The fourth and final ordinary session of the National Assembly for 2017 opened on Monday November 27 to run up to 28 December. This particular session is very significant to the lives of citizens because of the number and kinds of bills that are tabled before the parliament. For that matter it is important that citizens engage their parliamentarians to ensure that they take the right decisions in the supreme interest of the Gambian people. It is also necessary that citizens go to the parliament to witness the discussions.

In this session parliamentarians will receive the national budget as well as the Constitutional Review Commission Bill, the National Human Rights Commission Bill and the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission Bill among other bills and decisions to take.

Of particular concern to me is the process by which the national budget is prepared and approved. Specifically, Section 152 of the Constitution provides that the Minister of Finance under the direction of the President will present, at least 30 days before the end of the financial year, annual estimates of revenue and expenditure before the National Assembly, which requires at most 21 days to approve the estimates.

For example the current estimates were placed before the parliament on November 27 for debate until December 7 for adoption. Then on December 15 the Appropriation Bill will be placed before the parliament in the form of a Budget Speech, which will be subjected to debate until December 19 for consideration. When this bill is approved it means money is now available to the Government to spend by 1st January 2018.

Given the importance and complexity of a budget, coupled with the fact that most parliamentarians are not financial or budget experts, it therefore means the timeframe provided by the constitution does not ensure effective oversight by the parliament. In practice lawmakers have limited time to critically review the estimates and approve. Thus this creates weaknesses in the whole fiscal transparency and accountability process.

The budget is the tool or resource that a Government uses to implement the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land where the rights and needs of citizens are spelt out so that the same constitution places an obligation on the Government to fulfil those rights and needs based on the budget. Hence the budget is the most important law after the constitution in any society.

In that regard if that budget is to be discussed it must be done in the most transparent and participatory manner with enough time and space. This means that one should have expected the constitution to state that the estimates should have been placed before parliament at least three months before the end of the year. This would have enabled parliamentarians to properly and adequately study the estimates in order to make informed decisions.

In studying the budget estimates it is important that parliamentarians to have conducted evaluations to determine how the previous budget was spent. For example they need to know if budget allocations did in fact reach or provide facilities, goods and services for which allocations were made. In order words parliamentarians must not just approve the budget just because the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs made a good presentation. There must be severe scrutiny to see how the budget had and will change lives and livelihoods of the people.

The constitution must also provide that the estimates are publicly available in all administrative regions before parliament debates and approves it so that citizens can see what are the revenue sources and expenditure areas of the government. In that way citizens would know whether their issues, needs and concerns are being catered for in order to ensure quality living standards. With such information, citizens can now engage their parliamentarians to ensure that they directly respond to the needs of electorates. This approach enhances transparency, accountability and efficiency hence good governance and sustainable development.

I hope that in the new constitution, we will have provisions that will address these issues so that the Gambia could have a more transparent, participatory and accountable budgeting process. Without a proper budgeting process, the Gambia cannot ensure fiscal disciple, combat corruption and ensure citizens enjoy widespread and efficient delivery of social services. This means we cannot defeat poverty or create wealth.

It is because of these issues that all citizens must therefore become interested in this parliamentary session by engaging their NAMs as well as attending parliamentary sessions to follow the debates and decisions. Citizens must hold the parliament to account by making them know that the life and death of Gambians are squarely in their hands.

If parliamentarians fail to effectively scrutinise the estimates to ensure that budgetary allocations are reasonable and sent to the right sectors, then they would have only served in perpetuating corruption and poverty. Wrong allocations to wrong sectors means waste of public resources, corruption and continued poverty and underdevelopment of the Gambia. Thus parliamentarians must scrutinise each and every budget line, amount and sector to ensure the right allocation is done.

For the Gambia, Our Homeland!

By Alieu Ceesay

The Gambia could face a global ban by world football governing body, FIFA.

FIFA in a letter wrote by its Secretary General Fatma Samoura gave the National Sports Council until Monday, November 27, 2017 to rescind its decision to suspend the Executive of The Gambia Football Federation led by Lamin Kaba Bajo.

The National Sports Council suspended the Executive pending an investigation following allegations made by a group of individuals claiming to be concerned stakeholders.

In a press conference on Friday, Chairman Borri Darboe, Chairman of the National Sports Council remained defiant despite FIFA’s threat of a possible global sanction if the decision is not reversed by Monday, November 27, 2017.

The outspoken football stakeholder vowed that the NSC will not rescinds its decision to suspend the executive of The Gambia Football Federation (GFF) headed by President Lamin Kaba Bajo.

Any ban by FIFA will see the global football governing body immediately stop all its financial support to the country. It will also see The Gambia kicked out from all international football competitions.

Borri Darboe says his Council’s decision to suspend and investigate officials of the GFF is irreversible and that if the world football governing body bans the country, then it is in the “best interest of all to clean the mess”.

He also accused the current GFF executive of tax evasion and said they are currently preparing a report to send to FIFA to support their decision of suspending the FF officials.

FIFA has zero comprise when it comes to government interference in football matters. The GFF has maintained that they will not cooperate with the investigation team. They said the National Sports Council does not have the mandate to investigate them.

By Arfang M.S Camara

The three times best referee award winner Bakary Papa Gassama was today November 27, 2017, nominated for the Best African Referee by The Confederation of African Football (CAF).

Dozen of Gambian soldiers accused of a coup plot to overthrow the country’s new President Adama Barrow are charged with nine counts including treason at a military court martial at Yundum Barracks.

The charges are treason, incitement of mutiny, failure to report mutiny, conspiracy to commit mutiny, endeavor to persuade members of the Armed Forces to take part in mutiny, negligence or willful interference with lawful custody, connivance of desertion, connivance of desertion and interference with lawful custody. All the accused soldiers pleaded not guilty.

The punishment for treason in The Gambia is life imprisonment or death.

According to the particulars of offense Captain Yahya Jammeh, Lieutenant Abdoulie Jarjue, Lieutenant Yahya Jammeh, Sergeant Babucarr Sanneh, Sergeant Malick Bojang, Corporal Sulayman Sanyang, Corporal Lamin Gibba, Lance Corporal Abba Badjie, Lance Corporal Alieu Sanneh, Private Mbemba Camara and others who are currently at large on or around the month of July 2017 at AU Villa in Brufut allegedly plan to overthrow the democratically elected government of The Gambia by unlawful means. They were allegedly present at meetings where they invited certain members of the Armed Forces to take part in an intended mutiny. They are further accused of concealing mutiny.

“You agreed within yourselves to overthrow the democratically elected government of The Gambia by forceful means and thereby committed an offense,” Court Clerk Sergeant Yaffa said.

“You belonged to a secret WhatsApp chat group where you endeavor to persuade members of the Armed Forces to participate in an intended mutiny and thereby committed an offense,” he added.

Lance Corporal Sambujang Bojang and Lance Corporal Ebrima Jallow allegedly in the month of July 2017 at Fajara Barracks aided Sergeant Yusupha Jatta to escape from lawful custody.

Corporal Lamin Gibba of Farafenni Barracks is charged with conniving with the desertion or intended desertion of Corporal Musa Bojang from the Armed Forces without a reasonable excuse.

It is said that  Lance Corporal Sambujang Bojang in the month of July 2017 at Fajara Barracks knowing that Sergeant Yusupha Jatta was under custody, provided him with clothing and other items hidden in a plastic bag to facilitate his escape.

They all pleaded not guilty.

The Senior State Counsel A. M. Yusuf said the accused soldiers are charged with serious offenses of treason and mutiny plotting to overthrow a democratically elected government, arrest some cabinet ministers and senior military commanders.

“We have strong evidence to prove our case beyond reasonable doubt,” State Counsel Yusuf said.

Yusuf urged the court adjourned the case to call the prosecution witness to testify tomorrow. The lead defense lawyer Sheriff K. Jobe did not made any objections but made a bail application for the eighth and ninth accused soldiers saying the charges are bailable offense. The state counsel made an objection to the bail application.

Meanwhile, the court has adjourned the matter till Tuesday, November 28 for the first prosecution to testify and to also make a ruling on the bail application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Gambia, Our Homeland!

Madi Jobarteh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Point Newspaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Standard Newspaper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Standard Newspaper

By Fatou Sowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Fatou Sowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Fatou Sowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless The Gambia

Madi Jobarteh

By Fatou Sowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Fatou Sowe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless The Gambia

BY: Ousainou Mbenga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE WILL WIN!