By Madi Jobarteh

Let’s get to the point. The people claiming that the Barrow Administration is tribalist are in actual fact not tribalist themselves but they are instead being dishonest for a totally different purpose. I will get to that objective soon. I have always argued that tribalism does not exist. What exists is corruption, which is being covered up by what looks like tribalism or nepotism. For example Yaya Jammeh was not a tribalist otherwise how do we explain his close connivance with other individuals from other ethnic groups. During his 22-year carnage, the most prominent exponents of the Babili Mansa Cancer were not primarily Jola men and women, but in fact these were Mandinka, Fula, Wolof, Aku, Serer, Sarahuleh and Manjago men and women. List all the key voices and the powerful pillars of AFPRC/APRC, and the Jola are not among the top ten.

 
Therefore what was happening? On the one hand, Yaya Jammeh consciously misinformed and manipulated his Jola folks to belief in a lie in order to generate support to protect his illegal power and protect his regime. But that was not enough. The purpose of power is to accumulate wealth. Hence on the other hand, he also associated with these other folks from the other tribes for the purpose of wealth accumulation, prestige and privilege, as well as further maintain his power. Thus to keep and maintain both his brutal power and illegal wealth, he used his Jola kinsmen as well as the Mandinka, Wolof, Fula, Sarahuleh, Serer, Manjago and Aku elites to divide and rule. These were intellectuals, religious and traditional leaders, youth and women leaders, and business people.

 
Was Yaya Jammeh tribalist there? No. This is why even when he insulted the Mandinka, one can see these top Mandinka men and women continue to associate with, and defend him because they knew Yaya Jammeh does not hate the Mandinka as a tribe. These elites knew that Yaya and they themselves were merely protecting their diabolical interests, which have nothing to do with tribe. It was all about power, privilege and wealth. Thus on the surface everything looks exactly like tribalism, but the currents underneath were about power, privilege and wealth. After all it was his ministers and party stalwarts who would confide that Yaya Jammeh was a big stupid fool. They knew the man was fake, but all they wanted was the power, privilege and wealth.

 
When we further analyze, one would see that in the list of his victims, proportionately, the Jola as the fourth largest ethnic group accounts for almost the highest number of victims in terms of those summarily dismissed, arrested, detained, jailed, and killed. What love and respect therefore did he have for the Jola? Nothing. We need to understand here what the underlying currents of ‘tribalism’ are otherwise the argument for or against tribalism places both camps at the same level. No one can win the argument. Such arguments divert the issue and only lead to unnecessary conflict.

 
Therefore the folks levying the tribalism card against Adama Barrow are doing so not because they hate the Mandinka, but because they have lost the illegal privileges, status and goodies that they enjoyed under Yaya Jammeh. Otherwise, the simplest response to them would be why were they not equally active against Yaya Jammeh when he gave those same positions and many more to his kinsmen? The fact is that these people never cared about what Yaya Jammeh was doing, as they never saw tribalism in Yaya Jammeh. What they saw were privileges, status and goodies. Now that they have lost those unfair privileges, it is logical, to dishonestly vilify this new regime as such.

 
Africans are not tribalist. This is a misconception perpetuated by primarily Western scholars who were the first to write about the modern political history of Africa based on their own dishonesty and misunderstanding. Then they were joined by a band of miseducated African intellectuals who continue to perpetuate this misnomer. I am ready for any public debate with anyone on the question of tribalism in Africa.

 
What has been happening in Africa is that the elite, particularly the political class, out of dishonesty and corruption have used sectarian ideas in order to propel themselves to power and then maintain themselves there at any cost. Even when you consider the Rwanda genocide one would see that neighbors in a remote village away from Kigali, without even understanding the nature of governance while living in poverty together, were misused by politicians in Kigali to go to their next door neighbors and hack them to death. It is like if Yaya Jammeh had succeeded in getting Jola folks in Batabut Kantora or Bwiam to hack their Mandinka neighbors. On the surface, it would appear as a tribal war, but deep down it was not a tribal war because the Mandinka and Jola have lived together nicely ever since in Bwiam without ever having such evil thoughts about each other. But because of politicians who want to keep power and wealth by all means, they now manipulate ordinary folks knowing that indeed power is with the people. Unfortunately the masses never get the right political awareness to realize how their power is being use against themselves by themselves through the machinations of the corrupt elite and politicians. The cleavages appeared between them when a politician like Yahya Jammeh emerged to make one tribesmen feel hateful towards another tribesmen.

 
The truth therefore is this: the people who are trumpeting tribalism and seeking to label Pres. Barrow as such are indeed people who are fighting a class war. They were a class onto themselves. They were part of the oppressive and exploitative class, which wanted to maintain unsuccessfully their immoral grip on power, wealth and privilege. Having lost that class and status, they now resort to misinformation and manipulation for the purpose of bringing down the people’s government. They are merely dishonest and corrupt individuals who have never ever stood for constitutionality and sovereignty of the Gambian people. If they ever did so, it was by default but not be design.

God Bless the Gambia

By Bubacarr Drammeh

The Gambia gained its independent from Great Britain on the 18^th February 1965. It was not until 1970 that it became a Republic. The first constitution of the country was the 1970 Constitution. The said constitution ceased to exist on 22 July 1994 when the constitutionally elected government was overthrown via a military coup. That led to the suspension of the 1970 Constitution. That marks the end of the First Republic and the 1970 Constitution.

The Gambia was governed by the AFPRC for 2yrs and the laws that were in existence were called military decrees. During that period a constitutional committee was setup to come up with a draft constitution that will be presented to the Gambian people in a referendum. The committee drafted the 1997 constitution and a referendum was conducted in 1996. The AFPRC regime at the time did not want the people of The Gambia to vote yes for the constitution because if the NO votes outweighed the YES, it means the committee will have to work on another constitution which will be presented again for another referendum. This will allow the AFPRC regime to continue ruling the country with their decrees. The people who were eligible to vote at the time voted yes, thus the birth of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia and the Second Republic.

The preamble of the 1997 Constitution has succinctly affirmed that the 1997 Constitution is the will of the people of The Gambia . It states that

We the people of The Gambia have accomplished a great and historic task. We have had our say on how we should be governed. For this Constitution contains our will and resolve for good governance and a just, secure and prosperous society.

This Constitution provides for us a fundamental Law, which affirms our commitment to freedom, justice, probity and accountability. It also affirms the principle that all power emanate from the sovereign will of the people.

…This Constitution guarantees participatory democracy that reflects the undiluted choice of the people. The functions of the arms of government have been clearly defined, their independence amply secured with adequate checks and balances to ensure that they all work harmoniously together toward our common good.

As we usher in the Second Republic and beyond we give ourselves and generations of Gambians yet unborn this Constitution as a beacon of hope for peace and stability in our society and the good governance of The Gambia for all time…

In addition to the above statement of the preamble, section 1(2) of the 1997 Constitution also stated emphatically that the 1997 constitution is the expressed will of the people on how they should be governed. The said section provides that

The Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution

From the above, it is clear that the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia is Gambia’s constitution not Jammeh’s constitution. That is why the 1997 Constitution (see section 5) gives the legal standing to any person (I will interpret this to include anyone resident in The Gambia and not necessarily limited to being a Gambian) who feels that the act of any person (including the President) or authority (including the National Assemble) is inconsistence or contravenes the constitution to file an action before a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 5 of the 1997 Constitution provides that:

A person who alleges that-

(a) any Act of the National Assembly or any thing done under the authority of an Act of the National Assembly, or

(1) any act or omission of any person or authority, is inconsistent with;
or is in contravention of a provision of this constitution, may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.

• (2)  The court may make orders and give directions as it may considered appropriate for given, to such a declaration and any person to whom any order or direction is addressed shall duly obey and carry out the terms of the order or direction. 

• (3)  The failure to obey or carry out any order made or direction given under subsection (2) shall constitute the offence of violating the Constitution and
  • (a)  shall, in the case of the President or Vice President, constitute a ground for his or her removal from office in accordance with section 67; and 

  • (b)  any other person who is convicted of that office shall be liable to the penalty prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. 


This provision (i.e. Section 5) has been adhered to by Gambians in the past. In 1998, Lawyer Darboe and others filed a case against the government of Yaya Jammeh for violating the constitution. The case is called A N M Ousainu Darboe & Anor v Inspector General of Police & Anor. In that case, the first applicant (Lawyer Darboe) who was the leader and secretary general of UDP commenced proceedings in the High Court of The Gambia invoking the powers of the court under section 5 and section 37 of the Constitution. Darboe and others were seeking a declaration that the refusal of the respondents (the government especially IGP) to grant them permits to hold political meetings or to use loud speakers, without giving reasons, was inconsistent with section 17(2) of the Constitution and the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression (section 25(a)), freedom of assembly and association (section 25(d) and (e)) and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of political opinion (section 33(3)).

The High Court at first dismissed the application stating that it lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter. The decision of the High Court was appealed by plaintiffs (Darboe and others) to the Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court has the jurisdiction to preside over the case since the action was commenced under section 5(1) and that the appellants’ allegations are related to the fundamental human rights entrenched in sections 18 to 33 of the Constitution. The case was accordingly referred back to the High court.

The High Court in its judgment held that The respondents’ (the government especially IGP) refusal to issue permits to the applicants to hold political meetings without giving any reason justifiable under the Act (or any other existing laws) is an infringement of the applicants’ rights under sections 17(2), 25 and 33(3).

See also the case of Ousman Sabally v. IGP & 2 ors

The constitution has also given us the right and duty to defend it. Section 6(2) of the constitution provides that:

• All citizens of The Gambia have the right and the duty at all times to defend this Constitution and, in particular, to resist, to the extent reasonably justifiable in the circumstances, any person or group of persons seeking or attempting by any violent or unlawful means to suspend, overthrow or abrogate this Constitution or any part of it. 


The constitution further provides that a person who resists the overthrow, suspension and abrogation of the constitution did not commit any offence.

• A person who resists the suspension, overthrow or abrogation of this Constitution as provided in subsection (2), commits no offence.

The above provisions have indicated one vital thing, which is that this constitution is the will of the Gambian people. The provisions of the 1997 Constitution must be adhered to by every person irrespective of your status, political belief, religious belief etc. There is no indication in any provision of the 1997 Constitution that it is Yaya Jammeh’s constitution. This constitution belongs to us and we must defend it at all times.

For the past 22yrs our constitution suffered abuses in the Jammeh regime. In some instances the regime was challenged (as indicated above) and many a times it was not. I acknowledged the fact that Yaya Jammeh’s regime was the worst era in the history of the Gambia. Due to his brutality, he was termed as one of the most brutal dictator to have ever lived in the surface of the planet. On human rights, Jammeh is accused of ensuring that there was no freedom of expression, association, liberty etc. he used the law enforcement agencies to eliminate anyone he perceived as a threat to his regime. Gambians were killed, tortured, imprisoned, forced to leave the country (exiled), and some disappeared. Jammeh will go on to terrorize Gambians. He put fear in the psyche of the average Gambian. He attacked people based on their religion practice, ethnicity and political affiliation. He is also accused of raping and molesting women and girls. He harassed people in public and once threatened to kill mandinkas.

Everything aforementioned is inconsistent with the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia, thus a grave violation of the 1997 Constitution. These amongst other reasons let to the movement or revolution or whatever you want to call it, that ousted Jammeh. Everything we did in ensuring Jammeh leaves office was done under the name of the 1997 Constitutions. From the nomination process, campaigns period, elections, announcement of results, resistance to Jammeh’s U-turn, ECOMIG and the swearing in ceremony of barrow. During this period we not claimed that the constitution is Jammeh’s constitution. In fact Jammeh was condemned by Gambians, non Gambians and institutions (such as UN, EU, AU, ECOWAS etc) for violating the 1997 constitution of the Gambia (when he refused to step down).

It is therefore wrong to say the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia is Jammeh’s Constitution. The 1997 Constitution is the Constitution of the Gambia and the will of the Gambian people.

I understand that the constitution has undergone several amendments (48 amendments to be specific). In my next article I will discuss the amendments and whether they are good or Bad.

Ndey Jammeh a close relative of former President, Yahya Jammeh who was also responsible for Jammeh’s VIP guests, was seen at the state house this morning, Febuary 6. Staff at the office expressed concern over her presence knowing how close she and her family are to Jammeh

Ndey’s sister, Jimbe Jammeh traveled with Jammeh and his family to Equitorial Guinea where they currently live in exile. Sources say Ndey cried until she fainted the night Jammeh and his delegation departed Banjul.

Security sources say Ndey was in the office this morning asking staff why they want to work with President Barrow, saying she now knows clearly that many supported former President for personal gains. “What is more confusing is the fact that she went straight to the kitchen, met the cooks then went to her former office”   a  source disclosed. “This is serious, only Allah can help President Barrow and his people” the source added.

Ndey Jammeh was dismissed about a year ago but was asked to report back to work in November shortly before The December Presidential elections. She was never officially reinstated, she was asked to report to work without an official letter.

Meanwhile, a group of women, called ‘The Jammeh Kunda Women’ have also resumed work at the state house kitchen Thursday. The women who cook for soldiers and staff there have not reported to work since Jammeh left the country on January 21.”They came on Thursday, cook, dished it out and went home. They are here again today” a source said. The source added that they are worried knowing what some of these women are capable of.

One Awa Jarju an intelligence officer who was attached to the state house was also seen there this morning.