The most important news in The Gambia since the election happened last week. It’s not the Attorney General’s bombshell news briefing on the freezing of 88 bank accounts, 131 landed properties, and 14 companies belonging to or directly associated with the exiled despot. Nor was it Lawyer Awa Sisay Sabally’s applause-worthy call on President Barrow to appoint without any further delay a Vice President. It was something that didn’t receive the same level of attention as the above. Nonetheless, it was the ultimate news of this political transition.

At the national stakeholders conference on justice and human rights at Kairaba Beach Hotel, Chief Justice Hassan Jallow affirmed that, in the light of many amendments that could affect the 1997 Constitution (the current Constitution), the state intended to draft a new Constitution. One news outlet quoted him as saying, “There is a strong case for the drafting of a new constitution under the leadership of a new group of experts set up by the state.” Reading the words that are in bold (the emphasis are mine), I was overcome at once with ecstatic relief. With a gleeful heart and bated breath, I crowed, “Hallelujah! God bless the Chief Justice!”

Given the defects of the current Constitution and the deliberate dilutions it suffered at the behest of the upended regime, the need to draft a new one should have been an obvious foregone conclusion. The fact that it hadn’t been until the Chief Justice’s revelation should have been the biggest scandal for the new government. In the run-up to the election, the Coalition included constitutional review in its reform agenda. The Memorandum of Understanding didn’t expound on what this ambiguous term would entail. Two things, however, implied an overhaul.

First, the central agreement of the Coalition was that their candidate for President would serve only three years in office to carry out a transition of democratic reforms, followed by a fresh election. Since that candidate was to be elected for a five-year term as required under the current Constitution, the cleanest, and probably the most legitimate and justifiable, way to accomplish this agreement would be to draft a new Constitution that would come into force in three years. With the new Constitution adopted in three years, the current one would cease to be in existence, and the current five-year term of the President would be curtailed to three years without anyone having to engage in any convoluted tampering with an already battered Constitution.

Second, almost all Coalition figures and their outspoken allies during and after the election kept promising how governing would be different in the third republic. And right after Barrow was sworn into office, the new administration began claiming that we are now in the third republic. To the extent that it matters, we aren’t in the third republic. We are still in the second republic. Barrow is the second president of the second republic. A new Constitution will usher in the third republic. An ordinary transfer of power through an election under an existing Constitution cannot ring in a republic. Otherwise, the United States would have surpassed 40 republics when it’s still in its first.

Those factors notwithstanding, the Coalition turned out to have something different in mind. Barrow, at his first press conference after he took office, was asked if the new government planned to write a new Constitution. He responded that they would only make amendments to the current one. You can imagine my disappointment. (For me, replacing the current Constitution with one that’s far superior must be the dominant issue of this transition.)

Why the Coalition never called for a new Constitution outright defied logic. I became upset at the body as a whole, but more so at its two most influential wings. Though several opposition parties had come together to form the Coalition, the key players in real terms were UDP and PDOIS. They are also the only opposition parties with substantive but clashing positions on the current Constitution. Their rivalry over it began from the beginning of the second republic. To PDOIS, the current Constitution is essentially good, if not great. In or outside of the Coalition, PDOIS, to my knowledge, hasn’t called for a new Constitution. The party can always provide a long list of great provisions in the current Constitution in their defense of it. Nevertheless, all in all, they are wrong, but at least consistent.

To UDP, on the other hand, the current Constitution was to all intents and purposes the despot’s Constitution. All the reason their failure to call for a new Constitution demands more than the charge of inconsistence. The party’s taciturnity on the matter borders on hypocrisy. It’s rendered more unconscionable by the fact that while Barrow technically ran as an independent, his political home remained UDP. This, in addition to the fact that they were the largest party in the Coalition, gave them more sway on this question. So I was left confounded by their seemingly newfound faith in a set of amendments to remedy the current Constitution. I even wondered whether gaining power finally has given them second thoughts about reining in the imperial presidency, and establishing a democracy on separation of powers with checks and balances. Why would they entrust the President with powers that they rightly didn’t want vested in the despot? I wondered still further if they now disagree with Lawyer Lamin J. Darboe’s erudite observation that, “Undoubtedly, [the current] Constitution permits the legal mismanagement of Gambian public life. With its hollow protections, it would still be an instrument of violence, if only potentially, even in the most benign of hands. It has no place in a proper democracy!”

The case against amendments alone goes beyond the stubborn fact that too many amendments needed to be carried out. The most obnoxious parts that must be expunged from the nation’s Constitution — paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule 2 (the so-called Indemnity Clause) — are themselves indemnified from any amendments either by the National Assembly or by a referendum thanks to paragraph 17 of the said Schedule. These paragraphs confer absolute blanket amnesty on the despot and the entire regime of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) for any decision or action they took during the military rule, which might include stealing millions from our national treasury and engaging in extra-judicial killings. Hence my utter disappointment when the Coalition stated their position on the current Constitution. It’s all too clear that amendments alone wouldn’t suffice. They wouldn’t and couldn’t undo these monstrosities of Schedule 2.

The most obscene thing about the referenced sections of Schedule 2 is its arrogance and moral turpitude. The military junta overthrew the elected government, albeit an ineffectual one. They launched multiple Commissions of Inquiry into that government in the name of “accountability, transparency, and probity.” They made so much noise about “rampant corruption” that had occurred in that government. And then, lo and behold, they turned around saying never mind all that. All Presidents, National Assemblies, and Courts must hereby be denied forever the legal authority to do to the junta what the junta did to the preceding government. Why wouldn’t they want their own example be applied to them? Why what’s good for the goose not good for the gander?

It should be noted that advocating for a new Constitution mustn’t be misunderstood as arguing for the entire current Constitution to be junked. Just as the current one largely kept the framework of the 1970 Constitution and still contained significant changes, the new one will emulate similar but nobler objective. I may even hazard a guess that the new Constitution will preserve about 70 percent of the current one. Properly done, however, the 30 percent difference will make a world of real difference between constitutional democracy and constitutional dictatorship. Let’s consider the case of the Chief Justice as an example. Whether one liked the appointment of Hassan Jallow or not, we must all bear in mind that just as Barrow appointed the justice all by himself under the current Constitution, Barrow can remove the justice anytime all by himself. The constitutional requirement that the President must consult the Judicial Service Commission is a bureaucratic waste of time by way of meaningless rigmarole. The Commission’s advice is, strictly speaking, a matter of mere formality. It’s non-binding in any shape or form. Is this what we want? For one person, however conscientious that person may be, to have that much power? And we wonder why we don’t have an independent judiciary? Presidents mustn’t consult at all any Commission whose authority is subservient to the President’s. The consultation regarding appointment of judges should be made to the National Assembly and the National Assembly’s vote to approve or disapprove should be binding. And judges must not be removed except by impeachment for unlawful conduct. That way, judges cannot be appointed or removed whenever a President feels like it.

Even if we feel rest assured that Barrow and future Presidents would never be anything like the despot, we shouldn’t leave so much of our fate at the mercy of their discretions. For instance, Barrow’s failure or refusal to appoint a Vice President after four months in office may not be violating the letter of the Constitution, but it’s totally contrary to its spirit. It’s also not just a cavalier attitude toward complying with the law, it puts the line of succession to the highest office in the land at risk for no good reason. Worse still, appointing someone who, for whatever unfair and undemocratic requirements, is disqualified from holding the office of Vice President to oversee the Vice Presidency isn’t only a display of insouciance toward the Constitution, but also an apparent act of violating the oath to uphold the Constitution without fear, favor, affection or ill will.

Talking about not trusting people in power to always do the right thing, one of my longstanding beefs with the current Constitution is the National Assembly’s ability to amend the so-called non-entrenched clauses. Like elsewhere, our experience has shown that politicians always claim to be acting in the national interest, but, far too often, they behave on partisan motives. Even when they truly act on the national interest, such actions are hardly divorced from their partisan interests. Politicians will always be politicians. They will almost always use whatever power is at their disposal to advance their own partisan interests. The amendments to the current Constitution proved that the drafters were wrong to assign the National Assembly the power to amend the Constitution save the entrenched clauses. And the entrenched clauses cannot remain functionally sacrosanct if their force can be undermined by the amendment or abrogation of related, supporting, or underlying clauses. As the supreme law of the land, everything in the Constitution should be deemed consequential. If they are not, they shouldn’t be in the utmost law. If they are, they should be beyond the grasp of the momentary passions or partisan motives of politicians. Yes, the power to make laws is invested in the National Assembly. But the one law they must not make is the law that gives them the power to make laws. The entire Constitution must be entrenched. No clause or paragraph or even punctuation mark must be amended without a referendum. The people must have their say. That’s the only assurance to protect the Constitution from being perverted by self-serving, power-grabbing politicians.

There are many other reasons to draft a new Constitution. Among them, the current one is poorly put together. It lacks the coherence and elegance a great national document deserves. To back up this contention, I must rely once again on Lamin J Darboe’s perceptive conclusion: “In The Gambia, [the current] Constitution is devoid of serious artistic beauty due mainly to the apparent absence of any real intention to ground the polity in objectively verifiable rule of law. This may be attributable to the fact that the political midwives of the Constitution were also present at the critical juncture of its creation. As they were interested, had absolute power, and wielded the veto, the resulting product was way short of the minimum standards a document like a national constitution must acquire to pass the requisite test of balance and neutrality, a document, so to speak, that can serve as a fitting legacy for posterity.”

It’s therefore gratifying to know that the new government had a change of heart. It’s also reassuring that the source of the news was the Chief Justice. And even more reassuring, he did more than share word about the plan to draft a new Constitution. He justified both the necessity and wisdom of such an undertaking. The importance of this is just too great. Monumental, in fact. That’s why the Chief Justice spoke for me. We now have the chance to establish the third republic that seeks that elusive equilibrium between security and liberty. We must institute a government that has all the power to protect the rights of the good folks of Kiang. At the same time, that government must have no power to set aside at will the rights of the good folks of Kiang. Then, we can celebrate our Constitution and our Republic.

By Foday Samateh

Vice President….

I am at a loss as to why you still failed to appoint a Vice President knowing that this is a very important office in the country. What is actually the problem? Are there extenuating circumstances we do not know about? Is it that you are not in control of the situation, that there is something, or someone, who is making you insist on appointing FTJ as the VP?

It is abundantly clear that the good lady is more than qualified for the job; she is certainly a patriot who has gathered a lot of experience working both nationally and internationally. But she is barred by the age limit clause of the Constitution. Of course, we want a competent and qualified vice president like Fatoumatta Tambajang Jallow but we cannot wait any longer. The vice president is the one who answers to questions in the National Assembly on behalf of the president, the vice president represents the president in forums which he is unable to attend; it is the vice president who takes over should the president become incapacitated for any reasons whatsoever. Seeing all these, it becomes abundantly clear that the office of the vice president should be filled forthwith.

Mr President, almost all sections of society have called on you to appoint your Number Two. Last week a senior lawyer renewed the call for the appointment of a VP. So why is it that you are still quiet on the issue? You see, we are on the outside and it is quite possible that you have very good reasons for the delay, reasons which will convince anybody that you are justified in this delay. We the ordinary citizens cannot know those reasons, if there are any. What you owe us however, is to explain to us why the delay. So long as you don’t appoint a Number Two and you do not come out and talk to us, we will continue to demand for it, if need be, we will come out in the streets to demonstrate our dissatisfaction over the silent treatment on this issue.

We, the Sovereign People of the Gambia, hereby demand that our Chief Servant Adama Barrow appoint a Vice President with immediate effect.

Tha Scribbler Bah

A Concerned Citizen

Warneford Hall, Oxford, UK (2017-05-29) – In an article titled ‘Jammeh and the
Gambian Diaspora: New Political Binarism’, published in October 2013, I
cautioned H.E. Yahya Jammeh that the Gambian Diaspora has become a
redemptive political force and a revolutionary vanguard, armed with the
resources (the ability to mobilize and lobby) that can bring down any government
to its knee. Jammeh, the comatose, who is now sipping malamba in Equatorial
Guinea with his friend, the undead zombie, Teodoro Obiang, who is succumbing
to the ravages of aging, must have thought that this warning was coming from a
solipsistic ranter who spends his entire time shouting over an empty internet in
far away Sweden.

 
To believe that Diaspora activism died the moment Jammeh left the country, is a
demonstration of intellectual chauvinism. Diaspora activism did not die with
Jammeh; it has been in a state of catatonia, because it has been waiting to see
how well the new pragmatic operators in the transitional government will fare in
moving the country forward. As it appears, the Barrow administration is moving
at a snail’s pace; and the Diaspora, with a cry of reason, believes that its
expectations have been thrown far aback. This binary outcome is a harbinger of
an emerging political binarism between the new government and the Diaspora;
and consequently, some people in the Diaspora, devoid of hope, run back to the
keyboard to criticize the phoenix that rises from the ashes – Mr. Barrow.

 
Criticisms of the new administration are endemic even in the streets of Salikene,
thanks to, among other forces, the Gambian Diaspora, a powerful political force
which stood against the clutches of a dictator – Yahya Jammeh. The Diaspora is
the only influential political force without a party leader, but nevertheless
characterized by resources, expertise, and a glorious charivari. The Raleigh
Meeting, the New York protests, the Stockholm Conference, etc, all served as
constructive and consensual political gatherings that harnessed the collective
efforts of the Diaspora in getting rid of the generalissimo who had held the
country hostage for twenty-two years.

It is past the time the Barrow administration talked to the Diaspora. Who to talk
to, when there is no leader? The government can designate someone who can
stand against party politics or use its embassies to mobilize the Diaspora in a
form of a conference in their respective countries of residence, if not in The
Gambia. This way, the government will be offering the metaphor of a new
vintage: that it is cognizant of the potentiality of the Diaspora to provide the
necessary ambrosia to help the country develop democratically, politically, and
intellectually.

 
On a more representative approach, the government can designate the Diaspora as
a quasi-constituency with an MP who can represent the ideological enthusiasms
of the Diaspora at the National Assembly. I understand the argument that the
country is marred by political nomadism and the politics of quid-pro-quo (Latin:
something for something) where party loyalty runs the gamut, and that the idea of
a Diaspora constituency carries some degree of realism; however, a Diaspora
constituency will be a depoliticized enterprise, seeking to harness the efforts of
the Diaspora in moving the country forward, no matter which party rules. When
this happens, Barrow will enter the political lexicon as the man who modernizes
and internationalizes Gambian politics – a task Jammeh would never do.
After all, President Barrow and Mr. Jammeh are not tweedledum and tweedledee,
though both are political tabula rasa (no offence intended). However, unlike
Jammeh, Barrow has not yet (mind the italics – emphasis) plunged into the fetid
swamp of a bourgeois lifestyle; nevertheless, his silence and political demeanor
are raising some eyebrows amongst the Diaspora and Press fraternity. The
Diaspora and the Press in the country can deal with his careful choosing of
words, if that is the reason he is not facing the Press (forget the grammar –
grammar is a decaying art).

 
I am sure President Barrow is aware that the Press in the country had suffered in
the hands of Jammeh, from censorship to its reluctance to reproduce the
ideological narratives of the Jammeh’s regime. Do not let this continue, because
both the Press and the Diaspora are hegemonic cultural forces that serve as
vehicles for establishing a participatory political culture.

Furthermore, Barrow has to prioritize establishing legitimacy by fighting
corruption. A government that shows willingness to establish legitimacy should
not donate vehicles without accounting for where the donation comes from, and
will not award public contracts without putting everything to the public – how
much of this is true, depends on how good the public is informed about it. The
fact that the Diaspora has been given a hefty shove by the new pragmatists in the
new government, by not having the president speak to the nation or the Diaspora
through the Gambian Press, has led the Diaspora to feed on a diet of speculations,
lies, and educated guesses, some of which are manufactured by gigantic
propaganda media – Facebook and WhatsApp – that are aimed at debasing
politics, threatening individual freedom and liberty, and creating false illusions
that will numb the political instincts of both the Diaspora and Gambians at home.

 
Against all odds, including the considerable internal scramble for power which
greeted the government in its first hundred days in office, there is optimism that
Barrow will do well if his administration comes clean in its dealings; tames the
internal political jockeying; and establishes communication channels with the
Diaspora and the Press at home. If these approaches failed, the Diaspora would
emerge as a binary political force, juxtaposed with the Barrow administration,
reduced to spectators with the political maturity of lumpenproletariat, filled with
fury and jeremiads of lamentations over the new administration; then: Welcome
to Gambianimal Farm 102. (See Gambianimal Farm 101:

http://www.maafanta.com/amatjenggambianimalfarmpower).

Amat Jeng is a naturalized Swedish citizen who studies International
Relations and Linguistics at the Dalarna University, Sweden and now
studies at Oxford as an Erasmus fellow. Email: [email protected]

The National Assembly must enact a Human Rights Victims Reparations and Recognition Act, and create an independent Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board to administer a compensation fund for the human rights victims of former President Yahya Jammeh. This fundamental legislative policy shall be intrinsic in our laws, such as a mandate of the Presidential Commission on Good Governance and Human Rights to go after the ill-gotten wealth of Yahya Jammeh, and the National Assembly to enact an Act providing for the reparation and recognition of victims of human rights violations during Yahya Jammeh’s regime.

The sacrifices of the great stalwarts of democracy, who fought in the most adverse circumstances against Yahya Jammeh, traitor to the Constitution and to the republic, must be recognized and cherished by all generations of freedom-loving Gambians. The government of Adama Barrow shall acknowledge its moral and legal obligation to recognize and compensate all victims and families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations, and damages they suffered under Jammeh’s dictatorship.

What is the price tag for all those lost years and agonizing suffering? And tell me, what is a fair price for the life of a mother, father, spouse, daughter, son, friend, cousin, or loved one? The biggest atrocity of Jammeh’s rule was the separation of wives from husbands, mothers from children, and the tearing apart of societies by killing and exiling worthy sons and daughters. What is the price of the empty chair that waits and waits for the beloved to once again sit at the table?

What is fair compensation for a broken nation? What is reasonable compensation for generational poverty and wholesale corruption in government, the twin legacies of this despicable dictator? What is sufficient compensation for families torn apart, this heartbreaking diaspora to which we see no end? But really, how can we compensate for interrupted lives? For water torture, electrocution of testicles and genitals, rape, dismemberment, solitary confinement, and years of imprisonment with no charges filed against you? For torturing you to within an inch of your life?

The state should have a policy to recognize the heroism and sacrifice of all Gambians who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of Yahya Jammeh, covering the period from July 22, 1994 to January 19, 2017, and restore the victims’ honor and dignity. The State shall acknowledge its moral and legal obligation to recognize and provide reparation to all victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations, and damages they suffered under Yahya Jammeh’s brutal rule.

There is no price tag, no words to describe the misery, anguish, and suffering of the thousands of Gambians who suffered from physical torture, incarceration, homelessness, economic deprivation, and loss of life. Yahya Jammeh’s rule is synonymous with a divided and plundered nation, in which people became deaf, blind, and mute, with low aspirations in life, in comparison with a segment of Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC) supporters and their cohorts, who flourished and lived flamboyantly.

The assertions that Yahya Jammeh plundered the nation and violated the most basic rights of its citizens are not mere claims made on social media or over dinner conversations. They are, under the law of evidence, legislative facts that courts of law must accept as true, regardless of politics or even one’s preferred version of history. What this means is that given the status of our laws, with respect to Yahya Jammeh there can be no debate that he plundered the nation and violated human rights on a scale that required remedial action from the state.

There is nothing inspirational or worthy of imitation with respect to the dictatorship of Yahya Jammeh, which can best be described as one of the darkest periods in Gambian history.

The National Assembly should enact the Presidential Commission on Good Governance and Human Rights and set up an administrative and judicial mechanism for recovering the money stolen by Yahya Jammeh and his cohorts. The fact that millions of dollars and other immovable assets have been discovered here and abroad proves the decades-long embezzlement. The Supreme Court should make a decision and recognize the thievery of Yahya Jammeh’s regime, characterizing it as a ‘well-entrenched plundering regime of twenty-two years.’

The National Assembly shall add to the Act providing for reparation and recognition of victims of human rights violations during the regime of Yahya Jammeh. The government, in recognition of the horrors of the dictatorship, should enact a policy of using public funds to pay for Jammeh’s use of state machinery to inflict violence on Gambian citizens. The Gambian people must complain about the human rights abuses with respect to Jammeh’s regime, and force the government to own up to the scale and intensity of the abuses inflicted during that period by offering reparations.

The Gambia is a Charter-State of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is, therefore, duty-bound to protect and uphold the basic rights of all its peoples. The Gambian government should value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights, pursuant to a declared policy and the constitution that prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means that vitiates free will and mandates the compensation and rehabilitation of victims of torture (or similar practices) and their families.

We owe new Gambia the valor and determination for the resumption of democracy and restore human rights and human dignity.

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

kicking off a two-day showcase of what some experts are calling the most ambitious development project ever attempted, President XI Jinping has layed out China’s ”Belt & Road Initiative” as a means of building a modern-day version of the ancient Silk Road and a new “golden age” of globalisation. The ambitious conceived project is transformational in every sense, global in scope and touching four continents being funded by China to the tune of some $900 Billion dollars. In his signature foreign policy initiative since coming to power, President Xi took to the stage at a grand Hall in the capital, Beijing, amidst much fanfare. In a 45-minutes speech adressing the world, the Chinese leader vowed to throw his weight behind a global construction spree stretching all the way from Asia, across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, all the way to the Americas.

The “Road & Belt Initiative” is an extraordinary concept, bold in borh design and scope. If successful, the project has the potential to be a game-changer connecting Asia, Europe and Africa, and Latin America even closer with modern railroads, highways, seaports, trade & technology hubs all interlinked amidst cascading electricity ‘telepoles’ & fast Internet broadband. The Communist Leader described the $900 Billion dollars inspiring initiative as the “project of the century”, and as an inclusive attempt to kickstart a new era of globalisation. Experts agree that never had any such ambitious project ever been attempted since the end of World War Two, and the ”Bretton Woods” world order still enduring.

The developing world, especially those of us in Africa, view China as a successful economic model and a reliable ally in the fight against poverty. And proponents are salivating over its potentials with Ethiopia’s Prime Minister describing the project as ”the greatest economic collaboration of the 21st century”. A modern seaport is in the works in Kenya, and several African countries stand to benefit huge waves of investments. A forty-six billon dollar road infrastructure from China through South-East Asia into Pakistan is in progress. However, there is concern in some quarters with India cautioning China against pursuing projects that would create an “unsustainable debt burden” for communities. In the West though critics have tried to dress the project as China’s attempt to assert a ‘new-hegemony’ or to colonise. Amidst such speculation the communist leadership has hit back in a statement stating categorically that ”China harbours no intention to control or threaten any other nation”, and that the ”Belt and Road Initiative” is a win-win for the world. President Xi further told the summit that the “Belt & Road” will bring a new ‘golden age’ for the world; a new sort of closeness fast-tracking globalisation (2.0).

I have come to a change of heart as far as my reservations towards Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBOS) is concerned. In its recent findings ”Integrated Household survey” (2017), the institute highlighted disturbing trends in poverty within Gambian society. A factual analytical research, which would never have seen the light of day had Jammeh been in power. However, such research must not stop there: next, tackle and highlight the state of the nations finances, then the failures in Agriculture despite 47 years of nationhood throwing in billions of “dalasis” to waste. What a tragedy yet an avoidable one. The failures in our education sector is plain to see. In fact all facets of the development spectrum ought to be evaluated and analysed to help better inform government on policy decisions.

As an analyst concerned with Foreign Policy, the question concerning most is what The Gambia and Africa stands to gain from the “Belt & Road”, and at what cost. As of 2017, trade between China and Africa amounts to nearly 200 billion dollars annually. And as with the United States and Europe, the terms of trade is largely imbalanced disadvantaging Africa. The question continental leaders should ask themselves is when has Africa ever come up against the major global players and won? Not in trade deals, and certainly NEVER. For over 50 years these mis-leaders have failed Africa, yet not in any mood to cede power. Progress, forward-thinking, designed in Pan-Africanism is the way out of this misery. Africans should learn to see one another as a people of great injustice, with experiences, seeking a common destiny – of at least some respectability. And that hope resides with the young, the future leadership making waves across the continent. In The Gambia, we are receptive of China’s partnership and goodwill towards the country. But recent environmental banditry on our fishing shores are unacceptable and must be compensated. I expect the government to come hard on the perpetrators in view of the country’s tourism industry & for future generations. Adressing the delegates President Xi Jinping emphatically asserted that “nations prosper from exchanges of ideas”. But what he fails to mention however was, as with the United States or Europe, China is following its core national interest – I dare remind the Gambian leadership to put the nation above all else in your dealings with the world.

Gibril Saine, LONDON

The three typical commodities on high demand in Gambia during ramadan are – bag of rice, bag of corn and a bag of sugar. These, being all carbohydrates are digested by our bodies to their simplest form – glucose, which is a simple sugar that our body takes in to generate energy. Thus, a typical household consumes three bags of sugar in a month. This will mainly provide energy, which is good to keep us going and endure daily challenges. However, the excess sugar is stored as glycogen or fat, and will not be healthy especially for those less proactive.

 
Despite the level of poverty, a well balanced diet will serve your body well not just during ramadan but in every other month.

 
Constituents of a balanced diets and their range of affordability are:

 
Protein:

 
Meat, fish, milk, bean, chicken, eggs, cheese, Yogurt, nuts & seeds, etc. These even in low quantities are required for the good functioning of the body. They provide us with amino acids that are building blocks of critical proteins in our bodies. Out of the 20 amino acids 8 are classed essential because our bodies cannot synthesize them and has to be in the dite. An example of essential amino acid is tryptophan, which has to be in the diet and serve as a precursor for the synthesis of neurotransmitter serotonin and hormone melatonin. Protein in diet keep you healthy and prevents premature death.

 
Fat:

 
Vegetable oil etc, although those thick once sold in Gambia are not good. Oil that is liquid at room temperature is good. Fat is a good source of energy and provides twice amount of energy in a carbohydrate of the same quantity. While these energy can be derived from other sources, fat provides some lipids that our bodies cannot make and they help in the absorption of minerals and vitamins. Saturated fats such as butter, fat from meat etc increases cholesterol levels that put you at risk of stroke and myocardial infarction.

 
Carbohydrate:

 
Rice, corn, cereals, and the like: Good source of glucose for energy, excess of it is stored as glycogen or fat. The latter is harder to get rid of, and its excess is associated with health complications such as diabetes, hypertension and even some cancers.

 
Vitamins, minerals and roughages:

 
These are derived from fruits, vegetable and other leafy plant materials. They serve as adjuvants and enhances cellular process eg vitamins that serve as co-factors to enzymes and facilitate binding and speeding up of chemical reactions, without which processes will happen too slow that life cannot proceed. Roughages are good for movement of ingested food within the gut.
It is crucial to include these in your daily diet and also take in enough fluids (water) to keep yourself hydrated.

Ramadan Mubarak.

Yunus Hydara

As Gambians, we can disagree on a number of things about the PPP and the Jawara Regime or APRC and the Yaya Jammeh Regime or about the new regime of Adama Barrow. But what we cannot disagree with is that between 22 July 1994 to 19 January 2017, under the reign of Yaya Jammeh and AFPRC/APRC, not only a large number of Gambians were raped, tortured, exiled and killed by the State machinery, but also such atrocities were unprecedented even under colonial rule. The scale and gravity of abuse of the rights and dignity of Gambians and the level of corruption and plunder of public wealth including the loss of private and communal landed properties, businesses and livestock to Yaya Jammeh shall remain a scar on the conscience and the soul of the nation for a long time to come, if not forever.

The hard truth though is that one single citizen, Yaya Jammeh was only able to preside over the most brutal epoch of our history simply because Gambians allowed it in our totality. As citizens, we were the foot soldiers that gave him power, carried out his orders and even sought to impress him when he did not ask. Many acted on their own by reporting on each other leading to the dismissal, arrest, detention, torture and killing of fellow citizens. We disregarded the tenets of our religions, the norms of our culture, the rules of our constitution and our bonds of family and good neighbourliness to hunt each other down like preys and predators. Indeed this was a period of self-inflicted harm and misery.

Yet it is also true that many resisted. In that resistance many were maimed and many others lost their jobs and money and other resources. Some were ostracized and forced to live in fear in their homes, ridiculed and abandoned by family, colleagues and friends. Many were forced to flee their motherland for years upon years during which they lost loved ones in their absence. Some even died abroad but because of their resistance were denied burial in their homeland.

Today is the first day of Ramadan. Today many will seek forgiveness and forgive each other. But are we truly seeking genuine forgiveness and forgiving genuinely? I think we need to go beyond and above the usual Ramadan forgiveness exchanges and become genuine Muslims who own up to our individual acts of omission and commission in this national affliction we endured for 22 years. Let us begin the healing of the nation by being honest and truthful and own up to our acts of commission and omission in this period of tyranny in our homeland. Let us start building the New Gambia.

I, Madi Jobarteh hereby confess that I have not done enough to resist the Tyranny of Yaya Jammeh and APRC and take full responsibility for this national affliction. I could have spent more effort, give more time and more resources to further intensify the fight against dictatorship to end it much earlier. The fact that the dictatorship lasted for 22 years, which is a generation clearly indicts me for this carnage.

I confess that I never took any strategic position of power and decision making under APRC Regime. I never reported any citizen or took any decision or action that caused the illegal dismissal or arbitrary arrest, detention, torture or killing of any citizen. I never participated in any activity in anyway that provided support to APRC and Yaya Jammeh. I never went to Kanilai or any so-called farms of Yaya Jammeh to work. I never prayed in the so-called State House Mosque. I never put on Yaya Jammeh and APRC T-shirts or ashobi. I never went to grace any July 22 celebration in Kanilai, Banjul or to the beach. I never respected or condoned in anyway Yaya Jammeh or the APRC.

I never took part in any activity in anyway that interfered with or compromised the people’s resistance to APRC and Yaya Jammeh. I never used my position and status in the Gambian society, publicly and privately to benefit from the APRC Dictatorship. I worked for both GRTS and GRA at separate times, but in all cases I deliberately and willingly resigned in protest of the way and manner the Gambia was misruled by Yaya Jammeh. I confess that I had given initial welcome to the military coup and the junta up to 11 November 1994 when it became clear to me that this is a regime of predators. Since then I have never relented in my fight against the regime to the best of my ability.

But I confess that by my limited resistance I have contributed to a crime of omission for the entrenchment of the APRC Dictatorship for a whole generation. I therefore seek the forgiveness of all Gambians more so the victims, dead or alive for my limited role in fighting AFPRC/APRC Dictatorship in order to end it much earlier with less cost. I could have done much more!

I hereby challenge you, as an adult Gambian Muslim on the occasion of Ramadan to also honestly confess of what you did or did not do in the past 22 years in either maintaining or resisting the dictatorship in our country.

We hope when Lent comes, our Christian citizens will also confess to their crime of commission and omission or the lack of it as the case may be.

Ramadan Kareem!

God Bless the Gambia

Madi Jobarteh

By: Tahir Ahmad Touray

On Thursday 25 May 2017, an article by one BB Sanneh captioned Fundamental beliefs of the Ahmadiyya or Qadianiyyah was published on the Fatu Network. I deem it necessary to write a rebuttal to the blatant fabrications of the self-acclaimed scholar of Ahmadiyya Muslim beliefs.

In the essay, the writer counts the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at outside the pale of Islam by attributing some beliefs to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at and also alluding to some fatawa of kufr (declarations of disbelief) against the Jama’at. As I read the essay, the question that came to mind was whether the writer was making these statements out of his audacity to fabricate falsehood or his ignorance of the Ahmadiyya Muslim literature and beliefs. Or was it out of audacious ignorance?

As an Ahmadi Muslim, I want to share with whoever may be reading this piece the Ahmadiyya Muslim beliefs regarding some of the allegations made by the writer. In part I of this rebuttal, I will address his statements concerning the Ahmadiyya Muslim beliefs about Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’aalaa, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Holy Qur’an. First of all, I would remind the writer that the Holy Qur’an which he claims to follow and defend has explicitly stated that one should not utter anything of which one has no clear knowledge. In fact fabrication of lies is akin to Shirk (association of partners with Allah). The Holy Quran has even stated that one’s enmity against a people should not make you behave unjustly towards them. The writer has clearly violated these beautiful teachings of the Holy Quran by audaciously fabricating or ignorantly making statements about the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. In fact, the essay was irresponsible and outrageous. The writer did not put forward any arguments or references from Ahmadiyya Muslim literature with regards to the allegations. It totally lacks intellectual honesty and credibility. The writer knows deep down himself that he has never read these statements in any Ahmadiyya literature. We know the source of your falsehoods; they are some literature written by bigots and fabricators like himself. He must however note that the best and the most source of information about a thing or person is the thing itself or the person himself. I shall now prove how blatant the fabrications are.

AHMADIYYA BELIEF ABOUT ALLAH

According to the writer, “As for their beliefs about Allah, they believe that He fasts, prays, sleeps, wakes up, writes, makes mistakes and has intercourse—exalted be Allah far above all that they say. From the above, even the most basic of Muslims would found these beliefs repugnant and unacceptable to Islam…” What an irresponsible and immoral statement. Na’uudhu billah, I seek refuge with Allah Almighty from the immoral and illicit thinking of BB Sanneh. Blasphemy is what you consider the defence of Islam? Is this how you carry out your responsibility of preaching the message of Islam? Your enmity and hatred for Ahmadiyyat has led you to blaspheme even Allah. If this is the Islam you are calling me to, I would rather remain the non-Muslim you have considered Ahmadi Muslims to be because I shall never make this obnoxious statement about Allah in the guise of calling it as someone else’s belief. When a man has become Asfala saafileen (the lowest of the low) because of moral and spiritual decadence, he is capable of doing and saying anything. You are very right that “…even the most basic of Muslims would found these beliefs repugnant and unacceptable to Islam…” It appears that you are not even a “most basic of Muslims”, that is why you have made this “repugnant and unacceptable” statement.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at believes that there is none worthy of worship except Allah. He is One and has no partner. He is Unique in His Being and Attributes; there is none like unto Him. He is the Hidden and the Manifest. He neither slumbers nor sleeps. He is Self-Sufficient and Independent. He begets not nor is He begotten.

The Promised Messiah and Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at (as) writes:

“Relevant to a proper observance of my teaching it is essential that one should firmly believe that there is an All-Powerful, All-Sustaining Supreme Being, the Creator of everything, Changeless, Everlasting and Eternal. He does not beget, nor was He begotten. He is Holy, so that there is no need or occasion for Him to go on the Cross, or suffer in any way, or be subject to death. Belief in this God with these powers, is the foremost essential condition of our Jama’at” (Our Teaching, p 1-2)

In a poem, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) writes about Allah Almighty:

He is One and has no partner, the Living, the Almighty

The Eternal, the Everlasting, the Unique, the All-Seeing.

The Maker of the Universe, the Holy, the Eternal

The Creator, the Provider, the Gracious, the Merciful.

The Mentor, the Teacher Who leads to the path of faith

The Guide, the Revealer of the true knowledge.

The Possessor of all lofty attributes in their perfection

Far above the need for a spouse and children

(Baraheeni Ahmadiyya (English Translation), Part One, p. 18)

This is the bedrock of our belief in Allah Almighty. There is nowhere in the Ahmadiyya Muslim literature where you can find your allegation. Let BB Sanneh provide his proof from the literature if indeed he is truthful. Lying is very hateful in the sight of Allah Almighty.

THE AHMADIYYA BOOK, A BOOK DIFFERENT FROM THE QUR’AN?

The writer further stated, “They [Ahmadis] say there is no Qur’an other than what the Promised Messiah (Ghulam Ahmad) brought…. They also believe their book was revealed. Its name is al kitaab al-Mubeen and it is different from the Holy Qur’an.” According to this statement there is a parallel book to the Qur’an in existence and that is the book of the Promised Messiah and that the Ahmadi Muslims consider it the only true book. Is the existence of a parallel book to the Qur’an, revealed to Muhammad Mustafa (saw) more than 1400 years ago, possible? As a believer in every word, letter and dot of the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad (saw), I believe that it is disrespectful to entertain such thinking about the Holy Qur’an.

Allah says in the Holy Qur’an

“And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a Chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful. But if you do it not—and never shall you do it, then guard against the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers” (Surah Al-Baqarah: Verses 24-25).

In these two verses, Allah says that whatever assistance the disbelievers of the Holy Qur’an may muster, they cannot produce even a single chapter like the Holy Qur’an. No one has that ability, according to Allah Almighty, because He has taken upon Himself to protect the Holy Qur’an from such (Surah Al-Hijr: Verse 10). The writer is telling us that despite this promise of Allah Almighty, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) was able to produce a book and over two hundred million Ahmadi Muslims worldwide are following that book. Who is showing insolence and dishonor to Allah and degrading the Holy Qur’an? In fact it is the writer himself who is assigning mistakes and forgetfulness to Allah. Allah never says one thing and another happens in the contrary. But he is telling us that that is possible because according to him Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) was able to produce a book like the Qur’an despite Allah’s promise that such can never happen. Was he not aware of this verse when he was making this serious allegation about the Holy Qur’an? Does he disbelieve this verse of the Holy Qur’an? Or was he blinded by his enmity that he could not discern the implications of this blatant fabrication? It is indeed very difficult to connect the dots in a fabrication of falsehoods.

The book that Ahmadi Muslims believe and the reading of which reverberate in every Ahmadi Muslim household is the Holy Qur’an that was revealed to the Best of Prophets, Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon). It has 114 Surahs starting with Surah Fatiha and ending with Surah an-Naas. Its first verses revealed are the first verses of “iqra”. It was revealed to the Seal of Prophets, Muhammad the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) piecemeal in twenty-three years. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at writes that those who do honour to the Holy Qur’an revealed to Muhammad Mustafa (saw) shall be honoured in heaven. He said that it is the only Book for mankind until the Day of Resurrection. Describing the beauty of the Qur’an revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), the Book that we believe and follow, he said that it is more beautiful than a hundred thousand Yusufs. Imagine the beauty of Prophet Yusuf (as)!

The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at writes: “I call Allah to witness that the Holy Qur’an is a rare pearl. Its outside is light [Nuur] and its inside is light and its above is light and its below is light and there is light in every word of it … And Allah is my Witness that if there had been no Qur’an I would have found no delight in life. I find that its beauty exceeds that of a hundred thousand Yusufs … He who drinks from it, comes to life; indeed, he brings others to life” (A’ina-e-Kamaalaat-e-Islam, Ruhaani Khazaa’in, Vol. 5, pp. 545-546)

He also writes: “God Almighty, Who knows the secret of the hearts, is Witness that if anyone is able to point out a defect in the Holy Qur’an to the extent of a thousandth part of a particle, or is able to point out an excellence in his own book, which is opposed to the teaching of the Qur’an and excels it, we would be prepared to submit ourselves to the penalty of death” (Braaheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Ruhaani Khazaa’in, Vol. 1 p. 298, sub footnote 2).

No error or defect can ever be found in the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). No one can compose any book that can challenge the lofty status of the Holy Qur’an. BB Sanneh has no regard for the Holy Qur’an. If he did, he would not have made these fabrications. Allah’s curse be on the liars.

He (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as)) further writes: “Of all the current revealed Books on earth, the Holy Qur’an is the only Book which is conclusively proven to be the Word of God. Its teachings for salvation are based entirely on truth and are in accordance with human nature. Its doctrines are so perfect and firm that strong proofs bear witness to their truth. Its commandments are based upon truth” (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya, Ruhaani Khazaa’in, Vol. 1 pp. 81-83)

This is the Ahmadiyya belief about the Holy Qur’an. This is just a drop from the ocean of references about the excellence of the Holy Qur’an in the writings of the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at. Let the writer exercise the minimum standards of honesty despite his hatred for Ahmadiyyat. One does not necessarily need religion to be honest; honesty is a universal moral principle. But the highest standards of honesty is required of a Muslim.

A CHALLENGE TO THE WRITER

I hereby challenge BB Sanneh to kindly show the complete text of the book the “Promised Messiah (Ghulam Ahmad) brought” which “is different from the Holy Qur’an” revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) more than 1400 years ago. I put forward a reward of twenty five thousand dalasis (D25, 000.00) if he produce this book and prove its authorship, beyond any reasonable doubt, by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at. Let him kindly exhibit this book. The onus of proof lies on the claimant. This unsubstantiated claim has been made for decades; let us now see the proof. I give you one month, starting from the date of the publication of this article, to prove your claim, if indeed you are truthful. Remember that Allah’s curse is always on the liars.

The amount is very meager but no amount should in fact be meager for BB Sanneh as far as fulfilling his “responsibility” is concerned. In fact, even without a financial reward he should fulfill this responsibility.

AHMADIYYA BELIEF ABOUT THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE AND BLESSINGS OF ALLAH BE UPON HIM)

The writer also alleges that Ahmadi Muslims believe that there is “… no prophet except under the leadership of Ghulam Ahmad…” Nothing could be further from the truth. How was he able to muster the guts and the audacity to fabricate this statement? I challenge him once again to provide references from the Ahmadiyya Muslim literature to authenticate this statement. Let him fear Allah. Making false statements and bearing witness to them are among the most heinous sins. A person shall never attain righteousness without possessing the quality of truthfulness. Quit falsehood and you shall have the ability to do every righteous act. BB Sanneh has definitely manifested that he is not even a “most basic of Muslims” because he has shamelessly and fearlessly concocted statements about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at.

Now, I will present some quotations from the Ahmadiyya literature (the writings of the founder, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as)) to show how “truthful” BB Sanneh is.

Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) writes in a poem in the Persian language:

I know not of anyone in both the world; who has a station equal to Muhammad [saw].

God is utterly displeased with the person; who bears a grudge against Muhammad [saw].

If you desire that God should praise you; become a true admirer of Muhammad [saw].

Cut me to pieces or burn me to death; I will not turn away from the court of Muhammad [saw].

I know not the name of any other teacher; I have studied at the school of Muhammad [saw].

You have illumined my heart and soul with love; my life is an offering to you, O Muhammad [saw]!

(Announcement February 20, 1893, Majmuu’a Istihaaraat, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

The above is the translation of an excerpt from a poem by the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at.

In an Arabic poem, he writes:

He [Muhammad] surpasses all creation in his perfection and beauty; in his glory and his pleasant nature

No doubt, Muhammad [saw] is the best of creation; he is the elect of the elect and chief of chiefs.

I call Allah to witness that Muhammad [saw] is His vicegerent; through him [Muhammad] alone access is possible to the Divine court.

O my Lord, shower Your blessings upon the Holy Prophet [Muhammad]; ever and always, here and in the hereafter.

(A’ina-e-Kamaalaat-e-Islam, Ruhaani Khazaa’in, Vol. 5, pp. 590-594)

Once again, I call upon BB Sanneh to kindly provide the reference from the Ahmadiyya Muslim literature to prove the above allegation. Lying is highly immoral.

“O ye who wish to reach the castle of salvation,

Only righteousness will carry you there.

Be with the truth and let truthfulness abide your heart,

Be not attracted to falsehood like the ill-natured”

DECLARATIONS OF DISBELIEF AGAINST AHMADIYYAT

The writer states that in April 1974, the World Muslim League in a conference held in Makkah declared the Ahmadi Muslims as kaafir. The same declaration, according to him was made by the Islamic Fiqh Council of Cape Town, South Africa. Ahmadi Muslims absolutely believe in the declarations of the Holy Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (saw). The writer is in essence telling us that the World Muslim League and the Islamic Fiqh Council of Cape Town are superior to Muhammad the Seal of Prophets (saw) and that their declarations overrule the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) declaration. Na’uudhu Billahi. I said this because the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “Whoever prays the way we do, and faces our Qiblah in Prayer, and eats our slaughtered animals, then such a one is a Muslim concerning whom there is a covenant of Allah and His Messenger. So you must not attempt to hoodwink Allah in His Covenant.” (Sahih Bukhari, Kitabus Salaat, Baab Fadli Istiqbaali Qibla). BB SANNEH IS ATTEMPTING TO HOODWINK ALLAH IN HIS COVENANT. O Allah, protect the Gambia from the consequences of such mischief.

BB Sanneh has the audacity to reject the Prophet’s statement and accept the statement of a worldly council and is bold enough to say that Ahmadi Muslims are the ones rejecting Prophetic statements. So this is your Islam? Rejecting the statement of the Holy Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (saw) for a statement of a worldly council is what you consider Islam? The members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at will never accept anything that goes contrary to the noble teachings and practices of the Holy Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (saw).

BB Sanneh is so proud to inform people about these declarations against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at but I am surprised that he did not tell the public with a reference that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) has ever done that and that he has given authority to a Council or a League to decide someone’s faith. In fact he cannot find anywhere in any authentic source that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) called someone a Kaafir while the person testifies to the pillars of Islam. I want him to kindly help me with such authentic reference. Let him be a good Muslim and make references to the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw). Further to this article, Insha Allah, shall be some articles examining more of the allegations.

I challenge BB Sanneh to provide the references for your statements that you attribute to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at. And next time please write your full name.

I will conclude my essay with an admonition in the form of a poem from the poems of the Promised Messiah (as). May this admonition be useful to Mr. Sanneh

“[Woe to you] who has turned your back on the Faith,

Nothing but enmity and malice is the gain of your life.

You are slave to your enmity and mischief,

And do not listen to reason and fairness.

You are proud of your arrogance and ostentation,

And transgress the bounds of faith.

You consider it worship to utter heresies,

And treat misconduct as virtue.”

May Allah protect the Gambia, our homeland from every form of fitna.

NB: If there are any errors in this article, it would be the full responsibility of the author; not the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at.