By Madi Jobarteh

Tribalism is an act and a perception in which life is subjectively interpreted in terms of a particular tribe, for or against. A tribalist does not seek to objectively understand the ideas and issues that a person expresses, rather the tribalist looks only at the tribe of that person expressing him or herself. A tribalist does not engage in objective and critical analysis, rather the tribalist sees each and every issue from the point of his or her tribe. A tribalist does not recognize and understand the circumstances of the other person, rather the tribalist only sees his or her own tribe as the basis of every narrative or reality, rightly or wrongly regardless. Tribalism is disrespectful and myopic!

 
Tribalists are not the ordinary citizens one will find in our villages and towns; among market women and farmers or in our children. Rather you will only find tribalists among the adult, the elites and the politicians who are seeking power or holding onto a position. In order to maintain their unjust power and illegal access to resources or fame, they divert every issue into a tribalist narrative in a rather logical and rationalized manner that the ordinary folk does not easily detect. Tribalists are therefore corrupt, evil and dishonest elites and politicians. One can find tribalists in all of our political parties and the government.
Since the advent of the Coalition and the inauguration of the new government on January 19, but more especially in the past weeks and days, we have seen the fast emergence of tribalists and tribal politics from all the political parties using various social media forums to channel their diabolical ideas therefore polluting the minds of the innocent and unsuspecting masses of our people. We need to begin to expose these lazy, unthinking and dishonest surrogates, elites and politicians inside our political parties and the government. They use smart ways and sugarcoated expressions to cover up their tribal politics. But tribalism is illogical, stupid and disrespectful.

 
For example, any APRC person who spews tribalism such as the anti-Mandinka diatribe by Yaya Jammeh must realize that one is utterly not using one’s brain. This is because at the very beginning of the AFPRC, Yaya Jammeh did not connive with fellow Jola officers to stage the coup rather he joined Mandinka officers who made him their leader. Since 1994, the strongest pillars of the AFPRC and APRC Tyranny are first and foremost Mandinka folks. When Yaya Jammeh wanted to marry for the first time, he did not marry anyone but a Mandinka woman. Hence if Yaya Jammeh and any of his party members spew tribalism, it is clear that such a person is not only stupid but also dishonest because the reality shows that tribalism has not been the basis of the AFPRC and APRC. The very life story of Yaya Jammeh is not tribalist.

 
Second. If any member of the UDP spews tribalism, once again the reality shows a different fact. This is because the foundation of Ousainou Darboe’s family, i.e. both his wives are not Mandinka hence it would be silly for anyone to project Ousainou Darboe as a pro-Mandinka and anti-any-tribe politician. If a UDP member therefore perpetuates tribalism then you do not respect Ousainou, hence injure his legacy and political future. If one looks at the leadership of the UDP, it comprises of non-Mandinka folks hence no one in his or her right mind could therefore describe UDP as either pro-or-anti-Mandinka. If you do then you insult Aji Yam Secka or the late Shyngle Nyassi because it means we are saying that these people hate themselves for belonging to an anti-Wolof or anti-Jola group.

 
If anyone looks at PDOIS one will realize that the leadership of that party since inception has been multi-tribal and solidly unified. Halifa, Sidia and Sam Sarr do not belong to one tribe. Hence it would be dishonest to therefore propagate the idea that Halifa is anti-Mandinka or Sidia is anti-Wolof, not to even mention Sam Sarr. Unless if we think one of them or all of them are self-hating people. That is a huge insult to Halifa and Sidia and Sam.

 
Similarly when you go to GPDP or NRP, GDC and indeed GMC or with Dr. Isatou Touray, one will see in their camps and at personal levels that their lives are intertwined with all the tribes of the Gambia. For example Henry Gomez’s wife is a proud Mandinka woman. Isatou Touray’s closest associates are from various tribes. Hence on what basis therefore could one inject tribalism in our politics and claim that it is true and sensible?

 
But why is this tribal politics gaining momentum? Is it because we are still locked in the calculated narrative of Yaya Jammeh who was only interested in keeping power hence fomented this faulty idea that the Mandinka do not like him? Or is it that we just now have Yaya Jammeh-type politicians and elites who are now hell bent on maintaining their various positions within their parties and the government illegitimately hence their only lifeline is tribalism? Are these people telling us that they cannot engage in issues objectively and analytically to agree or disagree without having to resort to a tribal analysis, name calling or violence?

 
Gambians must wake up and refuse to be insulted by these empty-headed elites and immoral politicians who are so lazy and dishonest that they can only find relevance by vomiting our stupid narratives about tribe in every aspect of our lives. I for one feel very insulted when I hear tribal narratives. Which Gambian citizen is entirely made of only one tribe? I, Madi Jobarteh have deep, noble and proud connections to each and every tribe in the Gambia. Mandinka, Fula, Wolof, Sarahuleh, Jola, Aku, Serer, Manjago, Karoninka, and the rest. If I hate any tribe, then I hate my own children, aunts, brothers, uncles, sisters, fathers, mothers and very decent friends and colleagues. Hence why would we drop so low into this tribal politics of stupidity?

 
Let the political leaders stop encouraging tribalism among their surrogates and supporters but to speak out openly and boldly to condemn it. Ousainou Darboe. Halifa Sallah. Sidia Jatta. Hamat Bah. Isatou Touray. Mai Ahmad Fatty. Fatoumatta Tambajang. Mama Kandeh. Henry Gomez. OJ. You are the ones allowing this tribalism to carry on. Let us hold these leaders to account to stand up and tell their supporters to stop this stupid tribalism. Let them not just say it only for them to foment it themselves privately with their surrogates and supporters. The truth is our leaders are themselves perpetuating tribalism privately in closed doors and this is why these stupid surrogates are running with it like wild fire. Let us tell our leaders to dismiss and silence their members who engage in tribal politics without delay. They know who are the tribalists in their parties because they listen and read them in social media.

 
For 22 years we did not have the space to freely exchange ideas. Now that we can, we must not therefore look at each and every idea from the point of the tribe of the person expressing the idea. We can disagree with a message but let that disagreement be on the merits of the issue and not on the tribe of the messenger. The fact remains that no one tribe can claim ownership of this country. No party can take power on the basis of only for or against any tribe. Tribalism cannot give anyone success. If it does then it is not because of tribalism, rather it is because of one’s dishonesty and unpatriotism.

 
Let us tell party surrogates and supporters to stop castigating people with whom they disagree. Everyone has a right to express his or her opinion and to take any political position they deem fit. No one should be insulted or demonized just because that person does not buy your political idea or position. Therefore let the surrogates stop insulting fellow citizens and party leaders in particular just because they hold a different position. Stand up and say no to insults against Adama Barrow, Ousainou Darboe, Halifa Sallah, Sidia Jatta, Mama Kandeh, Henry Gomez, Mai Ahmad Fatty, Hamat Bah, Isatou Touray, Fatoumatta Tambajang or OJ. Such an attitude is backward, undemocratic and indecent.

Down with Tribalism, Bigotry and Politics of Insults and Deception.

God Bless The Gambia

By Madi Jobarteh – First of all it is recognized that there is total agreement that the members of the Coalition should remain under the Coalition to contest the forthcoming National Assembly elections. The question is what approach is the better option to take. I have listened to the two respective narratives of both Halifa Sallah and Ousainou Darboe. My take is that Ousainou’s narrative sells better. Here are my reasons.
Fielding independents would require those candidates to resign from their parties in order to contest. What happens when that candidate loses his or her election? It would mean he or she would have to re-apply to join the party again. Even if one wins the election, at the end of one’s tenure one would have to re-apply to rejoin one’s party since you have resigned. This is an inconvenience that is not necessary and costly.

Secondly, a group of independents would be difficult to manage if there is a crisis because all of them are equal under the Coalition. One would have to appeal to them individually and collectively to get comprises and agreements. But if they are in the Assembly under their party tickets, one could directly engage the parties to seek a common position. Therefore this is a one-stop shop arrangement that is cheaper than going round multiple shops to get one single item. This is also risky because you may not get what you want. Thus Independents do not necessarily imply unity.

Thirdly, with the Independents, it means such National Assembly members would be limited in the way they can interact with their parties because they resigned from their parties. The idea of Independents provides a clear sense of independence indeed such that even though they are under the auspices of the Coalition, yet the Coalition is not a single party. Hence in the event of disagreements or misunderstandings, these independents have a choice to either listen to their original parties or to stick to their individual positions or none of the above hence the inability of the Coalition leadership to manage. But if they were elected as party representatives, discussions become easier as it would be parties that would now be engaged first and agree so that their representatives carry out the decisions.

We must bear in mind that the Coalition is a coalition of parties and not a coalition of individuals. Because the presidency is a single constituency with a single candidate, it made sense that the presidential candidate resigned his party membership on whose ticket he won the primary to become the president of the Republic. It is a different matter when it comes to the National Assembly. This is because the National Assembly comprises 53 multiple constituencies for 53 persons. There cannot be primaries for each constituency, which is why the parties must pursue a tactical alliance to ensure that no two parties field candidates for one constituency.

It must be realized that if the candidates are independent, potentially this gives the Coalition a challenge to manage them. As independents, they are not required to listen to their parties. If there were any authority for them to listen to that would be Chief Servant Barrow himself because they share the same mode of election and status as independents. Therefore when these candidates are on their party ticket, it rather strengthens the Coalition and enables them and their parties to exert greater control over the president and his government. This way they give better guidance to their Coalition Manifesto by holding the president to account on what the parties agreed in that document. With Independents, such accountability could be weakened especially when their parties disagree. Would Independents then tow the line of their party or stand in opposition to their original parties or side or oppose with Barrow?

On the flip side, one must also be realistic enough to realize that even if these candidates are elected as independents, they would continue to show allegiance to their parties hence it adds limited value to stand as independent. But standing under a party ticket offers better opportunities to better serve the objectives of the Coalition to the best of one’s ability. Standing as an independent can also potentially generate many unpleasant schemes and intrigues that can potentially injure the parliament and the Barrow Administration. Hence being independent can reduce the quality of accountability, efficiency and control of these candidates as opposed to standing under party tickets where parties would be required to exercise greater control and accountability especially for their Coalition Manifesto and MoU.

While the president is also an independent candidate, yet because he is a whole-country constituency and the single head of state, he is preoccupied with the entire national agenda for only one term. Thus reasonably Barrow has limited chances or gains to scheme about or get into intrigues about anything since it is his legacy to make or break within a one-term presidency. Thus one would expect his interest would be to secure a supportive and unified National Assembly and Coalition behind him. But National Assembly members on the other hand have no such term limit or need other than to secure their future election hence they potentially could abuse their parties with their Independent status just to secure their seats. In practice such scenario could either kill or fundamentally change the dynamics within their parties, negatively or positively.

Above all, in the event that the Coalition ends up splitting up, NAMs would only remain with their parties. Hence we should not make that divorce difficult only to force a relationship that is not working. It also means Barrow has to work hard to produce quality bills to take to the parliament because the NAMs must subject such bills to severe scrutiny. It must not be assumed that just because they are all under the auspices of the Coalition therefore any thrash that comes along will pass. But when the NAMs are party representatives, they can agree to disagree until there is quality piece of legislation. This enhances democracy and ensures good governance.

In view of the foregoing, these parties under the Coalition must begin to critically analyze the various constituencies so as to identify which parties will field which candidates in which constituencies. In this process, there should not be any quota system to determine how many candidates should each party provide. Rather the principle of electability is what must be considered. For that reason, consideration must also be given to new aspirants especially the young and women for constituencies in which none of the party candidates would be electable or where the new ones have greater electability.

I hope the members of the Coalition would fully grasp the dynamics and the urgency of what we face and take the right decision at the right time. In any case, the Coalition members must be determined and careful to ensure that they offer the best option to the people so that the masses can elect them as the majority in the house. They must bear in mind that the Gambia has decided not for a mere regime change but for a system change. This means democratically killing APRC by not allowing any of their candidates to be elected in the National Assembly. If the Coalition fails to do that then the souls of the departed freedom fighters and innocent citizens shall never forgive them. The best way to do that is through a party-led candidature under the auspices of the Coalition on a tactical alliance arrangement.

God Bless The Gambia.

Today, for the first time in 10 years the family of the late Daba Marenah is observing a vigil for their husband, father and grandfather following his murder by Yaya Jammeh in 2006. Family members, neighbors and friends of Marenah Kunda are reciting the Holy Quran in a solemn charity in London Corner for the departed soul who was murdered along with four other security officers following the 21 March 2006 alleged coup. The other four victims were Lt. Ebou Lowe, 2nd Lt. Alieu Ceesay, WO2 Alpha Bah and Staff Sergeant Manlafi Corr.

 
The regime of Yaya Jammeh falsely claimed that these five security officers escaped while being transported to Janjanbureh prisons from Mile 2. The government said the vehicle in which they were transported summersaulted leading to the escape. Yet the government never said whether anyone was injured or killed when the heavily armed vehicle collapsed. No pictures of the vehicle were shown and the government never announced the names of those who were guarding them. How could a man shackled on both hands and legs survive a high-speeding summersaulting vehicle?

 
Since this incident, none of these five officers ever contacted their families, and the government never launched any search for them. Consequently the families of the victims could never acknowledge that indeed their loved ones were dead for fear of their own lives during the dictatorship. Since Yaya Jammeh left the shores of the Gambia on January 21, still Daba Marenah never contacted his family. This therefore clearly indicates that Yahya Jammeh murdered the man and his fellow officers in a typical dictator style.

 
Today Daba’s wives and children and other relatives have the courage to formally acknowledge the death of their loved one. Can anything be more painful than this; to have your father murdered in your own country by your own government yet you are afraid to accept that fact? How can a human being be so callous that you can kill a husband and a father yet deny the wife and children of that father and husband to pay their respects to their loved one? This is what Yahya Jammeh and APRC meant to Gambians.

 
Yet in this Gambia, you still have fellow Gambians who support and pay allegiance to Yaya Jammeh and the APRC. How could any human being with conscience support such a person and party? How would one feel if Daba Marenah, Ebou Lowe, Alieu Ceesay, Alpha Bah and Manlafi Corr were your father, husband or brother? Can you still support the man and the organization that killed them? Yet Fabakary Tombong Jatta, Suku Singhateh, Abdoulie Bojang and Abdoulie Saine continue to associate themselves with such murderous political organization? How can any Gambian support APRC and Yaya Jammeh?

 
Just as the APRC killed Daba Marenah and Co so also did the AFPRC killed Koro Ceesay by burning him in his own car and claiming it was an accident. It was in the same way Deyda Hydara was shot dead at close range in the middle of town. This was the way Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein or Mobutu used to eliminate their citizens. It is the same way that Yaya Jammeh and AFPRC and APRC eliminated Gambians. Yet there are still Gambians who continue to stand with Yaya Jammeh and APRC.

 
When will the Government of Adama Barrow establish a Truth and Justice Commission to unearth the truth about these atrocities? Mothers are crying. Fathers are crying. Sons and daughters are crying. People have been crying for years because their loved ones have been brutally tortured, raped and killed by the AFPRC/APRC under Yaya Jammeh. These torturers. rapists and killers are roaming the streets of Banjul and Serre Kunda. When shall justice flow like a mighty river?

 
I wonder which Gambian citizen would vote for an APRC candidate in this coming National Assembly election. In fact which Gambian citizen would lack conscience so much as to stand for APRC. Voting or standing for APRC soaks your hands with blood. Voting or standing for APRC means you are an accomplice in the murder of Daba Marenah, Koro Ceesay, Deyda Hydara, Solo Sandeng and the numerous murdered victims. Voting or standing for APRC means your are mocking those Gambian women who were beaten and raped. Voting or standing for APRC means you are telling the mothers and fathers of the Massacred Children of April 10 and 11 that you do not care about their children. How could a fellow Gambian do that? Time will tell.

 
May the gentle souls rest in perfect peace. Amen.

God Bless The Gambia.

By Madi Jobarteh

The news that a businessman in Senegal donated two multimillion dalasi houses to Pres. Adama Barrow is a matter of serious concern that directly threatens our democracy. The fact that the businessman said his gift is to show appreciate for his business gains in the Gambia potentially compromises the integrity of the president. This is because such a gift has automatically become license for which the businessman could potentially obtain more contracts in the Gambia beyond and above what he deserves. For that matter, this gift must be rejected and returned to the owner. If the gift cannot be returned, then it must be transferred to state ownership.

 
In the first place, Section 222 which establishes the Code of Conduct for Public Officers in our Constitution states in subsection 11 that,

 
“A public officer shall not ask for or accept any property or benefits of any kind for himself or herself or any other person on account of anything done or omitted to be done by him or her in the course of his or her duties. The receipt of any gift or benefit from or on behalf of a commercial firm, business enterprise or a person having or negotiating a contract with the government shall be deemed to be in contravention of this paragraph unless the contrary is established.”

 
Hence as per this paragraph, this gift is from a businessman who had once done business in the Gambia. Such business transaction may not have been a government contract, but the fact that the man gave this gift to the head of state, could potentially compromise the state when this businessman comes back again in future to seek any contracts. Thus for the purpose of probity and constitutionality, Barrow should return the gift. Subsection 12 of this same Code of Conduct went further to state that,

“A public officer shall only accept gifts or benefits from relatives and friends to such extent and on such occasions as are customary. However, the receipt of any gift or donation by a public officer on any public or official occasions shall, if surrendered to the office, department or agency represented by the public officer, not be treated as a contravention of this Code.”

 
In line with this paragraph it is also clear that this gift is not customary and it is not from a friend or relative of the president. This is a businessman from a foreign country giving a gift worth millions of dalasi. Hence where Barrow fails to return it, he must therefore declare the gift to the National Assembly so that the gift is transferred to state ownership.

 
Gambians must tell this Senegalese businessman that he has injured our democracy and government with his gift. If indeed he wishes to show appreciation to the Gambia for his successful business transactions in the country, let us tell him to donate to hospitals, schools or build water taps or undertake other community projects in the Gambia. In that way he would serve the Gambian people directly than to hand over a set of two houses in a posh area to our president alone. Barrow does not own the Gambia. Gambians own the Gambia and anyone who wishes to pay gratitude to Gambians must do so to Gambians and not to one person even if he or she is the president. This businessman’s gift is outlandish and uncustomary and a threat.

 
The issue of gifts is a major concern in a democracy. While gifts are a feature of human relations, however when it comes to the business of public office, gifts have also become very powerful tools for corruption, patronage and abuse. This is why in many democracies public officers are prevented from giving or receiving gifts. For example in Canada the Federal Accountability Act states that all gifts over $200 must be declared to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. All presents worth more than $1000 must be forfeited to the Crown. In the US, gifts to the president are handed over to the National Archives.

 
These measures are in many democracies, which are similar to our own Code of Conduct and meant to ensure that public office is not used for self-aggrandizement. Secondly, they serve to ensure that citizens and other people do not buy favours from public officials or put them in compromising positions. This is also the reason why public officials are required to declare their assets under Section 223 of our Constitution so as to ensure that public property and public funds are not diverted into personal pockets of public officers. All of these are meant to ensure that we have a transparent and accountable governance system where public institutions and public officers are efficient and execute their functions without fear or favour. This is the path to combatting corruption.

 
I am therefore calling on fellow Gambians to impress on Pres. Adama Barrow to reject and return this gift and to inform the Senegalese businessman to take back his gift and help to protect Gambian democracy. We do not want to continue this same poisonous practice under Jawara and Jammeh into the New Gambia that we wish to build. Let us respect our Constitution and the rule of law and defend our democracy to ensure it is clean and clear.

God Bless The Gambia.