By Madi Jobarteh

The motion by Hon. Touma Njai to summon the Minister of Fisheries to answer to issues within his area of responsibility is a step in the right direction. Our NAMs must realise that the National Assembly is the primary accountability institution in the Gambia. It is a house that can give relief to citizens without having to make citizens pay a butut. By bringing public officials to answer to issues within the purview of their duties and institutions serves to enhance democracy, good governance and sustainable development in the most cost-effective manner.

Hence Hon. Touma Njai should be commended and by so doing, to urge all NAMs in general to begin to bring public officials to face them for direct engagement on pertinent national issues. It is also important that when NAMs do so, they actually do their homework first by equipping themselves with all of the necessary information and knowledge about the issues. When a Minister stands in their midst, no stone should be left unturned, hence NAMs must be well equipped with the relevant information.

To do this, NAMs should go out to search for the relevant information. They can get this from members of the community, or from the civil society actors engaged in that particular issue or from the media and journalists working on these issues. They can also engage experts to give them the right analysis and information.

When one follows the Ministers responses, one can see a lot of gaps and excuses which should not have been the case. A Government Minister cannot express ignorance or forgetfulness on issues under his purview. This is because the ministry is an institution with qualified staffs and backed by law. Whatever they do must be based on evidence and confirmed by research and guided by law. Hence Minster Gomez cannot say he forget or did not know to bring a particular agreement to parliament for ratification simply because there was no parliament at the time. If that was the case, then do not enter into any agreement until there is a parliament in place so that the action is considered lawful. Simple.

Our NAMs must not make it easy for members of the Executive because the issues they deal with are life and death issues. With all the high-sounding slogans and self-righteous pontifications of the Minister, the fact is fishmeal factories are wreaking havoc on our environment and livelihoods in the coastal regions. Both agreements with the EU and Senegal are not beneficial to the country as it should hence it is the Gambia that is losing. The fact that we cannot fish in deep waters or tuna is a fish that migrates does not mean we should go into any kind of agreement.

The recent riots in Sanyang erupted squarely because of the fishmeal factory there. That riot was predicted by the Faraba Commission Report that the contracts for these factories are not proper. They reported that the necessary environmental regulations are not met, the proper community consultations are not done and the protection of the environment to prevent pollution are not guaranteed. Hence the Commission said there was high likelihood for riots in Sanyang, Gunjur and Kartong to also erupt if nothing was done, as it happened in Faraba in 2018.

So how could Minister Gomez gonna tell us that things are cool in the coastal regions! NAMs must insist on more investigation of the Ministry of Fisheries and the environment in general. From the Malagen newspaper report last year it is obvious that there have been dubious activities by the Minister and his Permanent Secretary which is why Dr. Banja was suspended and investigated. Yet until today, no one knows what is the state of that investigation.

But we also know that Minster Gomez was once invited by these fishmeal companies to have dinner in Senegal! How could Gomez therefore hold these companies to account when they could invite him for diner in a foreign country? Is that not conflict of interest? But these are not issues raised by NAMs.

Therefore, NAMs must realise that they have Section 75 in the Constitution which gives them the power to sack any minister who is not performing to their satisfaction which includes misleading them, or abusing office including corruption or violating any provisions of the Constitution.

The National Assembly must realise that democracy in any republic lives or dies in the parliament. If the Gambia is to be a democratic country with good governance it is the making of the National Assembly. If the Gambia is to become a banana republic with dictatorship, it is the making of the National Assembly. Therefore, will the national Assembly salvage or betray the Gambia? Time will tell. History is recording.

Bravo to Hon. Touma Njai. We need more such motions.

For The Gambia Our Homeland.

The Gambian government is a coalition of parties that came together to field one candidate to contest against the former president Yayah Jammeh in 2016. Among the major parties that formed the coalition were the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the People’s Democratic Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS). The coalition won the election through the candidacy of the current president Adama Barrow, a previously little known real estate dealer. The coalition however fell apart shortly after the election even though the government remains as constituted with the appointed from the all the seven member parties of the coalition. The president ditched his sponsoring party UDP (the largest party in the coalition and country) and formed his own party, the National People’s Party (NPP). Since then, there has been bickering between the ruling coalition members especially because the president had promised to rule for only three years as a transition president then oversee democratic elections (in which he would not participate) that would allow Gambians to choose a leader of their choice. The president has since reneged on the promise and is set to vie for elections at the end of 2021. Yunus Hydara is a civic activist based in the UK and one of the UDP’s most vocal advocates. Recently, he criticized Halifa Sallah (PDOIS) and Sidia Jatta (PDOIS), the chairperson of the Public Enterprises Committee and vice-chairperson of the Finance and Public Accounts Committees of the National Assembly respectively of enabling corruption through their failure to move bills in parliament to enact anticorruption laws (Editorial 2021). Specifically, he accused the Public Enterprise Committee of Halifa Sallah of refusing to present the report of the Auditor General and a private auditing firm to parliament for ratification to pave way for action against the misappropriation of public funds. This paper is a critique of the rebuttal of Hydara’s accusations by Sallah, noting that the rebuttal was full of logical fallacies.

First, the repudiation of Hydara’s claims by Halifa Sallah deserves commendation for its restraint from insulting Hydara despite the disagreement therein. It is noteworthy that political exchanges, especially in Africa dwell on insults that do not differentiate between the personal lives of the adversaries and their public roles. According to Lajul (2020), political discourse in the continent usually relies on ridiculing opponents using the most barbaric and humiliating insults that have no relation with the public role of the opponent or their stated position. Typically, political players exploit the low levels of education, little exposure to modern political leadership and allegiance to ethnic origins among the citizenry to defer any meaningful discourse when they face accusations. Halifa Sallah was able to stay above that temptation and instead focused on showing why he thought Hydara was wrong strictly by tackling the accusations. The restraint was a demonstration of maturity and political sobriety from a senior government official responding to a junior critic out of the government. Sallah however watered down his restraint when he stated that he needed to behave in that manner because he was offering himself as a presidential candidate in the 2021 elections. The revelation that his candidacy was the foundation of the restraint leaves the readers thinking that he would have wished to tackle the matter differently if it were not for his candidacy and his desire to appear tolerant to win the elections. Nevertheless, that kind of restraint and restriction to the accusations leveled at him remains admirable and should set the tone for the political engagement in the face of the impending elections of December 2021.

Second, Halifa Sallah demonstrated systematic organization and structure in his rebuttal of Hydara’s accusations. The structured arrangement of his rebuttal is visible in his tracing of the case from the beginning to the end. First, Sallah introduced Hydara to the reader in his reference to him as a descendant of decency. The rebuttal then gave a background to itself by specifyin ghte accusations that Hydara had laid against him and Sidia Jatta. The reader or audience of the rebuttal would therefore be easily able to follow the matter at hand. He then delved into the accusations in detail to keep the audience at the same level of understanding with him. Thereafter, Sallah gave his reasons why the accusations were false. According to Lubis (2019), a structured communication makes it easy for the audience to follow it and to understand the subject matter. Structuring communication explains the subject to the audience from the known facts to the unknown, promoting understanding. Readers or listeners are therefore able to follow the speaker from the beginning to the end. Conversely, poor or lack of structure confuses the audience and leads to loss of interest in the communication. Sallah followed a systematic structure in his rebuttal.

On the downside, Sallah committed many logical fallacies in his rebuttal that would make any keen reader dismiss them. First, Sallah began his rebuttal by direct reference to the person of Yunus Hydara instead of focusing on the issues he had raised. Sallah began by stating that Hydara’s name was associated with “…decency and moral integrity…” and that he would spare him any harsh response because he (sallah) had “…respect [for] those who gave birth to him…” (Editorial 2021). The referral to the personal circumstances of Hydara is the ad hominem fallacy where the speaker points the audience to the individuality of the other party to divert attention from the central issue. Although Sallah did not insult Hydara and appeared to express ‘admiration’ and ‘respect’ for the man and his family, his choice of illuminating those facts was a misplaced appeal to the ethos and pathos of the audience. Sallah was setting the context for the audience to influence their assessment of his arguments by exploiting the respect for families and parents that most African societies value. In reality, there was no need for any such expression of respect for Hydara’s family and origins in the rebuttal.

In addition, Sallah’s rebuttal was full of evasion, failing to address the matters raised by Hydara directly. In response to the accusation by Hydara that the Public Enterprise Committee was “…sitting on the report of a British Audit Firm that verified potential corrupt practice…”, Sallah chose to  respond by claining that his committee was not “…in charge of such a report…” The response was evasive because Hydara did not claim that they were in charge of the report but only pointed out that the committee had failed to present the report to the National Assembly for discussion. The direct approach would have been to explain the state of the report and to confirm whether or not the report had been presented to his committee and what action his committee had taken about the report. Those questions remained unanswered yet they were the essence of the accusations  (Warman & Hazmah 2019) by Hydara. Halifa Sallah’s response did not therefore serve to settle the matters raised by Hydara regarding his and his committee’s role in subjugating justice and abetting corruption.

The remainder of the rebuttal by Sallah is a red herring that he used extensively and unsuccessfully to distract attention from the role of the Public Enterprises Committee. The communication diverted attention to the roles and functions of the auditor general, in complete disregard to the role of the PEC. Sallah cited Section160 Subsections 1 and 2 of the constitution to elaborate the functions of the auditor general (Editorial 2021). In none of the citations did Sallah refer to the role of the PEC in helping the auditor general achieve his goals in his role. In other words, he deflected the blame for the failure of the PEC to the office of the auditor general. Furthermore, Sallah continued with the red herring when he focused on the small issue of Jatta having been referred to as the chairperson of the FPAC instead of the vice-chairperson. He concluded his red herring by citing the party rivalry as the reason for the allegations laid against him by Hydara Yunus. In short, Sallah went off tangent completely and intentionally to prevent any real discussion on the failure of the PEC to present the report of the auditor general to the National Assembly.

In conclusion, the rebuttal by Halifa Sallah followed the normal structure of a communication, beginning with the introduction, followed by the detailed subject mater and ending with a conclusion. Unfortunately, the rebuttal failed to address the actual issues raised by Hydara’s accusations. Instead, Sallah first misused the appeals of ethos and pathos by beginning his rebuttal with direct and unrelated reference to Hydara’s background. He then continued the remainder of his rebuttal with a red herring addressing the nominally unrelated issue of the roles of the auditor general as stipulated in the constitution. At the end, the communication was an unnecessary exposition of the roles of the auditor general.

By: Musa Val Banja

USA

By Yunus Hydara

I refer to a publication on Foroyaa newspaper written by Hon Halifa Sallah responding to an article I published on my Facebook page while ago. In this article, I expressed my dissatisfaction on two National Assembly Committees whose members I referred to as being lethargic, selfish and incompetent in the execution of their functions and are thus the biggest enablers of corruption in the country. This did not sit well with Hallifa as he is chairman of one of the committees and Siadia Jatta is vice-chairman of the other. These two Parliamentary committees are: Finance and Public accounts committee (FPAC) that is chaired by the speaker of the house Ms. Denton with Sedia Jatta as vice-chairman and mandated of providing an oversight function on government and all financial aspect of public institutions. This committee, which is the one am most interested in, and the one Halifa did not talk about,  are dragging their feet in examining and fine-tuning (if required) the anti-corruption watchdog bill despite the fact that the 16 weeks period given for this task has elapsed long time ago.

The second committee is the Public Enterprise Committee (PEC) chaired by Hilafa Sallah and mandated to scrutinise the operations of all public enterprises to ensure efficiency, transparency and probity in all their undertakings. I registered my dissatisfaction that despite many reports of adverse findings by both the auditor general and an external British audit firm on seven State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), this committee has never, not even once, ever laid any report before the plenary since assuming office, thus failing the entire membership of the National Assembly in their delivery of justice and accountability.

Hon. Halifa, in his response characterised my article as utter fabrication and politically motivated for which he cautioned such fabrication will surge as our leaders become more desperate. He promised he will not use derogatory remarks on me because my surname, Hydara, is associated with “decency and moral integrity”.  Also that he respects my parents and the fact that he is an aspiring president and using derogatory remarks on a citizen by a potential president will be inappropriate. I cannot help but wonder if Halifa will disparage me if my surname was someone else’s like the Jengs, the Chams, the Manjangs, the Jarjus, the Bahs and Jallows just to name a few as my surname should make me any different from anybody and as an aspiring leader of my country I’ll expect Halifa to treat all our citizens with equal spirit of dignity and respect. And no, my assertion isn’t pollical but born out of the frustration of the lack of accountability I see in that country. If it was politically motivated I will not have given a list of all members of these committees and their associated parties which showed members of my own party.

More to the point however, Halifa failed to defend his colleague Hon Sidia, and left him to fend for himself and concentrated in clearing his own name. His main contention was the committee he chairs is not responsible in discharging justice and accountability and aimed at side stepping responsibility and casting blame on the auditor general whom he claimed has the “bread and knife” derived from the constitution in executing accountability and the obstruction of justice and accountability may be attributable to executive influence depending on the type of government we have.  I know the auditor general is appointed by the president and I’d agree they will be prone to manipulation by the executive but what troubled me the most is Hon. Halifa, for a man of his standing do not seem to understand his role as an MP, the concepts of separation of powers, and the enormity of the powers vested on the committee he chairs by the constitution. Either that or the alternative to these is simply blatant disregard to his duties in holding the executive in check. The National Assembly, in which Halifa is part of, do not only have the same powers in directly scrutinising public spending as the auditor general, they also have the powers in scrutinising and to some extend punishing those responsible in scrutinising government spending including the auditor general.

Section 102(c) states:

In addition to the other powers conferred on the Assembly by this Constitution or any other law, the National National assembly may-

– examine the accounts and expenditure of the Government and other public bodies funded by public moneys and the reports of the Auditor General.

Also Section 109(3) states:

For the purpose of effectively performing its functions, each of the committees shall have all of the powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court at a trial in respect of –

(a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;

(b) compelling the production of documents; and

(c) the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.

So the law did not only give Halifa bread and Knife as the auditor general in dispensing justice and accountability, it also gives him a bigger cutlass to punish the likes of solicitor general for obstructing justice and accountability by conferring on him the same powers as the high courts. What is clear however is the lack of accountability that stands in glaring contrast with the blatant corruption and mismanagement of public funds that’s prevalent in the country. Halifa has given Barrow an enormous space for him to toil with the lives of our people by keeping quite while his supporters rejoice the misfortunes our country is going through as they deem them a UDP misfortune. This continued from the inception of Barrow govt despite the  all prevailing issues from high crime rates including importation of cocaine, corruption, embezzlement of the COVID relief funds; environmental degradation and pillage of our marine resources to name a few. So Hon. Halifa really validated my point that he is not measuring up to expectations despite being equipped by the constitution to defend the truth which he claimed is in-line with the principles his party espouses – advocating for good governance and accountability.

The unfortunate decision by the Barrow Government to stop the renaming of Arch 22 to Memorial Monument is a clear indication of the betrayal of the Gambia that is characteristic of this regime. Since it began operations, TRRC has initiated a number of reconciliatory moves which included giving a platform to individuals who wished to reconcile. The Government itself gave D50M to the TRRC to support the rehabilitation of some victims. Hence it is in place for the TRRC to also suggest the renaming of the arch as part of the process of reparations, reconciliation and memorialisation hence promote national healing. The submission of the TRRC Final Report does not have to hold back such initiatives.

Therefore, one truly wonders what is in the interest of this Government to stop the renaming of the arch if indeed it has recognised that the 22 years of the APRC misrule represented a national tragedy that must be corrected. One of the many ways to correct the ills of the past is to document it and then remove the signs and symbols, practices, materials and structures of the past out of public places. This is precisely the reason the TRRC was created as part of the transitional justice process in order to enable the country overcome that difficult experience.

This is not peculiar to the Gambia alone. Any country that underwent such catastrophe, the government and citizens remove the vestiges of the past from public view in order to build a more just, equal and democratic society. It is part of the process of stabilising the hearts and minds of citizens and renewing society. For example, since the end of Apartheid in South Africa, the government has been renaming places including even their capital city from Pretoria to Tshwane, while also removing a lot of statues of colonialists and apartheid leaders from many public places.

Similarly, in the wake of the Black Lives Movement, we have seen in many parts of US cities as well as cities in UK and Europe where governments and citizens pull down a host of monuments and statues of rebels, racists, imperialists and colonialists and those who perpetrated authoritarianism in the past. The fact that some of these statues survived hundreds of years standing until this time shows that truth shall always prevail. If you go to Germany today, one will hardly see, if any, a statue of Hitler or any place named after the Nazi Government.

Therefore, the Gambia Government will do a great disservice to the people if it prevents in any way for the renewal of the Gambia by removing the vestiges of the AFPRC/APRC misrule under tinpot dictator Yaya Jammeh. That arch does not belong to Yaya Jammeh nor AFPRC/APRC. Rather it is the legitimate property of the people of the Gambia but created with an objective to perpetuate and represent dictatorship. Hence it is only logical that when democracy is restored, the arch be renamed immediately to further strengthen the transition from dictatorship to democracy.

Renaming the arch will also serve to appease the suffering of victims. This is because anytime we speak the words ‘Arch 22’ it will only trigger misery, discontentment, and pain for victims in particular as it reminds us of a very painful past. As we cannot dismantle the arch completely as that would mean waste of public resources, the least the Gambia Government could do is to rename it and impose the names of victims on it. By that simple action, it would make victims victorious that at the end of the day, out of their misery came consolation. Thus, renaming Arch 22 to Memorial Arch is a form of reparation and a means to pacify and provide closure to victims.

To the rest of the population, it will send a strong message that dictatorship does not last. It will show us that democracy is what is ideal and desired. It will further make all Gambians, even APRC members to recognise that the sanctity of life and the supremacy of the Gambia is beyond and above any individual or party and it is the eternal truth. This means therefore, so long as we maintain the name, Arch 22, it will represent a tacit approval of the dictatorship and a direct affront to a large section of society, if not all, who directly suffered at the hands of that dictatorship.

I wish to therefore urge the Gambia Government to respond favourably to the TRRC by moving ahead to rename this arch as Memorial Arch in memory of the suffering, dignity and lives of Gambians who suffered abuse and violations. In this same vein, there is need to take urgent steps to rename the hospitals in Farafeni and Bwian and the highways named after Asombi Bojang and Zainab Jammeh as well as other places, streets and institutions named after July 22 actors and events.

It is high time our National Assembly takes frontline in the management of the country. If this were another democracy, the parliament would have intervened immediately to make sure the best interest of the country is served. One wonders why the National Assembly decides to take backseat and even silent on fundamental national issues like this. Rename the arch Now.

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By Baba Galleh Jallow

It is election year in The Gambia, and yes, as we speak, voter registration is ongoing across the country. Social media is awash with fervor, as Gambians urge each other to go register and vote come December 4, and with pictures of proud citizens brandishing their voter’s cards. It is pleasant to see Gambian individuals, civil society organizations, music groups and various community organizations engaged in voter registration sensitization exercises across the country. This spirit of interest and engagement with our electoral process bodes well for Gambian democracy. Never Again to the monopolization of the political space by governments and strictly political entities! Deka bi nyeppa ko mome!!

I was not in The Gambia during the voter registration period for the December 2016 elections. But I am pretty sure the voter registration mood was not this lively, for obvious reasons. We had a dictatorship then and dictators do not like elections at all because they represent an affront to their self-arrogated political supremacy and ownership of both the country and the people. It does appear in hindsight that during that fateful registration period, Gambians just quietly went to get their voters cards, and when the time came, they showed the dictator who really owned the country. Gambians had decided that never again shall they be denied their rightful ownership of the land, and their legitimate supremacy over their public servants, especially their president.

Then came the impasse – a brief but nerve-racking period when Gambia tottered on the brink of disaster and many Gambians even fled into exile – and eventually, the unceremonious flight into exile of the dictator because Gambians calmly refused to budge and because ECOMIG jets were beginning to fly too close to State House, and ECOMIG boots and guns had entered Gambian territory without any resistance from Gambian security forces. And then came the three-year transition period that never was and with it, the collapse of the political coalition that served as a vanguard for the votes of the people. Much water has passed under the proverbial bridge since the collapse of the coalition and today, Gambians are getting ready to head back to the polls again with an unprecedented number of parties and independent candidates poised to contest the December 4 elections.

In recent days, social media has also been awash with rumors that I plan to run for president. One rumor, obviously unfounded, is that a colleague and I are planning on jointly forming a political party. But there is an element of truth to the rumor that I might be considering running for president this year. Some of my good Facebook friends have even posed the question directly to me and of course, I could only admit that there is some truth to the suggestion that I have thought of running for president this year. Over the past year or so, the idea has been suggested to me several times by friends and acquaintances. And it is true that I have given it some serious consideration. One of the reasons I gave the Government early notice that I will be leaving the TRRC Secretariat at the end of July when the Commission’s final report would have been submitted to the President is yes, to give myself space to search and apply for jobs, which I am doing, but yes to also give some serious thought to the possibility of contesting the December 4 elections as an independent candidate.

As at the time of writing these lines, however, it does not appear that I will run for president in 2021 due a number of constraining circumstances beyond my control. Notwithstanding these constraining circumstances that make me an unlikely candidate for December 2021, I do have some very strong views on what I think the next president and the next government of The Gambia should focus on, and what I think is some reasonably good insight into the nature of the many chronic and growing challenges facing us as a nation and a society. I also think I have some reasonably feasible ideas on how we can manage and overcome some of the most acute of these challenges.

I happen to share the view, with many Gambians that our country needs some serious waking up to do. The current socio-political and economic trajectories of the country are not promising and it is only a matter of time, if things do not improve for Gambian society, before they get out of hand. The troubling levels of poverty, crime, indiscipline, inefficiency, and general chaos we currently encounter in our urban areas do not bode well for the emergence of a healthy and a happy society. Increasingly, the seeds of discontent and therefore social conflict are being sown everywhere around us and the problems we have faced as a nation for decades continue to fester and to increase in severity. I share the view with many Gambians that it is high time that we do better for ourselves, our country and for our children and future generations. And I believe that YES WE CAN do it!

And so while I’m not sure circumstances will allow me to run for president this year, I still think it is useful that I share with the Gambian people the issues I would have advocated were I to run for president. I think many Gambians will find much that resonates with their own concerns, their wishes and their visions for our dear little country in these issues, which I propose to share in “Never Again: The Manifesto of an Unlikely candidate”.

I argue in this manifesto of an unlikely candidate that yes, Gambians are saying Never Again to dictatorship and human rights violations and abuses. But they are also saying Never Again to a plethora of chronic and nationally and personally debilitating problems and challenges that for decades on end have plagued their lives and stunted their growth as a nation, and that seem, until now, to defy solution by their governments.

I argue in this manifesto of an unlikely candidate that Gambians are saying Never Again to the non-implementation of important commission recommendations by government, including those of the Faraba Commission, the Janneh Commission, the Constitutional Review Commission, and the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission. Gambians are also saying Never Again to the chronic lack of decent living wages by large segments of our public servants; Never Again to chronic youth unemployment and frustration and the resultant rising crime levels in our society; Never Again to dismally poor public utility services; Never Again to dismally poor health services and facilities; Never Again to inadequate roads and messy streets; Never Again to an unwieldy and inefficient state apparatus that is more of a creaking resource guzzling behemoth than a functional institution serving the welfare of its citizens; Never Again to chronic food shortages in the face of our abundant land and water resources; Never Again to a poor and inadequate education system that fails to prepare our children for the challenges of the future; Never Again to a business and investment climate that is as confused as it encourages corruption in all places.

I argue in this manifesto of an unlikely candidate that Gambians are saying Never Again to the politics of hostility, insults and exclusion that make our beautiful society so ugly, that put our beautiful culture and traditions to shame, that make a mockery of our beautiful religions, that degrade our human decency, and that stultify our collective national intelligence; And Never Again to a politics that marginalizes and excludes our women and disenfranchises our Diaspora from our national electoral processes.

I argue in this manifesto of an unlikely candidate that yes, Gambians CAN intelligently deal with and resolve all of the above problems and challenges. That while they loom large in our social consciousness and seem rather forbidden in their enormity, their solutions lie at our finger tips, if only we put our minds to solving them.

In this manifesto of an unlikely candidate, I propose to argue why WE MUST and how WE CAN tackle these challenges and take our country to the next level!

God bless The Gambia, God bless all Gambians and God bless all friends of The Gambia!

#NeverAgain!!

By Madi Jobarteh

If UDP wishes to be respected and taken seriously then it must ensure disciple and order in the conduct of its key party members. The recent unsavory comments by one of its chief propagandists Momodou Sabally against the person, reputation and dignity of the TRRC lead counsel Essa Faal is utterly repugnant and reprehensible!

TRRC is a product of a national policy and it’s Lead Counsel did a professional job in the execution of that agenda. Hence to seek to unnecessarily, unprovokingly and falsely impugn the reputation of Essa Faal is to seek to undermine the entire national agenda for transitional justice, reconciliation and accountability.

Sabally’s comments are the very poison that detractors of the entire transitional justice process in general need to damage the great work of the TRRC hence erode the gains and hopes for a true system change of the country! Such comments are what Jammeh loyalists and supporters would carry forward to pollute the trust and confidence of the Gambian populace that in fact the TRRC was a self serving agenda of few people within the TRRC.

Sabally’s comments are not only dangerous but are also inflammatory that could cause conflict in our society hence a clear abuse of freedom of opinion and expression! His comments are insulting to victims many of who went before the TRRC to pour out their ordeal, most of which are very private, before the world. No party should entertain such gross misconduct from any member.

Therefore the UDP leadership must come out to totally and completely condemn and distance itself from the despicable comments by Momodou Sabally against Essa Faal and TRRC! UDP must discipline Sabally without delay otherwise what UDP would be showing The Gambia is that it is a party in which indiscipline is a way of life!

All of our political parties, except the APRC are expected to provide full support to the TRRC and express their total commitment to the full implementation of the TRRC recommendations. No party or leader in any party is expected to spew irresponsible aspersions against the TRRC and its commissioners, legal team and administrative staff.

Yes, we must hold the TRRC accountable because they are providing public service. But such attempts at accountability should be based on evidence and in line with the principles of natural justice. Hence the unnecessary castigation of Essa Faal by Momodou Sabally is totally not based on any evidence other than personal feelings that are unfounded and mischievous!

Therefore I call on UDP, if it truly considers itself a responsible party that is worthy of governing this country of ours to speak up without delay to condemn and dissociate itself from such tragic comments from a person who had in fact fully aided and abetted one of the most brutal regimes and immoral tinpot dictators on earth!

All serious parties around the world waste no time when a member releases irresponsible comments which are clearly tribalist, racist, chauvinistic, bigoted and outright lies! We see these in democracies around the world everyday! Just few days ago the Republican Party in the US distanced itself from a Congress lady Marjorie Taylor Greene for her racist comments about the Holocaust that she was forced to publicly withdraw and apologize!

Will the UDP make Momodou Sabally withdraw his despicable comments and apologize to Essa Faal and the TRRC and to all Gambians or sack him ASAP?

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By Pa Malang Ndure Fatty

The recent attack on TRRC lead counsel Essa Faal by UDP’s most powerful man Momodou Sally is a reminder and evident that citizens are not safe from Yaya Jammeh’s influence and ideology even under UDP Government.

Yes, Barrow’s Government is as bad as anything bad, but Gambia’s problem did not start with Barrow, and I think we should be fair with him when we criticise his government. Sabally would not spare a minute to attack Barrow and TRRC in all fronts but there has never been a single time he talks bad against his former boss Yaya Jammeh. Sabally projected himself as a staunch opposition to TRRC and the Lead Counsel Essa Faal for the simple reason that they are uncovering Yaya Jammeh’s crimes during which Sabally himself was part of Jammeh’s most trusted loyalist.

Sadly, Sabally’s latest attack on TRRC Lead Counsel was widely celebrated by APRC and Jammeh’s followers who has the same belief as Sabally that witnesses were lying against Jammeh, and some were even bribed. Sabally was not directly affected by Jammeh because he was part of Jammeh when Jammeh was castrating men’s’ and sexually abusing our young sisters and therefore he would not have the empathy with the victims of Jammeh.

People lost their lives and every valuable material to Jammeh. A state commission was established to give justice to the victims only to be notoriously attacked by the same people who helped Jammeh yesterday and today they are part of UDP promising to deliver rights protection for the people of The Gambia. Its absurd. It is a disgrace and disappointment for the UDP party, and it can cost the party a lot politically.

Why hasn’t Sabally took a minute of his time to show compassion with the victims of Jammeh? Why can’t he publicly acknowledge and admit Gambians suffered in the hands of Jammeh and disassociate himself from Jammeh?

In my point of disappointment on UDP leadership they are more interested in anyone who will make Lawyer Darboe a president, someone who will sing a praise song for Lawyer Darboe and someone who would bring more votes to Lawyer Darboe but dispreading the person’s integrity and political ideology. UDP cannot continue like that as a party that promised to give hope to the people of this country. UDP should not entertain anyone to use the party as a base to inflict psychological pain on the victims of Yaya Jammeh.

Citizens expect UDP to have a clear agenda practically manifest on the ground they can be role models for the rest of the political parties in the country. TRRC is established by The Gambian people and Essa Faal is chosen by the people to lead the counsels. It is discouraging and fading our hopes in any potential future UDP Government when likes of Sabally who would be in the corridors of power in UDP Government are setting this bad precedent.

I hope UDP would understand that politics is not only gathering big crowds around Lawyer Darboe but its more about giving hopes and confidence to the citizens of the country you wish to rule. I call on UDP leadership to publicly distance themselves from Sabally’s attack on Essa Faal as UDP itself is the main victim of Jammeh. And I hope Sabally would stop protecting Jammeh’s crimes but also stop attacking anyone who dares to question Jammeh’s crimes.

We cannot be and should not be blind folded and blindly support a political party without reasons and principles. MY political views represent the general interest of the country and NOT anyone’s individual’s interest.

Thank you.

By Madi Jobarteh

The announcement by the National Guard that it is deploying its forces into our communities in what it calls ‘Operation Restore Sanity’ is indeed concerning. Yes, there is definitely genuine concern and fears in the general public about security. Indeed, The Gambia Government bears primary duty to protect citizens! But to deploy soldiers in civilian communities must not be considered and taken lightly. As citizens, much as we have our fears, we must also not allow the Government to take actions without insisting on due protocols in the interest of human rights.

In the first place, we must recognize that the National Guards is a military outfit that cannot on its own, announce its own deployment and presence in civilian areas. If the military should be deployed in civilian areas, it must be announced by the civilian authorities in charge of the military. This would be the President as the Commander-In-Chief, or the Minister of Defence. They are the right authorities to address the nation to lay out the policy and operational objectives, the parameters and the overall terms of this military engagement!

Going further, in the Armed Forces announcement, there is no toll-free telephone number for public to use in reporting crime or seek help. The only two numbers they provided are mobile phone numbers, hence personal and not official. What is standard is to give landline numbers which should be hotlines and therefore free to call. To call a mobile line requires one to have credit or units. This means if a citizen has no credit, one cannot reach that number to report a crime, which could happen at any time. Therefore, one may ask is the National Guards truly prepared for this task or not?

Thirdly, the National Guards’ press release did not announce the names of the commanders and the base of this operation. Citizens have a right to know from which office is the command taking place and which officer is in charge of this entire operation. Further to that, the National Guards should tell us the duration of this exercise (will it last indefinitely or over a period of time), and how much will this operation cost the country. In that regard, they must also tell us the coverage of their deployment – is it only within the Greater Banjul Area or will it cover the entire country. The National Guards must realise that they must account for every action – whether successful or a failure – they take in this operation.

Fourthly, the Armed Forces did not announce the number of soldiers that are deployed in this operation and the kind of weapons they will use. The picture displayed by the National Guards shows soldiers armed with automatic machine guns. Is that the only weapons they will carry? All of these pieces of information are necessary for the general public to know in order to ensure transparency and accountability. Let us not allow our fears to make us ignore fundamental rule of law and democratic principles in governance lest we harm ourselves even more!

In this regard, the Armed Forces should tell citizens what are the rules of engagement. Deploying armed soldiers in civilian areas means the presence of lot of arms and force. Will the military mount checkpoints? Are they going to fire their guns? Will they arrest? Will they raid places? If they are confronted with gunfire, will they respond? Are they operating on a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy or not? What happens if stray bullets kill innocent people in their homes? What happens if a soldier commits torture of a suspect? Who takes responsibility if their intervention led to destruction of property? How and where can citizens lodge complain against the conduct of soldiers? These are all questions that citizens must be concerned about so as to ensure that this operation is placed under close scrutiny and accountability.

Citizens must realise that this operation is not a charity. Rather citizens have a right to have protection for their rights, lives and property by the State. This is why there is the Gambia Police Force for that purpose. Thus, if the Government decides to use the military, it must have a genuine reason to do so which should not cause any damage to citizen rights. Therefore ‘Operation Restore Sanity’ and the National Guards and the whole of the Gambia Armed Forces must be monitored to ensure that they conduct this operation in keeping with the values and standards of human rights and democracy.

Finally, has the Government communicated this deployment to the National Assembly Select Committee on Defence and Security for the purposes of oversight and accountability. If not, I hereby call on the Select Committee to demand the Government to provide them the plan and necessary details of this operation in the interest of good governance, accountability and the protection of human rights above all.

Furthermore, while the Constitution grants power to the President to deploy the military ‘for purposes of maintaining and securing public safety and public order’ in Section 188(2), it is necessary that an act of the National Assembly is created to give details of this provision. In other words, the act should determine the circumstances, procedures, terms of deployment, rules of engagement among other details that should guide the use of the military for civilian purposes. Without such a law, the tendency for arbitrariness and abuse to prevail is high. Section 188(2) is too broad and indeterminate hence the need for an act.

Meantime, I hereby call on the President and the Minister of Defence to address the nation and provide the justification, objectives, duration, cost and terms of the deployment of the military in our streets!

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By Yusupha Bojang

It’s a bogus claim that politicians cannot give out or make attestations for eligible voters card applicants. Even if such a law is written in the constitution, it’s a stupid law and cannot and should not be enforced.

I don’t know why whenever Halifa speaks in Gambian politics, a shot is fired across the bowel! It’s not every law on the law books are applicable in a democracy. Every law in a democracy must pass the democratic test to be enforceable.

I know judges and magistrates must base their judgments on the law but politicians and political commentators are not magistrates and judges. Gambian politicians especially the UDP politicians must challenge Halifa misusing the constitution as a political football whenever it suits him in trying to give himself political influence in our democracy not given to him by the Gambian people. Halifa is just an MP representing his Serre Kunda constituents in parliament and nothing more.

He’s not a judge, a magistrate or a government minister. He has no discernible qualities on democratic politics and economics. He misuses the constitution to snooker democratic politics in The Gambia into his political slots time and time again.

Halifa is always the first to say on any political governance issues in The Gambia what’ll happen and how according to the constitution apparently. Why should anyone listen to Halifa about what’ll happen in The Gambia and how particularly when he gets the calls wrong? The Gambia is a democracy and not a courtroom!

Let the politics and its outcome generate the laws in our democracy and how the country is governed.

Politics and law are two different domains but intimately related. Laws are byproducts of politics. It’s the politics that creates the laws in a democracy and the laws give frame and structure to the politics.

When a law is in contravention of democratic principles and practices, such a law is null and void and a better law that conforms with democratic values and standards are enacted.

In The Gambia, Halifa and the Sierra Leonean lawyers when it suits them misuse the law to create their own democratic political narrative in the country. It doesn’t work like that-) That’s why we have the problems on how to implement the coalition agreement: the president firing an MP from parliament but turned down by the Supreme Court: taking Sheriffo Sonko to court: taking a brand new draft constitution to parliament for promulgation and the nonsense claim that the Banjul mayoress cannot issue attestations to eligible voters card applicants.

How can it make sense in a democracy that the Mayor, an elected representative of the people cannot issue attestation to whoever she wanted to attest for for whatever reasons?

But every time Halifa speaks in Gambian politics, the prophet has spoken and it’s the gospel. We cannot allow Halifa keep destroying democratic politics in The Gambia quoting bogus anti democratic laws from the constitution: laws that are completely ridiculously undemocratic. The constitution says this and the constitution says that: even when it’s obviously stupid and anti democratic.

And the madness that whatever is not written in the constitution cannot be thought of in the Gambian democracy- we’re human beings: we make mistakes and we are allowed to change our minds

Can we inject some common sense into our democracy and how The Gambia is governed: Common sense democratic political governance of The Gambia in line with democratic values and conventions!

Politicians cannot misuse constitutional laws to stifle democratic politics in The Gambia. Let’s allow our democracy to flourish and blossom and not be bugged down by communist standards political governance practices! The Gambia is a democracy!

The writer, Yusupha Bojang, is a social worker.

By Hassoum Ceesay

Exactly 46 years ago this week, our founding President His Excellency Alhaji Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, GCMRG, made the first visit to Peking, China, by a Gambian Head of State and met the great Chinese leader Chairman Mao. This visit was indeed one of the most memorable and most important diplomatic outings by any Gambian leader since 1965. Through the State Visit to China, President Jawara was able to sign the Technical Cooperation Agreements which continued to define Chinese support to Gambian development efforts in sports, agriculture, health and infrastructure for the next twenty years to 1995, when diplomatic ties were ruptured unceremoniously by the AFPRC Junta. Through this visit, China became a reliable development partner of our Republic.

Jawara’s visit to China from 10-18 June 1975, came only seven months after the establishment of diplomatic ties between Peking and Banjul in November 1974. In a previous article published in April, I had given the context for Banjul severing ties with Formosa(Taiwan) in favour of Peking as a shrewd and pragmatic diplomatic move by the PPP government.

Soon after Banjul-Peking diplomatic ties were established in late 1974, the Chinese Foreign Ministry showed much goodwill and earnestness by sending  one of their experienced diplomats Mr. Chen Shi-Pei, as Charge D’Affaires to Banjul and he took up post late in December 1974, barely six weeks after ties were established. The Gambian Ministry of External Affairs was also quite in earnest; as early as January 1975, Mr. Alhaji A.B Njie, The Gambian Minister of External Affairs led a High Power delegation to Peking on a ‘Special Mission’. In diplomacy, ‘special Missions’ are ‘missions sent abroad to conduct diplomacy with a limited purpose and usually for a limited time’.

The limited purpose for this special mission, which included the powerful Gambian Secretary General and Head of Civil Service Mr Eric Christensen, was to prepare the way for Jawara’s visit to Peking. Other members of the Gambian delegation were Ambassador Ousman Sallah, Dr. L.J Marenah, Director of Agriculture; and the Inspector General of Police, Fred Lloyd-Evans. The Gambian delegation was in Peking from 28 January to 4 February 1975. On the 3 February 1975, Minister Njie signed the protocols for the Technical Cooperation Agreements with his Chinese counterpart, Huan Hua(died 2010). The visit indeed set the ground for President Jawara’s summer visit to China.

Jawara and his delegation arrived Peking on 10 June 1975. The President was accompanied by Ministers S.M Dibba; A.B Njie and L.K Jabang; civil servants M.B Wadda; Dr. J.A Langley and S.Conateh. For the first time in a foreign visit, Jawara took along a whole press corps to Peking including film cameraman E.Sagnia and reporter E.Cole. This signified the importance that Jawara attached to this visit.

The Government owned Gambia News Bulletin had a banner headline: ‘President Leaves for PRC’; in another issue dated 12 June 1975, the same newspaper had another front page lead: ‘President Jawara Given Rousing Welcome in Peking’. Jawara was received at Peking Airport by a posse of high ranking Chinese leaders including Vice Premier Lii Sien-Nien and Wang Chen and the Foreign Minister Hua. ‘A grand welcome ceremony was held for The Gambian Leader at Peking Airport where he also reviewed a Guard of Honour mounted by the Peoples’ Liberation Army corps’, said a story in Xinhua, the China news agency.

A further testimony for the importance that the Chinese authorities attached to this visit was the fact that Jawara was given the opportunity to visit Chou En Lai(died 1976), the famous Premier and diplomat of China, who was at the time was sick. Jawara went to see him at his hospital bed, and according to Xinhua, the two leaders spoke for 30 minutes, and were both satisfied with the talks.

At a big banquet held for The Gambian delegation at the Great Hall of the People in Peking, Jawara took a toast for the health of Chairman Mao, the Chinese leader, who at this time was also out of sorts. Speaking at this banquet before dozens of foreign diplomats and the Chinese Communist Party functionaries, Jawara said these famous and prophetic words which continue to define China-Gambia special ties:

‘China-Gambia relations have been developing by leaps and bounds since the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries. China is a member of the Third World; and we the rest of the Developing Countries are happy to have China as a partner for development as there is a lot we could learn from her development techniques, especially for us in The Gambia, agric expansion schemes, infrastructure and light industries’ The Gambia News Bulletin, 17 June 1975.

Later the next day in Peking Jawara signed agreements worth D13 million for the construction of a sports stadium, which became known as the independence Stadium and Friendship Hostel, and two hospitals, which were later rewired as six health centres at Fagikunda, Kaur, Yorobawol, Kuntaur etc.  Jawara heeded advice from his health experts that at this time what The Gambia needed were not huge hospitals notorious for their specialization, but small health centre able to respond to the immediate health needs of the people of our Republic! It was thanks to these Chinese built major health centres that the Primary Health Care(PHC) became a Gambian success stories. Thanks to the Chinese built Independence Stadium which was opened in 1983, Gambian sports have developed by leaps and bounds so to say. Jawara also signed an agreement to increase the number of China Rice Experts in the country from 32 to 45 to help increase rice acreage in the country. Indeed, there is still a rice variety in The Gambia which is called ‘chinese’ introduced in the late 1970s by the Chinese rice experts in parts of the Maccarthy Island Division.

Jawara visited Nanking, Shanghai and Yunchow cities to see China’s Great Leap Forward projects. In fact, so impressed was the Gambian leader with China that told reporters that ‘China is one giant construction site’; he and delegation also visited The Great Wall, and the rice schemes along the Yangtse River: ‘President Jawara Impressed by Chinese Agric Schemes’ read a headline in a Banjul paper.

Jawara was hugely impressed by Chairman Mao, the leader of the China. After a closed door meeting with the ailing revolutionary, Jawara spoke highly of Chairman Mao: ‘the force of his personality is still evident. On meeting him, you are in no doubt whatsoever, that this is the man who has played such a tremendous role in bringing about a great revolution in the lives of 800,000,000 people of China-a country that had for long suffered considerably at the hands of the invaders, colonialists and imperialists and has suffered all sorts of tribulations, from famine to repression until their great revolution under the leadership Chairman Mao have thrown away the yoke of feudalism and imperialism and famine. Chairman Mao is a great unifier; who has been able to make his words and thoughts the words and thoughts of the many millions in China. China is a great nation to be reckoned with in every way in the future’, The Gambia News Bulletin, 28 June 1975.

In July 1975, First Lady Chilel opened a photo exhibition on Jawara’s famous visit to Peking at The Gambia National Library which attracted a big audience; another indication of the strong ties between The Gambia-China.

Jawara visit to Peking in the summer of 1975 was a watershed moment in Gambian diplomatic history. Jawara and delegation had their eyes wide open to see the Chinese strides to transform their country from a backwater to the world superpower, self sufficient in food, for example, within 25 years from 1949. Through this summer visit, the foundation blocks for China-Gambia mutual relations were laid, and as the ties continue to thrive today, we need to reflect on this famous trip by Jawara to Peking. China inspired Jawara as a country committed to raising the lives of her people from hardship and protecting her sovereignty from invaders. When he returned, Jawara reinvigorated his famous and very useful ‘tesito’ or self-help philosophy through which Gambians were mobilized into patriotic action to develop schools, causeways and roads in their communities in search for autarchy. The Gambia will continue to inspire China for her peace and stability and goodwill.

Hassoum Ceesay, noted historian and author was alumni 2018 Seminar on Think-tanks for English-speaking African Countries, Zhejiang Normal University,  Zhejiang Province, China

By Madi Jobarteh

To start with, there should be no attestation for the purpose of obtaining a voter’s card. This is because only citizens are required to vote. Citizens acquire a birth certificate and a national ID card as the primary legal evidence of citizenship status. But an attestation only confirms if one was born in a particular locality. Yet to be born in any part of the Gambia does not necessarily confer citizenship as prescribed in the Constitution. Secondly an attestation cannot determine the age of person. Hence attestation could potentially enable a non-Gambian and an under-aged person to obtain a voter’s card which is unconstitutional and illegal. Therefore, attestation as a means to obtain voters card should be abandoned.

The Elections Act in Section 12(2)(e) amended in 2001 provided that either a birth certificate, ID card, passport or an attestation should be produced in order to register. For an attestation, it stated that it should be signed by an alkalo of a village or a seyfo of a district. Clearly this provision has not mentioned a mayor or a chairperson and indeed any other public official. Therefore, no mayor or chairperson, councillor or National Assembly Member could assume that power on his own. IEC cannot also confer such authority on any other person other than an alkalo and seyfo.

Yes, Banjul and Kanifing Municipality have mayors. But in the case of Banjul particularly, there is no neighbourhood of the city that has an alkalo or seyfo. Thus, on a logical basis, and in order not to disenfranchise some people, one may argue that the IEC could allow the mayor to assume the function of giving attestation. One can argue that the IEC could take this decision based on Section 127 of the Elections Act which has empowered the IEC to resolve issues not addressed in the Act based on natural justice and fairness. One can even go further to cite Section 134(2) which gives power to IEC to make rules for the better carrying out of the provisions of the elections law.

I do not think one can depend on the above provisions to make the mayor give attestations, nor can we assume that the fact that there was no expressed provision for that purpose, such power could be derived or implied. Where and how is that power implied from? Is it just because Banjul has no alkalo or seyfo? Or is it that because failure to give attestation may disenfranchise some people? True and legitimate as those concerns maybe, they are still inadequate to give power to the mayor to give attestation.

I do not think the mayor or anyone can change a substantive provision by adding or reducing it just to take care of what was not addressed originally. For example, the law identified a birth certificate, ID card or passport as one of the documents necessary to register, but it did not mention a driver’s license. Therefore, under no circumstance could the IEC add a driver’s license to the list just because one may not have all of the above documents for any reason.

We must bear in mind that the fact that there is a specified list of documents means that the law drafters and lawmakers knew what they wanted. The lawmakers, who are in fact from political parties knew there was a city called Banjul which has neither an alkalo nor a chief. They did not forget nor were they ignorant of that fact, hence we cannot correct that issue now by the mayor giving attestation. That, to me, would defeat the purpose of sections 127 and 134 as well as effectively give unlimited power to the IEC to practically change any provision in the Elections Act.

I hold that sections 127 and 134 give such powers as to enable IEC to address operational and administrative issues for the purpose of better implementation of the provisions of the law. But sections 127 and 134 cannot give the power to IEC to make substantive changes to any provision which would tantamount to making the IEC a lawmaker. Hence if the IEC can add a mayor to the list of persons who can give attestation then IEC is amending that provision (Section 12.2.e) for which it has no powers to do so. Therefore, there is no basis for the Mayor of Banjul to give attestations.

In making this observation it is also necessary to state that this unfortunate scenario only highlights, once again the failure of political leadership ranging from the Executive to the Legislature to political parties and IEC. The practice of attestation was first introduced in the laws in 2001. But on 17 June 2015, the Gambia Opposition for Electoral Reforms (GOFER) submitted a 12-point document in which the removal of attestations was one of the key demands. They perceived attestation as fraudulent. In the document, this is how they put it,

“The Opposition endorsed the IEC’s recommendation to the National Assembly for electoral law review to exclude Attestation Forms from the documents that are to be forwarded to the Registration Officers during registration of voters to determine citizenship and the request to re-introduce the screening of registration applicants by registering officers.”

GOFER was constituted in 2012 by GMC, GPDP, NRP, PDOIS, PPP and UDP and they submitted their demands in 2015 jointly to the President, IEC Chair, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the Secretary General, as well as to the UN, AU, EU, ECOWAS, US Secretary of State and Rev. Jesse Jackson. Wow! The issue of attestation has been a very longstanding contentious issue. For example, the Commonwealth election observation mission noted in their observation report on the 2011 presidential election that opposition parties and CSOs had raised the issue with them that the practice was prone to abuse.

Therefore, one wonders how come the issue of attestation still remains in the law when these GOFER parties were the ones that formed a coalition to remove the former regime. Most of them are currently key members in both the Executive and the Legislature. In 2017, when they amended the electoral law to reduce the cost of nomination, why did they not also remove attestation altogether as a long-held concern? Even in the Elections Bill 2020, one can find attestation still there! Why?

Therefore, none of these parties and indeed the IEC has any moral authority to support or oppose attestation today because they had the opportunity to change it since 2017. Why did they refuse to do so? Rather, what is manifesting is the utter failure and lack of political will by the President, political parties and their leaders and the National Assembly. They have demonstrated that they are good at only rhetoric and showmanship but they lack any commitment to the true transformation of this country into a true democracy and good governance.

Just as it is with attestation so also is the same poor leadership they have shown when it comes to diaspora voting. While they all love to pontificate about the right of Gambians abroad to register and vote yet no party or its leader, neither the Government nor IEC has shown any genuine interest or taken any practical step to make it happen. Otherwise the diaspora would have registered and voting since a decade ago!

Stand up and speak up to hold political party leaders accountable!

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By Madi Jobarteh

What is the purpose of Pres. Barrow’s visit to Guinea-Conakry? The press release from State House is not only scanty but highly misleading which is confirmed by what Barrow told his host! In the videos circulating, Barrow is seen sitting with Pres. Alpha Conde saying that he came to learn from Conde, a man who is notorious for undermining his country’s constitution just to continue to grip power, regardless of how many of his citizens were killed!

It is utterly unbelievable that a President of a whole country would visit another President of another country in order to learn from the host. Presidents do not embark on study tours at all. If Barrow needed to learn anything, indeed the resources, competence and personalities exist in The Gambia for him to utilize to know what he needed to know since 2017.

Thus for Pres. Barrow to wait until the eve of the end of his tenure to travel to a fellow president to sit at his feet asking to learn is indeed the highest insult to national sovereignty and dignity. Nowhere in international relations would a sitting President go to another President to claim to learn from the host.

President Barrow must understand that he carries at all times the collective dignity, sovereignty and power of the Gambian people and their Republic. Hence for him to submit himself to any other person or country or entity on earth other than the People of The Gambia is treasonable. By his actions and words in Conakry, Pres. Barrow has surrendered our sovereignty to a foreign country. He has no powers whatsoever to do such and he should be held accountable.

Barrow must understand that international relation is based on the sovereign equality of nations. This is non-negotiable. No mater how powerful and rich and influential one country or its president is, it does not have any more equality than the smallest, poorest or less influential country or its president on earth!

For example, no matter it’s power and influence the United States of America does not have more sovereignty over and above The Gambia! They all have one vote each! For that matter, the President of The Gambia cannot perceive the President of the United States as big sister or big brother or father or mother or teacher to learn from. This is why Presidents refer to each other as ‘colleague’ or ‘friend’. There is no big or small President!

I recall even the despicable tinpot dictator Yaya Jammeh would refer to former Senegalese Pres. Abdoulaye Wade as ‘brother’. Yet Wade can be a father to Jammeh and far more educated. But despite his criminality, Jammeh knew as far as international diplomacy was concerned that the age and education of Wade is irrelevant! President is just President!

The fact that one is compelled as a last resort to use Jammeh as an example in itself tells how much Pres. Barrow is equally betraying and misleading The Gambia like his predecessor!

Therefore for Adama Barrow to bundle himself all the way to Conakry to ask that dishonest leader Alpha Conde to teach him is indeed the highest insult inflicted on a sovereign nation. The National Assembly must call the President to order for this gross blunder at the international level!

The fact that we are at the eve of the presidential election while the TRRC is about to hand over its final report to Barrow should generate legitimate concerns about this dubious visit. We know that Alpha Conde is not an honest leader who subverted democracy by changing the country’s constitution in order to legitimatize his grip on power. Also, knowing that Conde is a Jammeh ally and ready to shield him from accountability, it begs the question as to what is Barrow discussing with Conde behind closed doors!

Above all, why would the President go to spend three days in Guinea? What is the national interest he is pursuing in Conakry? State House must know that they have a duty to be transparent to Gambians!

Therefore whatever the President is doing anytime and anywhere must be fully disclosed to citizens on time. If they cannot disclose such information for national security reasons, citizens must be told accordingly. But the statement from State House about this visit is vague, misleading and unacceptable.

Therefore the National Assembly must summon the President to question him about this visit. In a normal democracy and with good leadership, the President should have informed the parliament about the national objectives he is pursuing with this visit. There is a standing committee on foreign relations in the National Assembly which must ensure that they get the full details of this dubious visit! I hope our NAMs will stand up this time to salvage the country from the uncountable embarrassing actions of this President.

We the citizens need to know why President Barrow went to Guinea-Conakry for three good days with such a large entourage. What is the cost of this visit? How much is The Gambia gaining from this visit? We need to know.

For The Gambia ?? Our Homeland