For practical purposes, in the interest of urgent national objectives the Minister of Justice Aboubacarr Tambadou must stay on his job to continue to conclusion a process that he has started. In all of the endeavours that this new government will get involved with, there are two fundamental areas that are extremely critical to both national security and system change. For these two areas the Ministry of Justice is central and for that matter a certain kind of person is extremely necessary to run that ministry. Baa Tambadou reflects that kind of person for he meets the profile and the character. Thus from a purely national interest point of view, the Gambia needs Baa Tambadou at this moment.

The first area concerns truth and justice, i.e. bringing to light the truth about the Yaya Jammeh Tyranny and then dispensing justice for the corruption and atrocities of that regime. Without the full exposure of the truth and delivery of justice, the Gambia would not heal properly from the trauma and scars of Yaya Jammeh. For that matter we could endure with grief and anger for a long time that could potentially endanger the peace and stability of the Gambia. Societies that undergo such brutality under a despotic regime require that the full extent of the atrocities be exposed and justice delivered in full so that the society can cleanse itself and ensure durable peace.

Citizens must see that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in order to relief their pain and become normal. When citizens feel there has not been justice, the dream of peace, unity and justice in that society shall remain an illusion. It is in such societies that citizens look for another opportunity to embark on revenge, hence conflict. Hence the need for this government to ensure the full exposure of the truth and ensure justice cannot be over emphasized. The person who has started and will oversee that process is Minster Tambadou.

Already the minister has facilitated the creation of a Yaya Jammeh assets commission. Earlier he created a Special Counsel for the prosecution of the murder of Solo Sandeng. I hope he would go further to create a special tribunal to better prosecute the whole gamut of the crimes of the 22-year dictatorship. I also understand that underground work is ongoing for the broader issue of transitional justice that is aimed at enabling the country ensure justice while at the same time maintaining unity and peace among citizens. I hope these will eventually lead to the creation of a Truth and Justice Commission. These are fundamental objectives that must move faster in a robust manner provided the Ministry of Justice is stable and continuing under the same man.

The second issue concerns system change in terms of the laws and institutions of the country. The hallmark of the APRC Tyranny is the blatant butchery to which they subjected our constitution. They went further to enact all sorts of laws regardless of whether such law violates our constitution or damages fundamental human rights. Hence the Gambia cannot be said to have transitioned from dictatorships to democracy without a fundamental change in our laws. It is these laws that effectively determine the creation and effective functioning of institutions. The person who is central in this process therefore is the Minister of Justice.

The Gambia needs a new constitution. For that matter we need to Constitutional Review Commission that is yet to be created. We also need to repeal, amend or create a number of laws so as to also restructure or create new institutions to build and nurture a democratic culture. Some of the new institutions we urgently need are a National Human Rights Commission, a National Anti-Corruption Commission and a National Committee against Torture among others. We also need Freedom of Information law as well as a Whistleblowing law to further strengthen a culture of transparency, accountability and efficient in the public sector particularly.

To execute these objectives require professionalism, focus and adequate political will and commitment that Tambadou has so far demonstrated. His sense of independence and adherence to principles are strengths we need in a Minister of Justice. Hence his continued tenure in that office is paramount in enabling the Gambia build a new society. This is not to say there are no better Gambians to carry forward these objectives. Indeed we can find such people among us. But since Tambadou began this process with such vigor and dedication, it serves us well if he remains in place to pursue these matters with the same tempo and speed with which he has started.

In light of the foregoing, I would urge Mr. Tambadou to remain in his office so long as Pres. Barrow and the vast majority of Gambians have confidence in him. While it is his prerogative to resign and such a decision would also be respected, but in the supreme interest of the Gambia, it is necessary that he remains in place. Therefore let citizens stand up with Baa Tambadou to support him to overcome this most difficult moment and remain in his office for the good of the country.
God Bless The Gambia

Madi Jobarteh

For many years, we were under the yoke of colonialism. The British colonized us and did everything – wanted to continue to do anything – to keep us under the oppression of colonialism. Thus, they saw any public gathering as a threat to their perpetual rule. They introduced this law called Public Order Act to suppress any public assembly they saw as a threat. This law aimed to curb gatherings which had the potential of enlightening the masses.

Nonetheless, our gallant citizens continued the struggle until we gained our independence and became a Republic in 1970. We now had the ability and authority to rule ourselves and decide our own fate. We managed our own affairs but the law was still maintained.

When Yahya Jammeh took over in 1994, and during his twenty two year repressive regime, the use of this law was even intensified. A dictatorship doesn’t like any assembly which has the potential of opening the eyes of the people. Thus, they used this law to suppress the people even more.

Now that we have fought and defenestrated Yahya Jammeh and ushered in a democratic dispensation, we have to reform the Constitution and remove all repressive and draconian laws. We need a Constitution that is inline with current democratic principles and trends.

This requires the throwing away of the laws which contradict parts of the Constitution which grant the populace their natural rights. And certainly, the right to assembly is a natural right.

Granted, the Constitutional Reform has not happened yet and we know that it will take time to complete; but, why should we still use those laws if we all agree that they are draconian?

Mr President, in the short term, I think we should ignore those laws and not arrest or disturb anyone because of those laws. Then we should urgently work on the Constitutional Reform and usher in the Third Republic which will be fully democratic.

No permits for a lawful assembly. The statement that it is meant to give security and protection to the assemblage is just a cover to take away people’s rights. Draconian laws in the dustbin. Now!

Tha Scribbler Bah

A Concerned Citizen

The conversation between Sheriff Tambadou and Ndoura Badgie is despicable, unprofessional and unethical on both parties. Sheriff betrayed sacred professional principles and potentially undermined the course of justice by guiding this lady through the life of this case, rightly or wrongly. He also failed to stand up for the Gambia by failing to put it to Ndoura that indeed the current dispensation cannot in any stretch of imagination be compared to the Yaya Jammeh Tyranny. No amount of friendship should have allowed Sheriff to condone much less agree with Ndoura with such a dishonest and insensitive comment. In any case, Sheriff must now protect what is left of his good family name and personal and professional credibility to apologize to Gambians and humbly resign from the prosecution team.

On her part Ndoura betrayed the sacred humanistic values that underpin friendship and trust. She has betrayed a fine and decent gentleman who had given her space and sympathized with her ordeal. Clearly Ndoura has shown that she is a worse human being who does not deserve the confidence and friendship of Sheriff Tambadou and indeed any decent human being ever again. Ndoura has further demonstrated dishonesty, selfishness and callousness to downplay and ridicule the misery and pain inflicted on Gambians by the APRC Dictatorship in which her husband was a key perpetrator. Contrary to her bluff, Ndoura may not know her husband as she claims because in history torturers live double lives. At work they are monsters. At home they are loving husbands and fathers. Certainly Yankuba will not tell her and her kids how he tortured people and allowed torture and murder to go on under his watch.

That aside, we need to get to the facts in order to move forward. At this stage Pres. Barrow must convene a press conference or issue a statement to speak to the issues raised in this conversation. Is it the intention of himself and his government to do as Sheriff claimed? Barrow needs to speak to Gambians to re-assure us that his planned TRC is not a plan to stifle justice. Therefore he needs to tell Gambians what is his overall plan for exposing truth and dispensing justice for the atrocities of Yaya Jammeh in the past 22 years. This unfortunate conversation has cast doubt on the credibility and integrity of his government and he needs to salvage himself and his government for the purpose of records and posterity.

The Minister of Justice Baa Tambadou faces a fundamental moral question to either resign or not. But like the president, he also needs to re-assure Gambians that he did not share the views expressed by his brother. We need to know if indeed he had told Sheriff that he never wanted this matter to go to court. Hence he needs to clear his name. He needs to tell us how resolved he is to ensure that the course of justice shall remain unshaken and straight.

Minister Tambadou is the one who appointed the Special Counsel Antouman Gaye, who in turn appointed Sheriff. Hence Baa is the source of the platform for which Sheriff’s statements becomes critically important. Being the source of that platform and given that Sheriff is his brother who has attributed very unsavory statements to him, rightly or wrongly, therefore Baa faces a crisis of credibility and reputation. Can he ignore the statements attributed to him as lies and therefore does no warrant his resignation? Or will he consider them to be statements that came from a family member that go to injure national interests under his watch and therefore resign? This is the moral question facing Baa for which history is recording and posterity will judge.

The Special Prosecutor Antouman Gaye must also speak to Gambians on this matter. Did he approve of this meeting? What is the objective of this meeting? Did Sheriff perform as expected or not? Are the views that Sheriff expressed the same views that he and his team of lawyers share? This conversation has therefore raised trust issues on the Special Prosecutor and his team and therefore he needs to speak to the issues urgently in order to uphold their sanctity and reputation. In any case, where Sheriff fails to resign, Mr. Gaye must remove him from his team.

Finally, this conversation speaks to the very nature and direction of this government in terms of ensuring justice for crimes of the dictatorship and the entire system change we require. Ndoura spoke of agents in the NIA giving them information and that no evidence would be found. This raises questions and validates my demand since the first day that the NIA should be closed. NIA is a crime scene. Many of the agents that are still there are intertwined with Yaya Jammeh atrocities hence its continued operation means potentially tampering with evidence. The NIA Legal Advisor Badgie had written a petition to the president in May this year highlighting these issues yet he was only arrested while this crime scene has been left to function as usual.

What therefore is the understanding of Pres. Barrow and his cabinet about where the Gambia came from and where it needs to go? Why should Barrow continue to maintain key public and security officers in their usual strategic positions when those individuals were accomplices in the dictatorship? The necessary cleansing of public institutions and security agencies has not taken place far enough and this explains why a person like Ndoura Badgie could have the audacity to speak in such horrible language and pathetic tone. This is because she knows she has agents in our institutions serving her husband until today.

This conversation therefore is a wake up call for Barrow and his administration to rethink their entire approach otherwise they will woefully fail their people. The maslaha approach must stop and drastic changes need to take place in our public institutions and security agencies in order to ensure a total system change and dispensation of justice. Keeping these aiders and abettors in their same offices is to compromise the course of change and justice. Barrow must realize that this is his government and therefore he has the authority to sack and appoint anyone (without recourse to nepotism or tribalism) that he things can best make him succeed.

I cannot believe that Adama Barrow, Ousainou Darboe, Mai Fatty, Fatoumatta Tambajang, Isatou Touray, Hamat Bah and OJ Jallow including the other Cabinet members can tell us that they do not know that. These people have been active in the Gambia for the past 22 years and they know how this system was working under Yaya Jammeh. Thus how naïve could they be to think that just removing Jammeh means the end of the story. Do they not know that officials and officers in the public and security sectors on a daily basis were facilitating the dictatorship? How therefore could they leave such officials and officers in the same places? Amazing!

God Bless The Gambia

Madi Jobarteh

With the change of administration in The Gambia – there has been a plethora of conversations regarding the state and the demos, the state’s trajectory, power, competing visions and ideas, what should be allowed and what should not be; conversations which are sometimes heated. It has also been interesting to watch – in that – people who were critical of the former administration for trampling upon the rights and civil liberties of the citizenry – in regards to the right of assembly without a permit, among other things, now defending the state in a similar situation. Most interesting of all, is watching the APRC people cry-wolf and accuse the current administration of abusing power, seeking to exercise their own civil liberties – given that their brutal 22 year long reign, no such dissent or protests were allowed and they defended their boss to the hilt. Because, you see, that is political jujitsu at its finest. Which is everywhere, which is politics.

I think such situations teach us a lesson that there is nothing righteous, super-moral, or blessed, or prophesied in being a victim of the state. The victim is just the victim, the bottom is just that – the bottom. Can we truly say we’d be much different were we in power? Perhaps. But the fact of being a victim of the state – does not prove one’s inherent goodness – because one day you could be the oppressed and the next day – you could be the oppressor.

Whenever I think of the aforesaid – Aung Sang Suu kyi – the Nobel laureate and ardent human rights defender, comes to mind. She has been fighting the process of “othering” by the Burmese state for decades. In a twist of irony – once she got her freedoms and became part of the ruling class — in the same breath – sanctioning the killing, expulsion, persecution of the minority Rohingya Muslims. She has even gone on to certain lengths to defend the state’s treatment of the Rohingyas, in the name of defending the state. This is insufficient for one who endeavors to be a thinking person. I hope that we can see some of ourselves in the people we discuss, because we are human, because we know how easy it is to overestimate our own superficially unfailing morality.

During the April 10th and 11th student demonstrations – I could vividly remember students throwing stones to a lot of buildings and stores around the Westfield area – all the way to Churchill’s Town. People were brutally killed by the state, including a former primary school friend of mine, in the name of protecting the state. Granted – it did get violent in certain areas, students did destroy a lot of property and even hurled stones at the cops, and other elements a la looters, thieves, and whatnot even entered the fray – but did that justify the state killing of protesters?

April 10, 2000, Courtesy of Jollof News

When Solo Sandeng and them marched for election reform without the permission of the state – him and a good many of the protesters became victims of the brutal Jammeh regime, and he ultimately lost his life. The state’s response to citizens exercising their civil liberties to assembly and petition their government was an unnecessary Stone Age barbarism; however, like what most states do – they evoked the quintessential state line: “they broke the law.” In the name of law and order – states can and will do whatever and will “justify” their actions – because that is what states do. All of them. By the way – the same law the Jammeh administration used to justify his arrest and subsequent killing, is being enforced by the current government, under the same national security, law and order pretences.

Conversely, when the Kanilai protesters started protesting against the ECOMIG presence in their backyard – many folks went roughshod calling for their neutralization – because their protest was deemed a threat to the “fragile” state. Unfortunately, someone lost his life and, the state’s response, like all states do, is to justify such killings in the name of national security. Do not get me wrong – we still face serious threats to our fledgling democracy – and it is the job of the state to protect the state, its interests, its sovereignty, and its people – which also includes the APRC folks, the protesters in Kanilai, Farato and Bakoteh. But was the force used necessary? Were the beatings and arrests necessary? Was the extrajudicial killing necessary?

Furthermore, most supporters of the party in power, as expected, naturally fall in line and defend the state’s action as necessary to protect the so called “fragile” state. Wonder why the GOP who ostracized Obama for basically breathing are now defending anything Trump does in the name of maintaining the state? Wonder why folks who called Jammeh’s states response to the April 10th and 11th saga, and the Solo Sandeng case, defended the use of life bullets on protesters in Kanilai? This is not false equivalence, it’s texture and nuance.

It ain’t rocket science. It is just politics, man.

Consequently – some folks in power today – are showering us with their bluster and finger-pointing; however, the big-brother lessons are nothing new to most Gambians, for after all, we have spent the past 22 years under the leadership of a chauvinistic big-brother, advising and dictating what is tolerable behavior and what is not. Such behavior is not a deviation from the experience of powerful people who run the state – but an expression of it.

It is one thing to point out, correctly, and rightly name the government of yesteryear as immoral, barbaric, corrupt, but it is another still to call the current one moral – because state’s act based on national interest, not some righteous moral compass. Caveat: the administration in power always determines what is in the national interest. Sometimes I wish we could dispense of the whole industry of the moral state and accept how nebulous the “national interest” euphemism is.

Kanilai, The Gambia, Courtesy of Foroyaa

In these United States – since at least the Wilsonian age – the country has projected itself as a moral, exemplary beacon of democracy, justice, and equality – even though – for most of its existence – it has a tier system where one’s access to justice is dictated by the accidents of their birth and zip code. I have watched Obama preach to African Presidents about allowing dissent, diverging political ideas, and condemned state sanctioned violence against its citizens.

Mind you – this was the President of Mike Brown, Philando Castille, Sandra Bland; where wanton murder of people of color is part of the everyday narrative. Such is not an anomaly nor does it make the United States a uniquely evil society. It simply means that states would use violence to crush dissent, protest, to maintain the state. All students of realpolitik know this.

In the end, a major, if not, the highest priority of the state, and by this, I mean, all states, is to maintain the state, even if that means to ban, threaten, kill, shoot, maim, eliminate “threats” be it political or otherwise. That is what states do. That is the MO of the state – from the banks of the Potomac to the bluffs of The Gambia river. No exception. States are amoral entities. So, next time the state threatens, kills or brutalizes in the name of national security – don’t be shocked – know that that’s their main line of defense — national security, law and order. Do not relent; challenge, question, parse and always proceed from the theory that all states, including The Gambia, like to begin the story with the narrative that most advantages them, contextually — national interest, law and order — and the onus is on you to resist this sentiment.

Saul Njie

07.15.2017

                                                                 By: Ousainou Mbenga

As the proverbial “fig tree”, Jammeh never expected our “small axe” to cut him and his parasitic A.P.R.C down to the ground. But as remnants of his vermin still present a national “security threat”, we will leave nothing to chance for a re-growth of the monstrous Jammeh regime. We must, with the same unshakable determination, uproot the tap root just as we do with the local “mbanghanaseh” plant capable of destroying the new foundation we desire to construct. The Barrow administration’s blind “tactical attempts” to rescue and recycle the A.P.R.C, betray our struggle for a system change as oppose to the perpetuation of the rotten status quo comprised of the most unreliable sector of the Gambian society, the petit bourgeoisie and its aspirants.

FEAR OF A.P.R.C OR THE ABSENCE OF A PROGAM?

Unlike the Barrow mal-administration, the vast majority of the Gambian masses are not intimidated by the parasites left behind, neither Yaya himself. The insignificant and willfully ignorant remnants of the Jammeh regime severely afflicted with a broad “political blind spot” refuse to accept the fact that the host for their parasitic dependence is no more. Every parasite requires a “host” to survive and the Gambia was made an unwilling host to a small sector of our society willing to suck the life blood of our beloved Gambia at the expense of the rest of us. The free food, water and light to the former hamlets of Kanilai and vicinities including his sycophantic enablers represented the sharpest edge of the knife that bled the “nation”. From “rags to riches”, the head parasite Jammeh and his dependents became oblivious to the “suffering in the land”.

The morbid fear of Jammeh and A.P.R.C is as a consequence of the Barrow administration’s lack of a program, a plan of action and ultimately a strategy to propel the Gambia into a nation of confidence determined to reverse the 22 years of horror we have been subjected to by the A.P.R.C. If the Barrow administration implemented their own program and not adopt the rotten –ruinous system Jammeh had in place, the A.P.R.C would have never dared to provoke incidents such as the one that resulted in the death of Haruna Jatta in Kanilai.

Aside from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the “coalition 2016”, which has been ditched into the dustbin, the coalition 2016 and the “tactical coalition” making up the Barrow mal-administration has no road map to follow. Consequently, the stumbling steps (Fakatalu) policies as they go along. Here in lies the sticking point contradictions of the Barrow administration.

“THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS”

To us, it is not enough to win elections and take office on a platform of “good intentions”; you must stand for something based on a program. What do you stand for? What is your program? We have witnessed the consequences of Jammeh’s “good intentions” and the hell it turned Gambia into. The Barrow administration’s delaying tactics with deafening silence on practically all decisive policy matters (judiciary, education, health, environment and security) clearly exposes their inability to construct the foundation upon which the “new Gambia” we fought for 22 damn years will be erected. The deliberate silence from Barrow is being defended particularly by United Democratic Party (UDP) “stalwarts” and the “let’s give them a chance” advocates on groundless and bizarre arguments that the Barrow administration is working on “something” that would be a pleasant surprise to many of us when they are finished cooking whatever this “something” is. Whatever the Barrow administration is cooking in secret doesn’t have a pleasant aroma. For if it did, we would smell the pleasant aroma by now.

Is the Barrow administration a “secret society” only answerable to themselves and not to the people who put them in office?

The internal contradictions (the basis for change)of the Barrow administration such as the Vice presidency (the “tactical coalition’s” burden), the floating standards – constitution and the long promised “blue print” all of which remain shrouded in secrecy and mystery will consequently result in an implosion. To prevent this inevitable implosion at the expense of the rest of us if these matters continue unresolved, the old order and business as usual will be the order of the day.

The external contradictions (the conditions for change) that plague the Barrow administration primarily remain to be food, water and light. These are the primary contradictions that we will continue to expose for the masses to understand the kind of leadership they voted into office. There are no indications or signs that the Barrow administration wants to resolve these contradictions, instead reconciling with the Jammeh regime is their working plan. And that will be met with resistance!

As opportunism (sacrificing long term gains for short term gains) prevailed in 1994, lifting Jammeh and AFPRC onto the “saddles of power”, so is the same opportunism prevailing at the moment within the Barrow administration.

These contradictions have reached crisis proportions as being manifested in the recent trash and garbage protest at KMC and the Kartong – Gunjur disasters. Barrow’s silence and indecisiveness will only heighten the mass impatience into more justifiable protests.

There is no doubt that 22 July 1994 was the beginning of a despicable period when misery and carnage descended on the Gambia to last for 22 long years of blood and tears. The July 22 Coup was a tragedy of unlimited proportions that shackled a people to slavery and contempt by the very sons and daughters of our society. Without fear or shame, AFPRC which transformed into the APRC led by Yaya Jammeh, Sana Sabally, Edward Singhateh, Yankuba Touray, Sadibou Hydara, Ebou Jallow and Lamin Kabba Bajo and aided and abetted by many more security officers and civilians in all walks of life unleashed the most brutal terror on the people of the Gambia.

Scores of Gambians were raped, tortured and killed while many more had their properties forcefully and illegally taken away from them and others summarily dismissed or their businesses closed for absolutely no reason other than the selfish interest of Yaya Jammeh. We lived in a climate of fear and powerlessness, as our own State became the one and only predator on the lives of Gambians. For 22 years, the APRC plundered public wealth and disregarded every rule of our Constitution and every right of citizens with impunity. Indeed the AFPRC and APRC are the worst entities ever to emerge in the Gambia since Independence.

However we must rise up above the emotions about this day and its reality and look at the facts in order to help ourselves to move forward. The fact is that July 22 is not an illegal coup and the day is not illegal in the context of the Second Republic, which is founded on the 1997 Constitution. In that Constitution, the 22nd July 1994 coup has been recognized and endorsed in the Preamble as thus,

“Our hopes and aspirations as a people were reflected in the enthusiasm and zeal with which we embarked on the task of nation building on the attainment of independence. The self-perpetuating rule of the recent past, however, soon gave rise to the abuse of office and related vices which negated the total welfare of the Gambian people. The sovereign people of The Gambia therefore endorsed the change of government on 22nd July 1994 to rectify such evils.” (Preamble, Constitution of the Gambia 1997).
It was that coup under the AFPRC that a process unfolded to usher in the 2nd Republic through a referendum on the Constitution in 1996. That Constitution also went further under it’s Transitional and Consequential Provisions (Second Schedule) to indemnify the AFPRC and all that they did under Section 13. Hence by our current Constitution and political dispensation, July 22, AFPRC and APRC are legal events and entities.

Until now the APRC remains a legally registered party with representatives in the parliament. So long as they remain a legal entity they therefore must enjoy the rights to observe any day and conduct any activities they wish. That right cannot be denied to them because of what we think about July 22. APRC is a product of July 22 and therefore we cannot ban July 22 without banning the product of July 22. Hence this press release by the police is not enough and it is not legal. Let us remove emotions to objectively address the situation we face.

What we need is to use the law to address July 22 because July 22 is protected by the law. I would have thought that the Barrow Administration would take a bill to the parliament to declare July 22 as an illegal coup and therefore illegal to celebrate that coup by amending the necessary sections in our Constitution. The July 22 coup must be declared a day of infamy to be remembered as the period when carnage and misery descended on the Gambia.

Alternatively, it is for the Barrow Administration to go to court to have a declaration that July 22 is illegal and therefore must not be celebrated as a festive event. Rather it must be solemnly observed as a day of misery as how the Israeli’s observe 27 April/May as the Holocaust Remembrance Day or how the Americans observe September 11 terror attacks or how the Rwandans mark April 7 as Genocide Memorial Day, among others.

We must bear in mind that so long as APRC remains legal and operating then we cannot determine what events they should or should not observe or celebrate. If we do that then we are infringing on their constitutional rights to freedoms of assembly, association and expression and to demonstrate peaceably without the use of arms. Let us therefore demand that the Government takes the right steps to address the July 22 Disaster without emotions or appealing to the public gallery. This matter concerns the soul of the nation and therefore we must deal with it in the most serious, legal and robust manner.

Let us always insist on the rule of law and the protection of our rights because that is where our security lies. Forever!

God Bless The Gambia

Madi Jobarteh