For those wondering if the nation’s new attorney general will ever learn the harsh side of Gambians, the moment has arrived for you to find the sobering truth.

Since he became the country’s attorney general and minister of justice back in June, it’s been something of a honeymoon and smooth-sailing for Dawda Jallow. There’s never been a moment when he would get home from work and feel hard done by. That’s no longer going to be the case.

But it’s Mr Jallow himself that’s to be blamed for this unfortunate marital estrangement. He consciously took part in destroying one of the most important projects of our road to a true democracy and for that many Gambians will not forgive him.

One of the reasons why President Barrow refused to step down in January as required by the three years deal that brought him to power is a new constitution. He hired people of the best integrity to put one together. He said this was going to be one of his good legacies as president.

As attorney general, Dawda Jallow was last Tuesday expected to defend to the hilt the bill that could see that happen. Really a lot of these ‘NO’ MPs would have voted ‘YES’ if he had made a strong enough case. Instead, he put in a lame performance. There was no adventure. Conviction too. In fact as he spoke, people were sleeping.

There’s actually two arguments being pedaled since his I’m-just-here-to-clarify-certain-issues speech. One is he was told by his boss to come to the national assembly and wear a lazy posture so the draft would fail because the boss is not happy with the charter. The other is he actually didn’t know what he was doing. Some clueless attorney general who has no idea how to defend a piece of legislation he himself made with his own hands.

If you really want to know about Dawda Jallow, he’s not fully up to the task. Since he became the attorney general, journalists have approached him for an interview and all he would tell them is he’s still going through the files bequeathed him by his predecessor. It looks like he would spend his entire time as attorney general reviewing the files.

But the way he’s been roasted by Gambians over the past couple of days can now be considered Exhibit A that his honeymoon is over. Be sure of it.

Of recent — we have entered a new dawn in my homeland, thus, prompting a myriad of conversations on the idea of justice, of liberty, of democracy, of the state and the demos. These are interesting times — and I am particularly enjoying the fact that we are having debates on the Constitution and demanding what we want from our government. However, democracy is messy, ugly and does not grant us our wishes all the time; but boy, is it sweet when it yields what we want. In the democratic process, if one faction does not get its wishes, it can repackage its message and/or prepare for the next elections. Well, that is if you can have the majority on your side, because democracy is literally the tyranny of the majority. Remember that there is no justice in politics — only interests. Winning is the only thing that matters in politics; hence, why politicians would do anything and everything to win — even if that means voting against a $2M project — the Constitution Review Commission (CRC).

Essentially, I have heard several arguments as to how Barrow and his cabal of aiders and abettors put their self-interest above the nation’s by voting against the Draft Constitution. I find this to be quite interesting, because national interest is always a contested idea — it is not a monolith. Every politician would argue that their interests are not any different from the nation’s. I have been studying political science for a good minute now and I have seldom seen a politician support policies and laws that would essentially end their political career. This Draft Constitution would have simply ended or stunted Barrow’s political career. For example, by retroactively applying term limits, Barrow’s active political career would have ended after the 2021 elections. In addition, Barrow, in my view, would not be able to garner a supermajority in 2021. Therefore, Barrow, like most politicians, would do what he has to do to win. Next time you go to the polls remember that; remember that, in politics, who we vote for is not about our souls, our hopes, our morality, it’s just politics, man!

Notwithstanding, what I witnessed the other day in the Gambian parliament was the true embodiment of representative democracy. Politicians, their constituents arguing about the merits and demerits of the Draft Constitution. People calling their representatives urging them to vote for, or against, the Draft. This is every political scientists’ dream: citizen engagement in the democratic process. From the onset, Gambians were engaged in the CRC, attending meetings, arguing online about the very system of government they wanted. For instance, the idea of secularism, for several weeks, became the bane of existence of the citizenry — from online polemics to religious incantations, to Op-Eds arguing for, and against, secularism. To me, this is progress. This is what democracy is and should be about — debates, citizens engagement. So, if there is anything to take away from the politicking that took place in the parliament, it would be that democracy won and to that, I say, the answer to a conundrum in democracy, in essence, is more democracy, not less.

To that end, remember, democracy is not a panacea or a destination, it is a perpetual struggle. As a case in point — the United States — which is argued to be one of the models of representative democracy, for a century or so — was a colossal disappointment, an experiment which — by its own standards of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — failed miserably.

Finally, the Commissioners should resign in protest, the Commission disbanded and, this expensive exercise should, I hope, end our obsession with these Commissions.

Sulayman Njie

Washington, D.C.

9.25.20

I wonder how many people are following the seemingly impending political crisis developing in the USA, six weeks before the presidential election there with President Donald Trump frightening everyone with his possible intention of disputing the results if he should lose to Joe Biden in November who many think will win? While publicly sounding his intent, the FBI and CIA have revealed startling evidence of the Russian KGB clandestinely using cyberspace to undermine Biden’s credibility just to have Trump reelected. The Russian game that was blamed for Hilary Clinton losing to Donald Trump in 2016 is on overdrive again, spreading misinformation to the American voters and trying everything to make Biden look like a loser inclined to undermine American democracy while Trump is portrayed as reinforcing a perfect state of the union he built.

Fake computer images of Joe Biden sleeping and snoring while being interviewed, twisting his remarks from interviews or acting stupidly are circulated online by Russians which most low IQ Americans are treating as factual. Coupled with messages that foreign governments are sending millions of fraudulent mailed ballots into the country in favor of Joe Biden and Trump twitting the same fake stories, ostensibly creates an uncertainty on the flawless voting system America practiced since time immemorial. By the time November is here Trump would have sown enough seeds of doubt in people’s minds to challenge the results and even if the supreme court eventually rules against him his dogmatic followers would remain defiant. It should be seriously monitored by all Americans or by mankind as a whole.

By every indication, American democracy, the model emulated by the whole world risks a monumental setback if Trump carries out his threat to challenge the credibility of the over 200-year old electoral system. Apart from former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, nobody in the republican party is condemning Trump for his reckless calculation. So may I ask, what does that say about party politics? That friendship or enmity doesn’t matter but interest alone. All these republicans like Linsey Graham and Republican majority senate leaders Mitch McConnell have in the past denounced Trump’s flawed character and policies until they realized that going against him persistently will ultimately cost them their seats

By challenging the election results in November, only the supreme court will have the jurisdiction to settle such disputes, the reason they are rushing, weeks before Trump’s term ends to select a new conservative judge to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who died last week; however, nine months before the end of Obama’s second term these very people stopped his replacement nominee Merrick Garland of Justice Antonin Scalia who died as well, on the squabble that the time-nine months left for Obama to go-disallowed it.

Now, in the wake of the constitutional dispute in the Gambia I want my readers to start comparing and contrasting the American dilemma to that of the Gambia’s? I thought the American situation was a perfect preamble for critical scholars.

In the Gambia, I believe we are on an uncertain political course that demands urgent attention and discussion. With the new draft constitution dead and buried, it looks pretty obvious that the opposition parties especially the UDP are on a collision course with the Barrow government, come the 2021 general elections.

Lawyer Darbo in his followup press conference had questioned the commitment of the Justice Minister for seriously defending the document he took to the national assembly for ratification of which I am yet to hear the response of the minister. The UDP leader has also explained how when such government ventures fail, heads of state, for ethical reasons, resign from their positions and gave examples of the case of the late Sir Dawda Jawara in the 50s and Theresa May of England recently.

I don’t know how to say this, but since the submission of the draft to the executive where cabinet first review it, while they never added or subtracted anything from document, folks close to the presidency had expressed their dissatisfaction with some of the articles especially on the retroactive term limit of the Barrow government. They have also said and done nothing other than to show their agreement with retaining the 1997 constitution instead of the 2020 one which they believe will somehow disqualify the candidature of Lawyer Darbo who happens to be their toughest opponent. I have heard folks close to the corridor of power-borrowing a phrase from my friend Ebrima Sankarah-saying now and again that Lawyer Darbo’s past conviction records by the country’s legal system will automatically disallow him to contest if the 1997 constitution is retained. And that constitution has now been retained prompting a lot of celebration from the Barrow loyalists and those still defending President Jammeh’s legacy.

The UDP leader has however come out to strongly argue that, despite the conviction, there was nothing that could prevent him from contesting the next election as the flag bearer of his party unless three things happen; that he is mentally or physically incapacitated by an illness or is rejected by his party to lead them. What exactly does he know that we don’t? I guess time will tell.

He is a constitutional lawyer, one of the best for that matter, making me believe that he is relying on his knowledge of our constitution to challenge and win anyone trying to stop him.

I have read and heard some critics saying that Mr. Darbo is trying to create a political tension that may inspire some extremists in his party who might resort to political agitation or civil disobedience like in the regrettable 2016 incident when the UDP youth wing leader, the late Solo Sanding illegally organized a demonstration that sadly cost him his life.

If my memory serves me well, Mr. Darbo had at the time vehemently expressed his disagreement with that demonstration that he had said was organized without the knowledge or approval of the UDP executive. That the only reason he had to organize a subsequent demonstration was to demand for the remains of Mr. Sanding when they were informed of his death.

In that statement, I think he had sent a loud and clear message to his zealots that illegal political demonstrations organized in the name of the party will never be condoned.

So I expect him to rather challenge anyone at the courts trying to use the 1997 constitution to prevent him from contesting next year than to encourage defiant elements in his party to take the dumb route of trying to render the nation ungovernable. ECOMIG and Senegal will not standby and watch that happen anyway, know what Barrow means to them.

Adama Barrow on the other hand will need a genuine campaign team, legally educated and politically committed to help him get over the 2021 huddle.

After listening to his recent speech at the National Assembly, I thought he was out to let the Gambians know that everything that was stalling his government’s achievements had to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, most of his special plans crafted in 2019 for 2020 have been derailed by the effects of the pandemic which to me is a legitimate reason. By the way, I think the president deserve a pat in the back for improving his reading skills. So kudos Mr. “Dyslexia”.

Of course, his critics have been asking for his immediate plans to solve or minimize the problem which I don’t think is a fair question since the pandemic is still around with more damages expected to be done before an all clear is globally realized. They have accused his government of not doing enough about fighting the disease with most of the money received allegedly stolen through corruption. Other than the Health minister going to the NA one time to complain about his employees acting corruptly, the alleged rampant corruption is yet to be proven. It could be a matter of not having enough to keep up with the devastating effects of the pandemic and not necessarily any major corruption as such. It’s just my opinion which I am entitled to, so please spare me the reminder of how my father was a woman and my mother a man.

However, if Barrow wants to prevail, I think he should start tasking his ministers in particular to start showing their substance in promoting his agenda. The Justice minister should come out right away to explain whether or not Lawyer Darbo is qualified to run on the 1997 constitution. His government should make its position known about the failed bid to confirm the draft constitution which nobody is doing. All ministers must publicly explain their position on the matter for him to understand the true believers from the chameleons.

Because what I expect to happen, months down the line, is the pandemic wrecking so much havoc that the government may not even have the resources or see the need to conduct the 2021 elections. It will be another legitimate excuse that the government and Gambians in general should brace up for. It’s still my opinion.

That said, I have this final piece of advice to give President Barrow. The APRC NAMS were very instrumental in tilting the voting fulcrum that killed the draft constitution and I am pretty much sure Mr. Barrow was very happy about the final outcome. In fact he shouldn’t shy away from coming out to thank the APRC directly or indirectly because he might need them again in 2021 to move on.

But with all honesty, I don’t think resuming the TRRC drama at this time in the middle of this deadly pandemic is a wise idea, in that the tenet on which it was founded was to demonize the APRC government whose members seem to be edging towards forming an alliance with the NPP. Sitting there everyday will be to merely install in Gambians and non-Gambians that the APRC government was evil, any one associated with it is evil as well and the 1997 constitution the country now adopts, “thanks to Barrow’s dishonesty”, will be his instrument of oppressing the Gambian people and perpetuating himself in office, just like Jammeh had been.

In this pandemic when everything is falling apart with thousands of lives being lost on daily bases due to the recklessness of the Chinese government, his government should have better things to do or better places to plow our time and resources than in this divisive TRRC, disadvantageous to his future political ambition.

Thanks for reading

SAMSUDEEN SARR

BANJUL, THE GAMBIA.

The draft constitution was always bound to fumble. This was the belief held by many fervid observers.

A new constitution was one of the things that sat highly on the agenda of the coalition when it was preparing to enter the political trenches back in 2016. A complete break from the past was what it was looking at, and for one to truly put Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship behind him, a new constitution is somewhere to start from.

But the voting down of the draft constitution on Tuesday by MPs after more than two years of labor reeks of a big debacle. It’s massive in many ways, and one major repercussion is that it might have just about spelt the end for the New Gambia project.

The MPs’ debate on the constitution promulgation bill 2020 lasted three days but what it has certainly brought out is the partisan politics in them. Even if they try to convince themselves of something else.

If I’m to tell you the truth, the debate was a war of political giants, President Adama Barrow Vs Ousainou Darboe. Pure and simple and clear.

All UDP MPs supported the bill – and while they claim it’s for the national interest, the writing was clear on the wall: the draft favours Darboe greatly and they were loving that.

UDP cum independents that are now in love with President Barrow and NRP MPs saw it as a plot against against the President and so they voted against it.

Elsewhere, anything APRC people suspect to be anti-them, be sure they will reject it. APRC MPs voted ‘NO’ because they feel it’s a conspiracy against ‘Yahya Jammeh’s 1997’. Although they might along the way helped Barrow.

But I feel sorry for the man hired to build the draft constitution. It’s always painful for someone to do a job only for him to be told it’s awful.

The nation had high hopes and confidence in Justice Cherno Sulayman Jallow when he was chosen to cobble together this document. The nation gave him what it required: 116 million dalasis. But he will feel really bad that his employers are not impressed by his work.

Lamin Njie is the editor in chief of The Fatu Network.

The only reason why NAMs shouldn’t change anything in the Final Draft Constitution is to avoid partisan capture of the document. That is, to make changes that would be perceived to favour one party or politician in one way or another. The consequence of touching the document therefore undermines its legitimacy and integrity. This is because those changes will now be perceived in terms of a particular party or politician’s interest.

Remember, the 1997 Constitution has been nicknamed the ‘Soldier’s Constitution’ or ‘Jammeh’s Constitution’ simply because from the very onset the AFPRC Junta interfered with the draft that was submitted to them by the National Consultative Council in 1996. Since then many citizens lost faith in that constitution. In fact, in the 1996 referendum there was a massive campaign against it as a soldier’s constitution. Twenty six years later today, people still refer to it as ‘Yaya Jammeh’s Constitution’. We should avoid our 3rd Constitution to be impugned as such.

It is obvious that parliaments do comprise several political parties. Thus in many instances issues get politicized and partisan. Thus if NAMs were allowed to touch the document there is no doubt that partisan and personal interests will surface.

Furthermore, if NAMs touch this draft, even with the best of intentions, it will dilute the citizen ownership of the document. It means from that moment, the draft constitution is no more fully reflective of the original opinions of the citizens of this country. Rather it will become a politicized constitution in favour of this or that party. That will make the draft lose its sincerity, genuineness and honour and consequently lose public confidence and ownership of it.

Therefore, let us protect the legitimacy, integrity and the sanctity of the 2020 Final Draft Constitution by preventing anyone from touching it. If we allow changes to the document that seems to favour one party or the other, there is high likelihood that some people will campaign against it as this or that party’s constitution.

Even if it gets eventually approved in the referendum, the constitution will be tainted with that mischaracterization that it is a Barrow or UDP or PDOIS or NRP or GDC or PPP or APRC constitution depending on which side had more influence on it. This is precisely the reason that we must appeal to our NAMs to rather approve the bill so that the Final Draft Constitution goes to a referendum, untouched.

Allowing NAMs to touch the document also creates the risk of promoting a No-Vote in the referendum as voters may see the draft as favoring that party or this party. If the No-Vote wins, it would mean sticking with the obnoxious 1997 Constitution hence a catastrophic failure of ensuring true system change. That means the country is still within the orbit of Dictatorship.

On the other hand, if that draft got approved anyway and becomes the substantive constitution, what that would trigger is a series of amendments in due course by any new government that comes into office with control over the National Assembly. What this means is that we will once again have to contend with an overly butchered constitution just like the 1997 Constitution. This is what will further take away the legitimacy and integrity of our Constitution, thus once again undermine national unity, national security and further polarize our society.

Therefore, let us urge NAMs to protect the legitimacy and integrity of this Final Draft Constitution and maintain the public ownership of it by not touching it but approve the bill and send it to a referendum ASAP.

For The Gambia Our Homeland
……………………………………………..
Madi Jobarteh

As a national document, a democratic constitution must settle national authority in a manner that avoids concentrating public power in any one segment of a political system. In no small way, the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution) comprehensively failed this basic test.

Notwithstanding theoretical delineations between the traditional arms of a democratic polity, and the Constitution’s self-serving claim of separating power, the reality is completely different. Not only are the Legislative and Judicial branches accorded inferior status by making both ultimately answerable to the Executive, critical agencies indispensable to the proper functioning of a democratic state are all similarly degraded. In a nutshell, meaningful national power is entirely concentrated in the Executive.

Additionally, there are express contradictions between key Constitutional provisions, as well as considerable fluff in need of excision from the document.

Accepting that a polity with weak institutions cannot ensure accountability under the best constitution, there is nevertheless a compelling need to retreat from the brazen amalgamation of public power in one branch of government.

In the circumstances the contention that the Constitution suffers from democratic deficit and therefore requires ditching is not a matter for serious debate. That general agreement about its glaring shortcomings notwithstanding, the idea that any proposed replacement, no matter how mediocre and wrongheaded must be better is an objectionable tenet.

As the Draft Constitution (the Draft) wends its way through the Second Reading in the National Assembly (NA), the design flaws in the architecture of the Constitutional Review Commission Act 2017 (the CRC Act) are clearly visible. The Second Reading commenced the debates proper on the Draft and the storms it must travel through will get heavier but not heavy enough to sink this mediocre document. It must go through the full parliamentary schedule to the decisive Third Reading for interim approval or complete defeat.

Interim approval pending the verdict of the people in a referendum, or complete defeat ending its legislative journey should it fail to secure seventy five percent support in the NA. The Second Reading vote this week is therefore not a make or break but may be a harbinger of the Draft’s direction of travel going into the critical Third Reading.

Although unassailable a principle that the President cannot tinker with the Draft, it is coming before the NA as a Bill, giving that organ the Constitutional mandate to debate and amend, or throw out completely if that eventuality coincides with the required numbers of the Solons.

According to section 100 (1) of the Constitution, “the legislative power of The Gambia shall be exercised by Bills passed by the National Assembly and assented to by the President”! A further demonstration of the authority of the NA to debate and amend the Draft is articulated thus:- “… a Bill or motion may be introduced in the National Assembly by a member of the Cabinet or by a member of the National Assembly, and the National Assembly shall give consideration to Bills and motions so introduced” (see 101 (1) of the Constitution).

Indeed, Chapter XXII talks about “Amendment” and “Alteration” of the Constitution and the power to “amend, add to, repeal or … alter” is expressly donated to the NA (see 226 (8). Section 226 (9) specifically states:- “… references to the amendment, modification or re-enactment with or without amendment or modification, of the Constitution or of any provision for the time being contained in this Constitution, the suspension or repeal or the making of different provision in lieu thereof, and the addition of new provisions …”.

In the particular circumstances of the presented scenario, the intricate linkage between the Constitution and the Draft is unquestionable. “Promulgation” and “repeal” are specific words employed in the Gazette Supplement of 28 August 2020 announcing the Bill now awaiting the outcome of the collaborative enterprise between NA and the people. Clearly the Draft controls nothing as the mandated procedures are delineated in the Constitution.

The NA is the normal supreme authority in the arena of legislative scrutiny but where any process triggers a referendum, it collaborates with the electorate. Therefore the postulation that on entrenched provisions, the voters ousted “… the legislative competence of parliament” and they “… alone could amend or repeal entrenched clauses via a referendum” is an unbelievably misguided and preposterous proposition.

Without the parliamentary journey and approval, there is no avenue through which the voters can articulate their preferences on an entrenched provision and same applies to the Draft.

Similarly the contention that “… Parliament may debate, pass or reject the constitution referendum bill, but not the draft constitution itself” is nonsense of the highest order. I am not aware of anything called a “constitution referendum bill”. Once the “Promulgation” and “repeal” bill garnered parliamentary approval, the Speaker refers the matter to the IEC for a referendum (226 (4)(c). There is not and there will not be a “constitution referendum bill”.

A stitch up from the onset, the question may be moot that the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) has the mandate to draft a proposed new Constitution but it remains a live issue that the promulgation of the document is a competence it does not have.

In Kenya, a country whose constitution the CRC extensively copied and pasted in the Draft, all members of that country’s parliament were part of the National Constitutional Consultative Forum (the National Forum). So were all members of the Commission, and the District Forums. By every measure a truly national process but the anti majoritarian mechanism shepherded by our Attorney General brought the project to its current location.

Although the idea that our nation requires a new constitution was properly conceived, the delivery mechanism selected was faulty in the extreme. Whether that was deliberate or incompetence is an open question. The authorities had the option of establishing constitutional or constituent assemblies or a constitutional commission. Ill advisedly it chose the latter with a truncated structure and clear shortcomings in the Gambian context.

A constitutional commission like the CRC “… is formed for the purpose of preparing a draft constitution for consideration or adoption by another body…”

Moreover, “Commissions are different from the legislature or the constituent assembly in at least three ways: function (they do not make final decisions on the constitution, being advisory), qualifications (primarily expert, rather than political or representative), and size (small, and therefore with different dynamics from assemblies) …”.

By every rational yardstick, the idea that the NA is bereft of competence to touch the Draft in any way is an incomprehensible proposition. The legislative domain denotes the core competence of the NA and given the Constitutional provisions earlier referenced, it has the competence in law and doctrine to make appropriate amendments to this Draft.

Indeed, the meaning around the legislative jargon of Third Reading is another authoritative demonstration of what the NA can do with this Draft. It can debate and amend as necessary before the ultimate vote at the end of the Third Reading.

And how about the end product!

“A recent comparative study undertaken by the United States Institute of Peace of nineteen constitution-making processes observed that of those processes that used commissions, these bodies did not seem to produce a better result than those using a constituent assembly or parliamentary drafting committee with experts…”.

With what the CRC ultimately produced, we know that very well in The Gambia.

It may be a long and tedious process but only a Draft amended by the NA may save this project of a hundred and sixteen million Dalasis and counting.

The chickens are truly home to roost but the knives of the Solons may save the Draft!

They have the Constitutional right to remove the excess fat from the Draft.

Lamin J. Darbo

After watching a recent Kerr Fatou Network interview with my former boss at the United Nations and current foreign minister of the Gambia, Dr. Mamadou Tangara, I found it compelling to factcheck or dissect some of the critical quintessences that, to me, had not been satisfactorily answered.

ON THE GAMBIA 2016 ELECTORAL IMPASSE: It was the first subject where Dr. Tangara was quizzed over the role he had played at the UN as Gambia’s Permanent Representation (PR), or Ambassador during that history-altering phenomenon. He explained the overwhelmingly celebrated moment by his peers in the first week following President Jammeh’s acceptance of the first election results declared by the Gambia Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) on December 2nd, 2016. That they showered him and all Gambians with all sorts of accolades for the remarkable achievement; he added that by the end of that week he attended a UN-organized ceremony in New York where the late Babatunde Osotimehin, then Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the UNPF delivered a speech applauding the Gambians for conducting an election where the president who had been in power for 22 years accepted losing to his opponents.

He was identified in his quiet corner among the crowd and once again congratulated. However, he went on to say that with all the euphoria, he kept on warning his peers not to be hasty in celebrating too soon “considering the kind of person President Jammeh was”.

“Why?” asked Fatou Touray, the interviewer.

He attributed it to something instinctive rather than anything tangibly explainable.

I was expecting Madam Touray to further ask him whether that was before or after the IEC came up with the second controversial set of results on December 5th 2016 that prompted the subsequent chaos, but I guess she is perhaps one of those Gambians still trivializing that major issue responsible for Senegal’s involvement or takeover.

That said, most Gambians following the TRRC drama were aware of the testimony of Chief of Protocol (COP) Alhagie Ceesay who at the time was in Maryland together with former First Lady Zainab Jammeh where he had explained how days before he had learnt from her that President Jammeh had decided to challenge the results after already conceding. Naturally, Ceesay was never asked at the TRRC whether the former first lady disclosed why her husband had a change of mind or when exactly she had told him that. But again, that would have probably enlightened the world about the truth still being avoided on how the second results declared by the IEC three days after triggered the mess.

What was crystal clear however, was Alhagie Ceesay’s disclosure at the TRRC that he immediately consulted the Senegalese Ambassador to Washington DC Mr. Babacar Diagne to report the secret message from Lady Zainab. Ambassador Diagne, posted from the Gambia to America in 2014, around the time Shiekh Omar Faye was assigned there as Gambia’s Charge-d’affairs used to claim being a good friend of President Jammeh and was definitely very close to Omar Faye throughout the two years they spent together in Washington DC.

So essentially, the idea of Senegal’s involvement in our election business-an internal affairs-started well before Jammeh even came out publicly to annul the election results, thanks to Alagie Ceesay, Omar Faye, Dr. Mamadou Tangara and all the other ambassadors convinced along the way to join the unconscionable mother of all treacheries.

Therefore factoring the COP’s revelation at the TRRC whom I have always considered another Judas in the diplomatic team, PR Dr. Tangara at the time telling Madam Touray that he had relied purely on his instincts that Jammeh would eventually change his mind stinks high to heavens. Anything other than confessing how as Gambia’s ambassadors they had clandestinely worked together to mortgage our country’s sovereignty to Senegal in order to preserve their jobs was outright dishonesty.

Knowing what they knew about Jammeh’s plans to dispute the election results from December 5th the day the IEC came up with their controversial numbers to December 9th, the day he annulled the results, a leader of goodwill would have acted differently from the way Mackey Sall did by simply calling Jammeh to find out what was going on. And if possible talked him out of his intention as ECOWAS chairman if he had believed that it could create a greater problem or even result into war. Or still send Babacar Diagne his friend to him to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

But that would have allowed the nation’s transition to continue smoothly and denied Senegal and France the opportunity to put their knees on Gambia’s neck. It is also obvious that the coalition party given all their hatred of President Jammeh and his “enablers” would have never been keen in retaining any of these treacherous ambassadors whom otherwise would have gone jobless like in the cases of Pierre Minteh, protocol officer to Ambassador Omar Faye and I, Samsudeen Sarr deputy ambassador to Dr. Mamadou Tangara, the two of us who refused to betraying our country.

After all the years they had devotedly served Jammeh’s “evil government” that most of them openly denounce now, people should wonder what if it was not for their jobs why they betrayed their government. Other than being judases capable of destroying any government or leader, it will be fair to define their characters as nonbelievers of anything whatsoever who would turn against President Barrow whenever the dynamics changed against their personal interests.

So while Senegal and France had finally found the right opportunity they were for so long looking for to takeover the political and future economic destiny of the Gambia, our Judases simply realized that their job survival depended on rallying unconditionally behind Senegal to force Jammeh out even if it had necessitated waging war to destroy their country. So the whole dirty plan was hatched waiting for Jammeh to just annul the elections. Zainab didn’t know anything about the snitch COP Alhagie Ceesay she had trusted so much.

No wonder, Jammeh annulled the results on December 9th and the next morning December 10th, Senegal got the resolution passed at the Security Council demanding that he respected the constitutional will of the Gambian voters. Obviously, the whole document was already drafted waiting for submission.

I heard Dr. Tangara telling Madam Touray that as a diplomat at the UN, he was not working for anybody but the Gambian people. Really?

Like ministerial appointments, it is apparent that all ambassadorial appointments are political and as such, appointees are expected to be loyal to the head of state who offered them the job. Madam Fatou Touray may not know that and couldn’t therefore exhaust that argument.

It was in fact all their fawning cooperation that Senegal needed to justify their illegal action of interfering in what was certainly an internal affairs.

Anyway while on it, Madam Touray inadvertently exposed a lot about the minister’s confusion over international policies. When asked what he had felt about the recent coup in Mali he spontaneously condemned the junta for their action and demanded their immediate handing over of the government they unconstitutionally seized to a civilian leadership. Reiterating the same stale message from France over how the Jihadists, up north, could takeover Mali if the soldiers were not mindful. We are now aware of how radical groups including so-called Muslim extremists or jihadists are mere bandits and mercenaries funded, armed or equipped by western-nation-stock holders through their governments to render the mineral-rich nations of Africa volatile resulting in the need to have their troops on the ground but to only continue protecting and exploiting our natural resources. There are over seven major European gold-mining companies in Mali lifting billions of dollars worth of pure gold nuggets with all contracts signed through France. Familiar with the Hummingbird Gold miners, Barrick Gold, Resolute Mining, Cora Gold, to name a few in Mali? Hey, let’s not be foolish, the 5000 plus French troops in Mali are not there to protect any Malian from Jihadists like Dr. Tangara has been indoctrinated to market the deceptive concept all over the world for his French masters but for the gold reserve in the country, the fourth largest in the entire African continent.

Ironically, when Madam Touray asked his opinion about the unconstitutionality of Presidents Alasan Ouattara and Alpha Conde of Ivory Coast and Guinea Conakry respectively now contesting for third terms in office using force because their constitutional tenures limited them to two, he declined to comment on the excuse that those were internal affairs to be handled by individual nations affected. What’s the difference between the Malian or Gambian situation and those other two countries where the leaders are blatantly violating their national constitutions and killing their opponents with impunity? Yeah, Gambia is easier to bully than any of those neocolonial countries relying on France.

FOREIGN POLICY: After explaining the foreign policy of the Gambia as rooted on non-alignment, neutrality and good international relationship with all neighboring countries in particular, the same rhetoric we had echoed about the position of the APRC government at the UN, Madam Touray wanted serious answers about why Senegal now dominates us in virtually every engagement and transaction between our two countries. She listed the discrepancies in our trade, fisheries, security, energy and transportation deals where Senegal appears to benefit far more than the Gambia.

Typical of my former boss, he baffled the woman with a story, first underscoring the relationship of our two countries, hinged on the notion of “one nation in two states”. He then continued on what he said was a great agreement newly realized between Senegal and the Gambia and awaiting ratification but stalled by the COVID-19 pandemic of which he had seemed willing to elaborate on.

But he neither cataloged nor elaborated on any agreement-the Shiekh Omar Faye style-and instead took the woman on a rollercoaster ride on his days as a PhD student in France when he once represented the APRC government to a colloquium in Dakar Senegal to discuss the subject of Senegal and the Gambia co-owning the Yellitenda-Bambatenda Bridge. President Wade was then Senegal’s head of state.

At the Dakar session, the minister narrated how he had passionately condemned such an idea of Senegal coming to the Gambia to co-own any facility with us, let alone our bridge. That he had argued until the matter was taken before President Wade for arbitration who used to call him “my son”. Wondered the relevance of that in the discussion other than to promote his credentials.

But Wade, he said, emphatically supported his position sighting international law and spoke from his legal and not political portfolio as president.

He had impressed President Wade so much that, the Senegalese leader wanted to immediately hire him to work for his government. But he declined telling him how his PhD course in France was more of a priority to him at the time than any career. In the end it was all about his tough negotiating skills acquired well before even graduating as a Doctor. I believe he effectively in the process disoriented Madam Touray from her initial probes.

She appeared not to remember her question again about the dominance of Senegal over the Gambia in literally every aspect of our current political, economic, transportation, fisheries and security engagements. With the way he ultimately portrayed his tough negotiating skills, if Fatou had not lost her original bearing, I again had expected her to remind him that the bridge issue was about then, and that she was asking for answers over what is now going on. Or to catch him in his parochial game, she could have ask the minister what had happened to his earlier assertion of Senegal’s relationship with the Gambia he earlier defined as “one nation in two states” but strongly went against the bridge co-ownership in President Wade’s era. She could have still asked the Doctor how they arrived at naming the Trans-Gambia Highway Bridge the Senegambia Bridge that many Gambians believe Senegal benefits there more than the Gambia. An agreement probably worst than in a co-ownership deal!

SECURITY: To the Doctor, ECOMIG’s presence in the country is primarily to allow the new government time to finish the four-year old Security-Sector Reform (SSR) which to me is impossible to achieve.

They are in the process of downsizing the armed forces but cannot still know what to do with the “undesirables” to be weeded. They will all turn into crime, he said.

He nonetheless thinks that the security forces under the Jammeh government that he had loyally worked for for over a decade were abused and lacked the desired professionalism associated with contemporary forces governed by international standards. That almost all ranks carried by officers didn’t meet international benchmarks. Of course he had never realized that before in the decades he had served the APRC government during which he had on numerous occasions in my presence praised our armed forces for their exemplary performances in both their internal and external duties. Together with his fellow Judas ambassadors he had referred to the GAF as warriors who had kicked the butts of the “the terrorists” who had attacked the Gambia on December 30, 2014 to overthrow the APRC government he had sincerely adored then.

But the million dollar question is, who are those officers in the armed forces to replace the current senior officers in charge, starting from the Chief of Defense Staff General Yankuba Drammeh and his deputy General Mamat Cham down to all of the rest of them carrying ranks deemed undeserving by “international standards”?

The Foreign minister talked about how they are all “laughing stocks in the international community”, insinuating that their promotions could only have been possible in an APRC government.

I wonder how he rates Mamat Cham, the deputy CDS, appointed by President Barrow after being fired from the army as captain for twenty-two years but reinstated and promoted to General? Is he another counterfeit General and a laughing stock in the international community? Or is the minister waiting for the next government to succeed Barrow’s to condemned Barrow for his misguided action of reinstating and promoting Cham? That may be it.

But the APRC officers could at least be credited for their proven work in keeping the nation safe over the years and deserved to be promoted and decorated like wartime heroes showing outstanding performance and courage in field missions, that at times even exceeds that of better education soldiers.

Nobody ever questioned the competence of the late Guinea Bissau General, Ansumana Mane in the field that earned him that special rank, despite never attending any military or formal education school.

During the APRC days I have seen Gambian soldiers handling their work with excellence and professionalism that deservedly earned them promotions and medals. We promoted and decorated soldiers who stopped the rebel attacks at Farafenni and Kartong Barracks in 1996 and 1997 respectively because they did it the exact way it is taught in the best military academies.

Anyway, like stated above, I don’t expect a meaningful and fair SSR to ever happen in the Gambia. The Senegalese will be here supported by the French with the connivance of Gambia’s worst Judases until the good sons and daughters of the Gambia wake up one day and demand their unconditional expulsion.

SAMSUDEEN SARR

BANJUL, THE GAMBIA.

The matter concerning the Final Draft Constitution is no ordinary matter. Certainly it is not a partisan or personal matter. It must not be seen as a usual affair inside the National Assembly for which one may wish to dance to the gallery or serve some parochial interest. National Assembly Members are rather confronted with an issue in which the very life and destiny of our Republic lies.

Let our National Assembly Members refuse to listen to narratives that tell them that they have the legal authority to change the content of the Final Draft Constitution. Neither the 1997 Constitution nor the CRC Act has provided them such powers. Hence it is necessary that NAMs study these documents fully, and in addition, endeavour to understand the political basis of their powers and the circumstances surrounding the Final Draft Constitution so that they advise themselves on the right path.

For far too long, our National Assembly has betrayed this country in favour of either an individual politician or political party for which we continue to suffer. These current NAMs must not allow that tradition to continue. For example, in the 22 long years of the Dictatorship we saw how our National Assembly enacted laws like the Indemnity Act 2001 or amended various portions of our current Constitution only to produce and reinforce Dictatorship that came to directly kill human rights and accountability. In 2015 we recall how the National Assembly approved electoral reforms that imposed huge sums of money just to register a party or stand for election in total contravention of democratic and good governance norms and standards. Then in January 2017 the National Assembly once gain passed a state of emergency to unconstitutionally extend the tenure of the President and the life of the National Assembly itself thereby annulling the verdict of the people, as expressed in the 1 December 2016 presidential elections. Should the National Assembly continue to harm this Republic?

Therefore, when we get to this point when this Republic finds it necessary to create a new constitution as part of the transitional justice process to enable the country transform from a Tyranny to a Democracy, NAMs have no role and no choice but to actively facilitate that process with all of their might. The Final Draft Constitution must be seen from that context and therefore requires the NAMs to act accordingly.

A constitution of a democratic republic can only be made by the citizens of that country. There is no institution or person who has the authority to draft a constitution for a Republic other than the people themselves. Therefore, let NAMs not listen to simplistic and logical arguments that give them the feeling that as lawmakers they can make any law or have the power to change anything that comes before that. That is false.

The lawmaking powers of the National Assembly only stops at the 1997 Constitution and any other bill brought before them under the purview of Section 226 on Amendment of the Constitution or Section 152 in terms of the national budget. The Final Draft Constitution is neither a bill nor a budget under the 1997 Constitution hence NAMs must understand what is the meaning of the Final Draft Constitution in relation to their legal and political powers within the 1997 Constitution.

In the first place, when the need for a new constitution was conceived by the Government they brought a bill to the National Assembly to create a mechanism that would enable Gambians provide the content of that new constitution. This is why the CRC Act was enacted. The original CRC Bill had provided that the National Assembly should not amend the final draft constitution when it was submitted to them by the President. Yes, the bill provided that they could debate it but at the end of the day they were to approve it and send it to the IEC for a referendum, without amendments.

Unfortunately, they amended those very good provisions in that bill and replaced them by some vague provisions in the revised bill which became the CRC Act 2017 that neither said they could amend nor leave in tact. But the fact remains that the CRC was the mechanism to consult with all Gambians at home and abroad including various bodies separately such as the Executive and the National Assembly in obtaining citizens’ opinions for a new constitution. Therefore, the Final Draft Constitution as it is, constitutes the overall opinions of all Gambians for a new constitution.

In that regard, there is no authority or person, regardless of one’s position that has the legal, moral and political authority to change anything anymore in that Final Draft Constitution. Rather this is where the National Assembly should discover their historic and proud duty in being the current set of people who would validate that Final Draft Constitution and transmit it to a referendum, untouched. This is what common sense and honesty demand, if one does not have any ulterior motive. Surely not everything in the Final Draft Constitution is perfect for everyone.

If there is a chance to look at it again, there is no doubt that each and every Gambian will want to add, subtract or modify a letter, a punctuation mark or a word or a sentence again in the Final Draft Constitution. But if anyone attempts to do that then one has given oneself an overriding power to change citizens’ collective opinion, beyond and above all Gambians. This is what NAMs must recognize that despite their best intentions, they must humble themselves to appreciate this Final Draft Constitution as the people’s will and quickly facilitate its transmission to a referendum.

NAMs are not constitutional drafters, at least according to the CRC Act or the 1997 Constitution. Hence NAMs must not give themselves that role, either out of their own volition or simply because someone said any bill that comes before NAMs, they have the power to touch. The Final Draft Constitution is not a bill in the sense of a bill that is contemplated in Section 226 of the 1997 Constitution. Hence NAMs must not treat the Final Draft Constitution as any ordinary bill. NAMs are at liberty to highlight the merits and demerits of the Final Draft and raise questions to CRC Commissioners to provide clarifications as provided in Section 22(2) of the CRC Act. But they must not change anything in that Final Draft because there is no legal and political basis for them to do so.

NAMs who may oppose or support the Final Draft Constitution have the right like all other Gambians to campaign accordingly when the referendum comes. But let it be clear that the People of the Gambia are the ONLY supreme power in this country. NAMs are not the supreme power hence those who give the impression that NAMs can do anything and everything are severely misleading our representatives. If NAMs were the supreme power in the Republic they would not have been called Representatives. But they are representatives because actual power belongs to the people themselves whom they represent. Therefore, when the people make such a sovereign decision as a draft constitution, no NAM has the authority to change that. That is what is called treason, if they do!

If you are a NAM and you respect and value our people, then don’t touch this Final Draft Constitution. Rather approve and send it to the IEC for a referendum. Period.

After watching parts of the debate proceedings of the draft constitution in the National Assembly, I started to wonder whether some of the elected officials in our legislative body fully grasp the enormity and magnitude of their role. I wondered too whether these same lawmakers fully comprehend the full nature and scope of the historic occasion they are presiding over. The actions of Honorable Marong, Honorable Jallow, and others we are yet to hear from – all of whom seem to be abrogating their solemn duty in a bid to quench President Barrow’s insatiable thirst for power, are as dangerous as it gets. These men are playing with fire.

As we all followed the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission hearings, one fact that’s been lost on some Gambians I guess is that we are literally governed at this very moment by those same obnoxious laws – passed by the then succeeding parliamentarians and most importantly; constitution, that attempted to give legal cover for those horrific abuses meted out on innocent Gambians during that difficult period.

Therefore, making a break from the past requires taking the significant first step – if we are serious about change that is: thrashing Dictator Jammeh’s authoritarian 1997 constitution. You see; we have all watched with horror as our leaders who should have known better dillydally their way around these laws in a quest to enjoy the same controlling powers they were designed to offer the incumbent. But what Barrow and those in cahoots with him fail to realize is that while these laws enhance the front-runner’s position, they also compromise their ultimate agenda – tightening grip on power.

So while we are at it, let’s remember the old adage: you loss it all if you want it all. The Jammeh 1997 constitution brought that country on the brink of war because it is toxic, flammable, and explosive. Jammeh is sick and he lives his life dangerously, we must disassociate ourselves from him completely because not doing so will unwittingly put us on the dangerous track which ends in one way – a massive wreck. We are therefore pleading with these renegades to reconsider their role and position in this, and vote YES to this draft. Yes, it is not perfect, everyone has one or several issues with one section or another, but it is our making – emanating from one of the most credible consultative processes our country has ever executed. We must do whatever we can – even holding our noses if we have to, but this draft MUST pass!

The writer, Banka Manneh, wrote in from the United States.

By Yunus Hydara

The concept of possession, “to be seized by spirits,” is central to the historic association of religion and the epilepsies. Many people believed and many still do, especially in societies like ours, that people with epilepsy are possessed by demons. This believe no doubt exacerbates the condition due to societal stigma and thus deterioration of quality of life of the individual. The believe, historically, also existed in the West but with the advancement of human knowledge, the ignorance to this notion is allayed in most people. For example, the early Greeks viewed epilepsy as a visitation from the gods, and thus a sacred disease. As human knowledge advances, it is common in many societies to attribute what we don’t know yet, or is too complex for our fragile brain, to be attribute divinity – duped “The God of Gaps” (Gap in knowledge). Religion attributes everything to divinity but its limitation in deals makes it less effective for practical solution. Eg. Religious scripts cannot provide the protocol for brain surgery.

My apologies am gona digress a bit here.

The spirit is if God can do it repeatedly to perfection, then there must be an underlying principle that if unraveled, we can do it too artificially, or at least correct aberrations to better human experience such as curing diseases. This makes many diseases curable that was killing us curable. The alternate approach like the one we Africans like to take, that God is in control and we should just sit and allow God’s will take its course is just pure laziness, self-limiting and embracing ignorance. Thus solutions to our problems eludes us, and the consequence are severe. God made it mandatory to seek knowledge. And please spare me the excuse of “white-man’s knowledge” that is fuelled by misguided resentment. We hypocritically love to benefit from this same knowledge we condemn for religious reasons more than anyone. Take the Ebola outbreak for example, we sat and blamed the West for not coming to our aid quick enough. The point is there is no such thing as a “white man” knowledge, as no one owns monopoly to the truth. Some wants to sit at home and enjoy the convince of ignorance and intellectual laziness and some simply want to find things out to better understand the world around us and device ways to preserve human existence. Human knowledge has and is being advance through Global collaboration that we must endeavour to participate in if we want to be respected. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive as demonstrated historically in Bagdad which was the centre of enlightenment. In the beginning in the 700s and continuing for nearly 400 years Baghdad was a thriving intellectual centre for arts, sciences and medicine. Muslim Astronomers and mathematicians built observatories, designed advanced timekeeping tools, and developed new methods of mathematical analysis and computations to translate into Arabic the scientific work of ancient Greece and other places and collaborated with Christians and Jewish scholars to advance science and technology. Arabic became the lingua franca of science with newly discovered stars, comets and asteroids named and stilled after Arabic scientist. The word “algorithm” and “algebra” names after Muslim scientists Al-Khwarizmi and Al-jabr respectively. The influence of these early Islamic contribution to science remains to this day. Would not bore you with examples, but long story short, Baghdad as the city of enlighten ended with time, and more so as the city became engulfed in political turmoil.

Anyways, more to the point, People with epilepsy are not possessed by demons. They just have a condition, like someone living with asthma or diabetes. It’s a disease that is characterised by reoccurrence of seizures due to disturbance to neurosynaptic transmission in the brain. Simply put, nerve cells miss firing action potential. Action potential is the process in which excited nerve cell encodes information to be communicated to other nerve cells through an influx of sodium into voltage gated sodium channels and perpetuated by a continues depolarisation of the nerve cell. In epileptic seizures a group of neurons begin firing in an abnormal, excessive, and synchronised manner. This results in a wave of depolarisation known as a paroxysmal depolarising shift. One effect of this is a prolonged presence of neurotransmitter in the synaptic cleft of the neuro-muscular junction causing excessive contraction of muscles. A nuero-muscular junction is where a nerve terminal (neuron) come into contact with muscles where it influences inhibitory, voluntary or involuntary movement of the muscle.

Seizures can happen to anyone; that’s why multiple episodes of seizure are required for Doctors to diagnose someone epileptic. Epilepsy may occur as a result of a number of other conditions including tumors, strokes, head trauma, previous infections of the central nervous system, genetic abnormalities, and as a result of brain damage around the time of birth. It can be managed by taking therapeutics and following some precautions to effectively minimise frequencies of seizures. This include trying to remember what exactly happened prior to seizures such as were you feeling sleepy or hungry? Did you see flashing light or images? Were you hungry? ect. Noting these down will help you understand what triggers your seizure and these can then be avoided.