for all Gambians to demand the Barrow Government to urgently repeal this Public Order Act and create a new one that protects the right to protest without a permit. Pres. Barrow had vowed in his manifesto that the Public Order Act is one of the undemocratic laws he would repeal within six months of taking office. He is now more than 10 months in office without doing just that. His Minister of Justice had said that his ministry would deliberately not enforce the Public Order Act among other undemocratic and unconstitutional laws pending their repeal or amendment. Yet the country’s highest court decided to glorify this obnoxious law. A very sad day for the Gambia indeed!

For the Gambia, Our Homeland!

Madi Jobarteh

Ebrima Sawaneh, a young Gambian blogger who recently published a book on professional examination tips has become an Amazon international bestseller.

On his Facebook and Linkedin, Ebrima announced that his book, “PASSED: 12 Proven Secrets to Pass any Professional Exam at The First Sitting,” was a No. 1 bestseller in the Amazon USA’ under two categories, “College advice and Education Policy and Reform.

“The book is not only about professional exam strategies but story of how I was able to study four professional qualifications (ACCA, CIFE, CAT, MBA) through self-study and without resitting single exam paper.  Self-study was the only option I had as my parents could not afford to pay beyond high school. I know there are thousands of young people who face a similar challenge today. I hope this book will inspire them beyond examination” Ebrima wrote on his LinkedIn status update.

The book shares 12 principles behind Ebrima’s 5 professional exam secrets and it was released in October 2017.

”I know that when I was in school, I would have liked to pass my exams the first time. In many cases I didn’t so having a book like this would have been very helpful. Now, it can help thousands of people to navigate through their studies and get it right the first time,” Scott B. Allan, one of readers said about the book.

The book can be ordered from any Amazon online store and paperback will also be available in The Gambia in early 2018.

Source: Point Newspaper

The leader of the United Democratic Party, Ousainou Darboe, has cautioned his party supporters to avoid what he called “extreme negative militancy”, “overzealousness” and “unmeasured language” as they met at a congress in the United Kingdom.

UDP leadership has recently come under severe criticism and pressure by opponents who claim the party’s online supporters are intolerant and abusive to any critic of the Barrow administration and must thus be condemned.

“We must not allow extreme negative militancy and overzealousness, unmeasured language and actions stand in the way of promoting the virtues of the United Democratic Party. Therefore, we expect that those who truly respect and belong to the UDP be mindful of how they communicate especially through the social media,” Darboe was quoted saying on Saturday at the UDP congress.

“Our rule is we ensure that all our communications no matter what platform we may use are driven and guarded by caution, sensitivity and modest language which is factual, relevant and tactfully put across. The leadership of the UDP will not allow negative and undemocratic language and actions undermine its credibility.”

Darboe said using abusive languages and negative militancy is not the type of imaging and branding the UDP wants.

“Let me make it very clear that the UDP leadership does not and will not tolerate nor support anyone within the party that attempts to bring the party into disrepute,” he added.
“It’s imperative that as a party, we are well organized and disciplined.

This must be underpinned by all of us upholding democratic virtues of a democratic party. Let me conclude and reiterate the membership of the UDP is opened to all Gambians. In that spirit, I further implore you, the members of this chapter, to welcome and make comfortable those who want to join our great party,” he concluded.

Source: Standard Newspaper

The caretaker leader of the opposition APRC Fabakary Tombong Jatta has said that former President Yahya Jammeh should have been in The Gambia by now as there is no reason why he should live in exile. “Jammeh’s achievements and positive impact on the lives of average Gambians are such that, I feel bad to know that he is not in this country,” FTJ said in a recent interview with The Standard .

He alleged that Jammeh had an agreement before leaving for Equatorial Guinea, which says he will be free to return to The Gambia any time he wants and his assets will not be tampered with but the current government flouted all that.

“Whatever people may accuse Jammeh of, he is a Gambian and as such, he should live in The Gambia, contribute and be consulted if need be as a former president, just like former President Jawara,” FTJ said.

When asked should Jammeh be granted an amnesty, like it was granted to Mugabe of Zimbabwe and JJ Rawlings of Ghana, Jatta said Jammeh should be given his dues so that when the current government goes out, it will equally receive the same. “It is important to reflect and put down emotions and sentiments and see what is best for the future of The Gambia,” FTJ added.

He further observed that when Jammeh was in power, he [Jatta] was a Majority Leader of the National Assembly and a bill was brought to parliament that gave immunity to former President Dawda Jawara.

The bill, he said, granted Jawara freedom, an office, salary of D50, 000, security and aides.

“Just imagine Mugabe ruled Zimbabwe for 37 years; a lot of atrocities happened and lot of people suffered. Mugabe even had problems with the new president who fled but when he returned, in the name of national reconciliation, he said let them put the past behind.

“The same thing happened in South Africa. Apartheid was the worst system of governance in the world but after all when Mandela came in, he pardoned and a truth and reconciliation commission was created, people confessed and now they are moving forward,” he said.

He said JJ Rawlings of Ghana allegedly killed a lot of people but Ghanaians decided to move forward and they are moving fast, adding that these are the leaves Gambians should borrow from.
“But what I observe in The Gambia is that, emotions and sentiments at times rule over us,” he said.

FTJ also said it is befitting for Gambians to turn a new page and move forward, adding that that some of the people accusing Jammeh today were part of his government and they also contributed in one way or the other in whatever they claimed to have happened.

“Since we cannot undo what has gone wrong, why don’t we forge ahead? Every system and individual can make mistakes, so therefore APRC has erred and the current government errs, and even the best of democracies have their weaknesses,” he said.
FTJ said when Jammeh was leaving, he [Jammeh]told him to give the current government a chance to do what they can for the Gambian people.

Source: Standard Newspaper

By Fatou Sowe

The Supreme Court of The Gambia has Thursday, November 23, dismissed the civil suit instituted by Ousainou ANM Darboe challenging the constitutionality of section 5 of the Public Order Act and section 69 of the Criminal Code.

This decision of the court was contained in a judgment read by the chief justice Hassan B. Jallow who stated that the suit fails in its entirety and dismissed accordingly as the court finds the challenged sections consistent with the Constitution of the Gambia.

The court arrived at this decision after evaluating the issues formulated by the plaintiffs in their case who claimed that the exercise of a right give under section 25 of the Constitution should not be subjected to the approval of the Inspector General of Police as provided in section 5 of the Public Order Act.

“The restrictions on the exercise of a right is not an abolition of that right.” C. J. Jallow said. He added that the power of the IGP to issue permit or deny same does not have any effect in the constitutionality and validity of section 5, he added that the requirement of a permit, must be sought before one embarks on a procession is not inconsistent with the Constitution as claimed by the plaintiffs.

On the challenge on section 69 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the wrongful use of the law in a charge does not amount to unconstitutionality.

Accordingly the court said that the claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed in their entirety.

It could be recalled that Ousainou ANM Darboe who is the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP) and currently the foreign affairs minister was last year prosecuted alongside several militants of his party on charges related to unlawful assembly.

During the trial he (Darboe) and others filed a suit before the Supreme Court seeking for the said court to determine the Constitutionality of the charges of unlawful assembly, riot, holding a procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.

They further sought for the court to declare these laws null and void and accordingly strike it out of the statutes for its inconsistency with the Constitution.

It was agreed by the parties that the case of Lamin Sonko and others (the April 14 protesters) shall abide by the judgment of the case of Ousainou Darboe and same was adopted by the court.

The Commission of Inquiry probing into financial activities of former President Yahya Jammeh and his close associates on Thursday, November 23, inspected three aircrafts, a mineral company, uniform and a wood factory at the Banjul International Airport, Yundum.

The said properties are allegedly owned by the former president who has ruled the country with an iron fist for the past 22 years. He was defeated in the last December 1 presidential poll. He has since fled to exile in Equatorial Guinea.

The team of commissioners and investigators headed by Chairman Surahata Janneh were received by Augustus Prom, an Auditing Firm assigned by the new government to audit the assets of the former president. Officials of the Gambia Civil Aviation Authority also accompanied the team.

The three aircrafts inspected by the commissioners were a Boeing 727, a Boeing 62 and a Boeing Illusion. It was said that there was a second Illusion aircraft belonging to Gambia New Millennium reportedly abandoned in the bush as scrap. It was a privately owned aircraft.

Malick Njoke Jagne, Aviation Safety Inspector told commissioners and investigators that the government has put up the three aircrafts in the market for sale because the maintenance would be very expensive. He said they are private aircrafts that cannot be use for commercial purposes. He added that the fuel consumptions is also high.

“We have parties from Kenya who are interested in one of the aircrafts,” Malick Njoke Jagne said.

He took the team on a tour to explained the conditions of the aircrafts. He said the life span of an aircraft depends on its maintenance. He added that it will cost millions to import some parts of the aircraft.

Lamin Cham, Managing Director of the Gambia International Airways (GIA) said in his testimony that about $10 Million US Dollars was spent on maintenance for the aircrafts from 2013 to 2016.

The team was later received by Augustus Prom who was appointed to audit the properties of the former president. He took the them around to inspect the west wood uniform factory where abandoned school uniforms could be seen all over. There are also leftover materials used for diapers.

Captain Momodou Jallow, a security head said after the Green Industries was banned the former president told soldiers to take charge of the place and inventories for the securities.

Augustus Prom later took the team to the timber factory allegedly smuggled from the Southern Senegalese region of Cassamance and exported to China.

Meanwhile, the team further visited a mineral mining company at the airport, the Mineral Company of The Gambia. It is said that an estimated amount of $500, 000 was spent on the equipment. The idea was to see whether there is gold in the country.

By Fatou Sowe

Amadou Samba has yet again described the testimony of Momodou Lamin Sonko the country coordinator of M A Kharafi as an afterthought.

Readers would recall that Sonko during his testimony last week indicated to the commission that Amadou Samba participated in the sale transaction of Kairaba hotel which goes to the effect that Lang Conteh’s contested statement is true about Samba’s participation.

In his testimony, Samba said he has listened to the evidence of Mr. Sonko whom he said was trying to manufacture evidence as a result he appealed to the commission for Mr. Sonko to produce documents that he (Samba) was alleged to have signed with regard to the sale of Kairaba Beach Hotel.

“There is nothing like Amadou Samba in the sale agreement of the hotel and I never went to Standard Chartered Bank with Mr Sonko with regard to the sale of Kairaba Beach Hotel,” he said.

Mr. Samba at that point tendered the deeds of assignment on the sale of the hotel which he said was prepared by commission counsel, Amie Bensouda and was admitted as exhibit. He further testified that the document will show the history of the hotel since he earlier told the Commission that the hotel was on liquidation at the time of sale.

According to him, Baba Jobe was dealing with Robert Aswandi the former manager of the hotel and Baba was answering to the former president which he said indicated that the hotel belong to Jammeh because Baba did not have money to buy the hotel. Samba said he dares not say that Jammeh bought the said hotel with the public funds and he has no vested interest in the chairmanship of the hotel which he said was even symbolic because there was no commission for him as he was not hungry.

“I have never discussed the sale of the hotel with the ex-president but I remembered Robert Aswandi called me on two occasions during the sale of the hotel on the stocks and mortgage of the hotel and apart from that I knew nothing about the hotel,” Mr Samba added.

By Fatou Sowe

The Supreme Court of The Gambia, Wednesday morning entertained arguments from lawyers from both sides in the civil suit instituted by the Gambia Press Union (GPU) against the Government of The Gambia challenging the constitutionality of the laws that criminalize defamation, publication of false news and sedition.

It is now several weeks since Pres. Barrow received 57 vehicles from an unknown person or entity yet refused to declare the gifts to either his office or the National Assembly as required by Section 222 sub-section 12 of the Constitution. Instead Pres. Barrow merely further donated these vehicles to members of the National Assembly. The National Assembly itself has also failed to find out the source and reason for the donation of these vehicles to Mr. Barrow. This is indeed a tragic incident that poses a clear and present danger to our democracy for which both the Executive and the Legislature have failed the people of the Gambia.

Political patronage is a cancer and the mother of all political corruption, human rights violations and abuse of power in a democracy. Political patronage is when individuals, businesses and other entities shower gifts and praises on elected political leaders or public officers in anticipation of favours. Without that political office, these individuals or businesses and entities would not have given any gift to these elected or appointed public officials simply because they do not hold any political position or public office through which they could give any favour.

The purpose of political patronage is to cause an elected official or public officer to therefore grant or give government contracts, appointments, money or other favours to these individuals in exchange. Hence political patronage is a means through which political leaders and public officers are corrupted. Political patronage allows for abuse of office and human rights to take place with impunity. It obstructs the delivery of justice, stifles accountability and denies equal opportunities to all.

We recall during the first republic how Jawara was a major recipient of political patronage, as chiefs, alkalolu and their communities would donate cattle, sheep and farm produce to him during his country tours. We have seen the same practice being used by Yaya Jammeh all throughout his misrule. In both cases, Jawara and Jammeh became larger than life individuals who showered appointments and contracts and other favours to individuals, businesses, communities and other entities. Songs and public places were named after these leaders and their families. In the final analysis, the capacity of the people to demand transparency and accountability was weak because of patronage.

The end result of this patronage was that both leaders were able to perpetuate themselves in power longer than reasonable while plunging the country into untold poverty and underdevelopment. The way and manner both the Jawara government and the Jammeh regime were removed attest to the fact that political patronage was indeed the basis of their prolonged and misguided leadership.

Hence when we come this far, all Gambians must be hugely concerned that Pres. Barrow has started with the practice of political patronage that is dangerous to the health and stability of the Gambia. Within days of assuming office, Pres. Barrow went to Senegal only to receive gifts of houses from a Senegalese businessman. This was also not declared at all. Now that he has received 57 vehicles from another source, citizens must be concerned that the president has taken a path that potentially leads to corruption, abuse and self-perpetuation in power.

For that matter, I wish to demand that the National Assembly and all citizens rise up to demand a complete and immediate stop to political patronage. Pres. Barrow must be compelled to declare the source of these vehicles and to refrain from receiving gifts from any quarter. The Gambia Constitution is totally against the receiving of gifts purposely because the constitution wishes to protect the government and public officers from being corrupted hence abuse power and violate human rights.

If Pres. Barrow continues to receive these gifts it therefore means he will begin to succumb to the wishes and desires of the donors. By submitting himself to those desires it will only cause him to circumvent laid down government regulations, rules and the law regarding government contracts, appointments and delivery of social services. It means he will begin to use public resources to pay off political patrons. It means he will begin to make promises to communities and entities on the basis of their gifts and patronage. This attitude will only serve to derail this country for the worse.

Raise your voice against political patronage in all its forms. Demand that Pres. Barrow declare the source of the vehicles. If he fails to do so, let us demand the parliament to open a public hearing to summon the president to declare the source of the vehicles. Let us protect our republic by defending its constitution and sacred values and standards of good governance. Failure to do so will come to haunt us sooner or later. We have enough experiences in our history to tell us that we must stand against political patronage.

Mr. Barrow must realize that we elected him not only to replace Yaya Jammeh, a despot of unimaginable proportions, but more importantly for him to lead this country to effective system change. This requires that he abandon old and backward practices and attitudes of former leaders. Rather we expect him to set high standards and uphold sacred values in building a new society based on democratic culture. We expect him to demonstrate transparency and accountability in all of his decisions and actions in line with the rule of law. This is the system change we envisage.

God Bless The Gambia

Madi Jobarteh

By Fatou Sowe

Momodou Lamin Sonko, Country Coordinator for MA Kharafi and Sons was on Monday asked the Janneh Commission to clarify the controversial acquisition of Kairaba Beach Hotel by former President Jammeh and to also react to the contradictory evidence of Amadou Samba and Lang Conteh about the same hotel.

According to him, the testimony of Lang Conteh in relations to the said hotel and that the Management of Kairaba hotel was handed over to Mr. Samba is correct. He added that Samba’s sister, Lawyer Mary Samba represented MA Kharafi during the sales transactions and she was paid $10, 000 as legal fees.

Sonko further testified that they agreed for the new lease documents to bear the name of MA Kharafi but was quick to add that he is not sure whether they were given the new tittle deed but at the time of the sales, the hotel owed Standard Chartered Bank the sum of $2.6 million.

On endorsement of the sales agreement by Lawyer Edward Gomez, the witness said he never met Mr. Gomez during the course of their transaction on the hotel and therefore does not know how it came about. He revealed that Amadou Samba represented the former president on the purchase of Kairaba hotel and he signed on his behalf. The witness further made reference to a letter written by Mary Samba in connection to her legal fees which was admitted into evidence as exhibit.

On whether or not Capital gain tax was paid, the witness revealed that he spoke to former President Jammeh about it but he responded to him that Amadou Samba will handle it.

However, Commission Counsel Amie Bensouda asked the witness to inform MA Kharafi and Sons to produce all relevant documents relating to Kairaba and also inform them about the outstanding sum of $2,000,000 owed to Central Bank of the Gambia by the Hotel.

Correspondence between Mary Samba Solicitor for Kairaba Beach Hotel and MA Kharafi and Sons, Standard Chartered Bank among others all in relations to the sales of the Hotel were admitted as exhibits. At that point, the witness observed that the sales agreement tendered before the Commission and the one in the possession of MA Kharafi were at variants.

At the 49th Janneh Commission Hearing of 15th of November, 2017, Mr. Amadou Samba mentioned my name, Salieu Taal, as one of the Solicitors used by the former President in property transactions.

For the record and for the purpose of clarity, in the course of my career spanning from 2001 to date, I have never been engaged or retained by the former President in my legal capacity or any capacity whatsoever.

By Fatou Sowe

Amadou Samba a business tycoon in the Gambia and a friend to the former Gambian leader Yahya Jammeh has said that he does not owe his success to ex president Jammeh as perceived by many members of the public.

Samba made this remark during his testimony before the commission of inquiry on Thursday, November 16 after he was asked to react to the general perception that he owes his success as a businessman to Jammeh and owing to their friendship he (Samba) was untouchable.

He stated that he was successful prior to Jammeh’s regime as he incorporated his first company in 1986 when Jammeh was going to school. He further claimed that he brought a lot of investors into the country and that the amount of money he has paid into taxes is in billions, talk less of the employments he created.

On the question that his is untouchable, Samba narrated that his own sister was once detained at the NIA for days by Jammeh so if he was untouchable that wouldn’t have happened. He also claimed that his friendship with Jammeh was not based on the spirit of mutual friendship because Jammeh had always worked against his (Samba’s) business interest several times.

He said there was an instance when Jammeh compelled him to reduce the price per bag of cement, adding that Jammeh also ordered him to allow his airline crew members to occupy his property at Cape Point and he dares not ask for rent and this is among other cases.

He informed the commission that that he is a lawyer by profession and that he decided to quit the legal profession when he had temptation for money.

Samba recounted that his decision to quit the legal practice for business was as a result of a bribe that was attempted at him by a rich businessman who was involved in a case he was handling as a state counsel at the attorney general’s chambers.

It is seven days today since Pres. Barrow relieved Mai Ahmad Fatty from his portfolio of Minister of Interior and assigned the Minister of Justice Tambedou to oversee that ministry. It is necessary to point out that the president must appoint a new minister for Interior so that the Minister of Justice is stopped from overseeing the Ministry of Interior. By the functions of the Minister of Justice as the Attorney General, he cannot be assigned to oversee another ministry if we go by the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Section 72 sub-section 2 states that the Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Gambia Government. The Gambia Government comprises the Executive Cabinet headed by the President together with the Vice President and Ministers. Hence the Attorney General is their adviser. In light of this, one cannot therefore ask the adviser to take the position of the executioner of the advice that the adviser is supposed to give.

An attorney general is a quality assurance tool to ensure that the decisions and actions by the Executive are in line with the Constitution and the rule of law. In other words, each and every minster as well as the president is expected to seek the advice of the Attorney General for any decision or action they take in the course of their functions.

Hence if we make the Attorney General to oversee a ministry it means therefore we are effectively asking the Attorney General to advise himself in the executions of the functions of the Minister of Interior. This will weaken the act and process of decision-making and dilute the quality assurance function of the Minister of Justice.

I therefore think that Barrow must not have asked the Minister of Justice to oversee any ministry. Rather he should have assigned another minister to oversee Interior Ministry or allow the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior to step in as overseer of the ministry. The best decision in the first place would have been to appoint a new Minister altogether, immediately. It is already one week and there is still no Minister of Interior.

The continuing overseeing of the Ministry of Interior by the Attorney General is therefore a risk for the Government because it means the Justice Minister will have to take decisions in the context of the Interior Ministry when he, the Minister of Justice is in fact supposed to be the one to provide advice to the Minister of Interior.

This scenario therefore effectively undermines the role of the Minister of Justice as well as weakens decision-making. The Minister of Justice should be the first call and the last port for every minister to seek legal guidance. But where the Justice Minister himself decides in the place of another minister, it therefore makes the Minister of Justice both a decision maker and an adviser to another ministry. This is risky for the country.

I therefore urge Pres. Barrow to immediately normalize the situation in over to avert a potential crisis by appointing a new Minster for Interior or re-assign the ministry to any other minister but not to the Minister of Justice. When in doubt ministers are expected to get legal guidance from the Justice Minister hence the Justice Minster cannot oversee another ministry.

God Bless The Gambia

BY: Ousainou Mbenga

Despite the adoption of the word “Occupy” likening their action to “Occupy Wall Street” in the USA, I still maintain my unwavering support and utmost admiration for these young comrades for having the audacity to make DEMANDS of the regime for the basic need of water and electricity. This service to provide water and electricity is not free as it has been alleged to be free in Kanilai during Jammeh’s reign of terror.

The Gambian people pay for the services, therefore NAWEC is obligated to provide these services. An ant-hill issue was unnecessarily elevated to the height of Mount Kilimanjaro by the “guardians of the beyond reproach Barrow regime”. This issue could have been resolved amicably without resorting to personal threats and bogus allegations of possible violence. Where is the evidence of the “impending violence” and the people who were to hatch this violence? This “secret society” approach of the current administration only heightens speculations. During this long period of water shortages and power outages, the vast majority of our suffering people complained endlessly with no relief in sight. A protest of any kind against NAWEC’S negligence is justifiable.

All the reactionary attacks against these young comrades seem to have emboldened them to defy the revocation of the permit to protest and assembled at Westfield in a peaceful and disciplined manner. The only potential violence that could have happened on Sunday, November 12, 2018, would have come from the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) all dressed in their “uniforms of brutality” attempting to provoke an incident, but the young comrades accomplished their mission and refused to give them the pleasure to repeat the savagery of April 10 and 11 2000, when 14 students were killed, many wounded and maimed for life. The fundamental concern about this matter should have been the conduct of the PIU or the recycled left over thugs that Jammeh sent to spill and drank the blood of the students in 2000. They have a history of violence and brutality not the “Occupy Westfield”.

It is a common practice among neocolonial African regimes never to admit to their political blunders with its very serious social consequences. And, when the masses express their outrage through protest and demonstrations, the “ruling class” is quick to blame “outside agitators” as if the masses, including students are not capable of organizing a peaceful protest. The PPP and AFPRC-APRC regimes both engaged in the “outside agitators” blame game and now the “tactical coalition” government, only eleven months on the “saddles of power” is outdoing its predecessors in the blame game.

It has become an undisputed truth that these young comrades have brains of their own and didn’t need Ous Mbenga, DUGA, others “grown-ups” and “senior citizens”, allegedly, to plan this protest. It is these like-minded “character assassins” that called the students on April 10 and 11, 2000 thugs, rude and without home training.” Some went to the extent of saying they deserved that treatment. The African police, army and “security service” know only how to brutalize the population.

What these “character assassins” fail to realize is that the Gambian masses (students included) are gaining political maturity and will not be intimidated by the meaningless and empty “threats to national security”. In fact, the IGP poses the greatest “national security threat” to the so called “new Gambia”. What are you afraid of? The people who “lifted you on to the saddles of power”? If a mere protest against one of your incompetent institutions rattled you this much to resort to bogus allegations of violence, to deny the issuance of a permit, then you better reprimand your Inspector General of Police (IGP), PIU and all the security forces involved in this unnecessary tension with these young comrades. The intent of this administration is clear. You want to smother the culture of protest, the only last resort the people have to get your attention.

A new day has dawned!  With all due respect, those who witnessed the murders of April 10 and 11, 2000, and didn’t protest the brutality, like many others, are stuck in the past 52 years of politics as usual. Politics as usual is rot. It is the main reason for how things degenerated to the level we currently find ourselves. Our social conditions have gotten worse with neocolonialism (colonialism in black faces).

You must be willing to embrace REVOLUTION, revolutionary politics at best. Revolution is good, it’s the best thing a slave has against the slave master. The best thing the oppressed have against oppression. Revolution is the only solution to our wretched social conditions. Don’t let anyone scare you about revolution, the forces that control our livelihood through AID, FUNDING and GRANTS know the benefits of revolution. Liberation without social transformation (eradication of poverty and impoverishment) is meaningless. This is the best period to rescue our beloved Gambia from another 52 years of the “cart before the horse” governing. The masses of our people want a radical transformation of our wretched conditions of living. You took a revolutionary step contrary to all the attacks against you. So, don’t step backwards!

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE! AFRICAN POWER TO THE AFRICAN MASSES!

WE WILL WIN!

Twelve soldiers of The Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) who were alleged to be part of a ‘WhatsApp group Conspiracy’ were arraigned before a general court martial at the Yundum Military Barracks.

The alleged soldiers who are escorted with handcuffs under heavily armed security guards are Captain Yaya Jammeh, Captain Abdoulie Jarju, Lieutenant Yahya Jammeh, Sergeant Babucarr Jammeh, Sergeant Malick Bojang, Corporal Sulayman Sanyang, Corporal Lamin Gibba, Corporal Ebrima Jallow, Lance Corporal Samboujang Bojang, Lance Corporal Abba Badjie, Private Mbemba Camara and Private Alieu Sanneh.

They were arraigned before a panel of ten juries who are sworn in to take the case including a Judge Advocate, Sainabou Wadda Ceesay. Colonel Salifu Bojang is the President of the Panel and Lieutenant Colonel Seedy Joof, Major Abdoulie Manneh, Major Lamin K Sanyang and Major Basiru Sarr are all part of the panel.

The hall was almost full to capacity with security personnel and families of the accused persons.

The accused soldiers are facing nine counts including treason, concealment of treason and mutiny among others.

When the case was mentioned Friday morning, November 17,  the Lead State Counsel M. B Abubacarr who was assisted by A. Yusuf appeared for the state while the following officers Lieutenant Alieu Sanneh, Captain Bubacarr Bah, Captain Ansumana Sanyang, Captain Suwaibou Jammeh, Captain Momodou Demba and Captain Abdoulie Conteh among others appeared for the accused persons.

Before applying for an adjournment the state counsel urged the court to remand the accused soldiers to the state central prisons due to inadequate facilities at the military detention centers. Captain Suwaibou Jammeh made an objection saying the accused persons might not access their counsels and families at Mile II Prisons. He also made an objection to remove one of the assisting prosecutor who was part of the board of investigators in the case.

“We have not been serve with the sim card registered details and WhatsApp chat audios,” Captain Suwaibou Jammeh said.

The Lead State Prosecutor Abubakar said the evidences and witness statements would be provided to defense as the case proceeds. He also submitted that section 98 of the Armed Forces Act does not affect the assisting prosecutor. He urged the court to overrule the objection.

Meanwhile, the court has overruled the objection made by the defense to remand the accused soldiers to the state central prisons. It ordered the accused soldiers to be remanded at the central prisons. It further ordered the state to provide evidences and witness statements to the defense.

Subsequently, the case was adjourned to November 27. The accused soldiers were escorted to a awaiting military coaster van which rushed them to the state central prisons. Family members of the accused could be seen crying when the military coaster was leaving Yundum Barracks.

Birmingham City University has donated more than 350 books to a new research institute in The Gambia which is hoping to advance education and academic research in the African country.

The Institute for Academic Research is situated in the urban centre of Serekunda and has been set up by Birmingham City University postgraduate student and Visiting Lecturer Lamin Daffeh to support students and academics at the University of The Gambia.

The contribution from Birmingham City University’s School of Law will provide law students, bar students, lawyers and legal researchers in The Gambia with invaluable knowledge to help further their careers and academic output.

Elsewhere, the Institute holds academic books in the fields of agriculture, economics and medicine, for example, as well as materials relating to English language skills, research methods and statistical analysis. The Institute hopes to grow this collection through further acquisitions and donations going forward.

Independent

Created by the Alliance For International Development, Education and Research (AIDER), the Institute opened on 6 October 2017 and is the first independent research institute established in The Gambia.

Lamin Daffeh, a PhD candidate and Visiting Lecturer in International Business and Human Rights Law, Birmingham City University, said:

“This generous gift from my alma mater will make significant contributions towards education and research practice in The Gambia, and we are all truly grateful of this considerable gesture.

“Whether someone is a student wanting to pass their exam, write an excellent essay, conduct substantial research or just simply wants to be ahead of the game within their area of expertise, the Institute for Academic Research will play a significant role in supporting learners, researchers and other professionals in The Gambia to access substantial and current academic resources, computers and a reliable internet service for academic research purposes.

“The Institute encourages students and professionals to undertake extensive research in their areas of interest, to broaden their knowledge and understanding of their chosen subjects.”

Alumnus

Lamin graduated from Birmingham with a master’s degree in International Human Rights Law in 2014 and is now studying for his PhD at the institution, with his research addressing the cultural and political barriers preventing people in Ghana from accessing education.

Jon Yorke, Professor of Human Rights and Director of the Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, Birmingham City University, said:

“When we heard that Lamin was planning to open the Institute of Academic Research we wanted to help in whatever way we could and I immediately offered our surplus collection of legal literature. We hope this donation marks the start of a fruitful academic partnership with The Gambia.

Lamin’s charity work outside academia is truly outstanding and it is very admirable that one of our fellow colleagues and students is having such a positive impact on the right to education in The Gambia.

Education

Born and raised in Kwinella in The Gambia, Lamin himself had to walk 10 miles a day for school. Recognising the importance of education from a young age, he moved to Worcester in 1999 where he studied towards a BSc in Crime and Criminolgy.

As a result of a trip to The Gambia in 2006 with his wife, Rebecca, Lamin set up the Fresh Start Foundation (FSF), which works to alleviate poverty and make access to education achievable to vulnerable children and young people in his native country.

Initially supporting one school in The Gambia, following an iconic appearance by Lamin on Channel 4’s ‘Deal or No Deal’ to raise awareness of the Foundation, the charity has gone on to support thousands of school children in The Gambia across 11 schools. With his charity a success, Lamin is now turning his attention to higher education and lifelong learning with the Institute for Academic Research.

Location

The Institute for Academic Research is situated near the Brusubi “Turn Table” Tranquil, in The Gambia.

Future cooperative plans with Birmingham City University include potential student exchanges and co-taught postgraduate and professional development courses.

Jamal Drammeh

For a simple mind, there are no practical difficulties in discerning what is right from wrong. We import the difficulties by our prejudices. These foolish imports interferes with the optimism of nature, thwarts our natural magnetism, and creates intellectual obstructions that has no place in us.

In every constitution, there always remains to be residuals it could not resolve. The most inundated legal minds cannot craft laws or constitution that would be immune to exploitation in some way by the very law makers that are supposed to uphold them. If writing new laws and constitutional reforms should be the solution to our every problem, then we will keep doing it forever. What is the point of perpetually amending laws, if the law makers are bent on betraying the spirit and intent of the laws? Spirit or intent cannot be wholly legislated so will forever remain elusive to our written laws, but the law of consciousness abide.

So let us draw some lessons from nature. Water only rises to the level of its source. The source of government being the society — can only be elevated to moral heights of the society. It is the qualities of the society that is magnified in government. We the people; are the essential measure of right, of truth, of love, of beauty….. And yes, of our laws and constitutions!

We are wiser than we project in our discourse, and we know each other very well! Truth and reality never escapes our apperception. No amount of written laws and constitutional stipulations can change reality. We should become thinking people; not clinging to the idle notes of the Jeffersons and Madisons, or our contemporary legislators — as if their uttered syllables or texts are divine doctrines that God Himself brought to humanity.

Let us stop this domestication of the foreign and the worship of the old — and bring forth the vitality of the best in our culture and virtue, now. We also live with God, right now; and can look inward and produce works and write laws just as great in this twilight of our democracy to rekindle the spirit of our common dreams and aspirations.

The best constitution — used at a negative degree will still oppress the masses. We must not be the fanatical guards of the laws and constitution, but rather be guides for them; the redeemers. The lawyers are trained to defend the text — unless it suits a client to distort them. So let the lawyers and politicians cling to their trifles; twist their lips even to indignation to redefine every letter of the alphabet.

A simple mind is royal; royalty makes habitual its own estimates of laws and affairs of men. We the people, must make habitual our own estimate of what is right and just, then demand it!

Laws of the land must be respected. But the slavish overestimate of the laws and constitution will always make us vulnerable to be oppressed or be victimized. So we should also avail ourselves the option for direct action in the course of justice and liberty through civil disobedience. Justice, we can perceive, and not in the whimsical but in eternal sense. We also know truth like we are aware that we are alive.

Civil disobedience: If history taught us any profound lessons about changing a government or system; is the irresistible power and the influence of civil disobedience. From every generation, the message of this solemn thunder is duly renewed and passed down to the next.

The reverberations of this immensity, has always transcended time and space with unfathomable results. From Hendry David Thoreau, to Leo Tolstoy, to Mahatma Ghandi, to Martin Luther and so many others before, after and in between — we’ve seen its doctrine preached and demonstrated to accomplish the “impossible”.

This cathartic virtue has done more in shaping history than any laws man has ever made. It will serve the course of the nation much nobler than any laws or constitution if the government loses its moral compass.

Democracy has too many slippery slopes; it is treacherous like the skating ring. And “when skiing on thin ice, your safety is in the speed.” So no; don’t appeal for silence and patience of the dissenters — but you can ask for decorous in their rage. We must be responsive and act quickly to counteract the excesses of any government. Patience and silence are no remedies for the expediency of government.

People have to rise up, demand and personify the change they want to see. Transparent persons are rare in politics; so it is futile to wait for politicians to act in ways that would curb their own power or change the power dynamics that’s disadvantageous to themselves. But no government is strong enough to resist a sustained pressure or popular uprising for a just course if enough people demand it. Sustained pressure always works in politics; civil disobedience — the most effective tool.

Separation of powers: For society to save herself from her own misgivings — creates the government. Government in its own turn to save itself from its own misgivings — divides itself into three branches, in a democracy. The aim is to put checks and balances on one another, and to prevent any one of the branches from usurping its authority. Success in more manure democracies, depends largely on this self-regulating and self-correcting mechanism of the separation of powers. In new democracies, these are formalities, mainly.

Nevertheless, the public holds the informal but solemn oversight authority over these three branches of governments. Government and its institutions should be rightly supported for doing its job, but a slavish respect for government that seeks to place it beyond reproach is the recipe for the destruction of a democracy.

Like man, government offers itself to be judged — though involuntarily. We need only watch and let it unfold itself and reveal its follies — if it has any. In politics and government; every day is a Judgment Day, so we must judge and act upon it responsibly but with promptitude.

We don’t need to be perplexed by the textual protestations of the laws or constitutional super navigation of the politicians or by the legal experts. Let us do and say simply what appeals to our nature and it’s morally right or just.

No citizen is too wise or too foolish to not participate in a constructive discourse of a nation. To remain silent while you watch a nation charter a dangerous territory or head for failure — is no mark of wisdom. Oracles speak! What you have done…. Will define you. Not what you gained, but what you’ve done for your fellows in truth — is your true worth.

Good as laws can be; conscience is better. Nothing can maintain peace and bring prosperity but ourselves. Only through the triumph of principle and the citizenry holding government accountable can we ensure the liberty and the dignity of every member of the society. The masses remain to be the ultimate ‘exchequer’ of our ‘practical’ laws and constitution. That is my central argument.

My last appeal to you, my reader; is to not settle any claims by my protestations, or put disproportionate value to these opinions. I’m only an experimenter, communicating my observations and hypothesis. Using an imperfect instrument called language — to describe a profound combinations of nuances of “The machine called government vs. people and their conscience”.

Simply think — is my appeal.