My Dear Compatriots,

Over the weekend the World Press Freedom Day and the May Day of 2020 were marked with the cloud of the Corona Virus Pandemic hanging over all us and without the usual fanfare and bonhomie of the past years. We thank all of you for the prayers you continue to offer our nation and our people in this blessed month of Ramadan at a time when like the rest of the world, we are experiencing unprecedented challenges.

The United Democratic Party reiterates our collective gratitude to the front-line health workers who are exerting maximum efforts under the constraints of limited resources to help contain a deadly pandemic whose full scope in our society is yet to be determined.

UDP continues to appeal to our government to ramp up their mitigation strategies in ways that reflect the gravity and urgency of this big challenge especially in the areas of expanded testing and upgrading of our severely under resourced health facilities.

UDP commends the efforts of the Private Sector, Civil Society Volunteers, the Gambian Diaspora, Individuals Businesses and Donors across the entire spectrum of our society within and outside of The Gambia who are reaching out to the needy with urgent relief supplies.

The need is great, and it would require collective collaboration and coordination; a sustained spirit of shared sacrifice and generosity to see us through this rough patch. Let us continue to be each other’s keeper.

For these reasons the UDP wishes to take the two occasions to salute all Workers and Journalists on the special days dedicated to them and to send out solidarity messages to the Leaders of the Gambia Teachers’ Unions, Commercial Trades Unions and the Gambia Press Union.

UDP is mindful that without the work of Journalists and the media it would be difficult to hold power to account. and without transparency and accountability the people will labour in vain. A free and vibrant press is essential to the health of high energy high democracy. Therefore, UDP calls on the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act to ensure transparency and integrity in the management of Public affairs.

This Pandemic offers crucial lessons in the stark realities of where we stand as a nation both in terms of short- and long-term challenges when it comes to the basic needs of our people. The uncontested truth is that we are lagging far behind in most indices of human development. We must therefore begin to think about how we can better prepare our country post Covid19 in ways that lift our people out of cyclical poverty and all its attendant problems.

For example, we can look at agriculture as a sector where the vast majority of our citizens depend upon for their livelihoods. For generations and to date our farmers mostly rely on small subsistence farming; dependent on hand cultivation to survive, leaving them trapped in poverty and food insecurity.

This situation is made more acute with the uncertainties of global warming and its effects on rainfall patterns increasing the vulnerability of farmers who even under the best of circumstances survive on marginal yields.

The key to our success as a country is to get Agriculture not only for providing the needed food for consumption but also for business by giving it the highest priority in our national development objectives. We have the foundational expertise, the land and water resources, appropriate climate and crucially a youthful population that can start, sustain, and grow a modern, diverse, and innovative agriculture sector that can anchor our economy into the future. We must look beyond business as usual and ensure that we see Agriculture as a business and encourage our youths to go into agriculture as “Agripreneurs”.

A robust and technologically advanced agriculture initiative that is carefully planned and managed, the establishment of agro-processing zones in which we can support the entire agriculture value chain would revolutionize farming, revitalize rural communities, create steady year-round incomes for farmers and ensure food security. It would create a stable economic base, positively impact the overall health of the citizens as both nutrition and income levels rise.

That is why the United Democratic Party is committed to make this vital sector one of our highest priorities. We strongly believe The Gambia should follow through with the AU declaration that was signed in 2003 in Maputo requiring member States to allocate 10% of their annual national budgets to agriculture and rural development. That would represent a significant departure from the paltry less than 2% we are currently allocating.

We can and must do better by our farmers because we cannot progress unless we address a sector in which nearly three quarters of our people depend upon. Like other nations that have succeeded in transforming agriculture, we must think big, we must sacrifice in the short term, we must invest in our people and pivot from hard scrabble subsistence farming to something better and more suited to the needs of our people now and into the future.

I thank you all!

Ousainou ANM Darboe
SECRETARY GENERAL & PARTY LEADER

By Dr Ismaila Ceesay

To help contain the novel coronavirus, it is imperative for The Gambia to conduct mass community testing as cases surge in the small West African country. The decision of the Ministry of Health to embark on a mass sample collection exercise in the coastal town of Bakau, following some local transmission cases, has been lauded as the appropriate measure. As at Saturday 2 May, 2020, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in The Gambia had risen to 17, an increase of 5 from the previous day’s figure.

Following the report of the first local transmission in the densely populated town of Bakau, it is critical to test, trace, track and isolate the infected until they can no longer spread the disease. This can only be achieved through mass testing. Testing provides us the window into the pandemic as it helps us understand the pandemic and its spreading pattern. This knowledge helps inform our interventions, containment and mitigation strategies. Mass testing also enables the government to identify and effectively target hotspots and vulnerable areas.

Therefore, we must ramp up our efforts to effectively communicate with citizens to ensure that they are fully aware of the benefits of mass testing. Unfortunately, we have seen resistance to testing within certain communities and religious groups in other parts of the world.

The Gambia reported its first confirmed COVID-19 case on 17 March. With the lowest number of infections (17) in the ECOWAS region, the country risks becoming a destination for COVID-19 refugees. Experts are yet to establish the reason for the relatively low number of cases in Africa and The Gambia in particular. However, this can be attributed to a lack of case detection, due to the limited number of samples collected so far – or perhaps the virus simply has not yet spread fully.

Be that as it may, it is important for health officials about to embark on mass community testing exercise in Bakau and, subsequently, other locations across the country, to be able to effectively communicate with the population, ensure strict adherence to social distancing guidelines and quickly identify and protect the vulnerable – particularly the elderly and persons with underlying or existing health conditions.

In the meantime, members of the general public are encouraged to continue complying with government measures and regulations, observe WHO guidelines and importantly, cooperate and respect health officials as they go about testing people in various communities.

It is by now quite evident that President Barrow and his political protagonists (dubbed the Barrownites by a savvy observer of our politics) will never get anything done right in this country due to the litany of incontrovertible evidence they have given us to to support that thesis.

Yet one would have thought that they would be able to squeeze some lemonade out of the bitter lemons thrusted upon the country by the COVID-19 Pandemic. But even the opportunity presented by the Coronavirus pandemic has been soiled by the Barrownites due to greed and excessive desire to grab every grain of power within their grasp. Perhaps they do not know the wisdom behind the old saying “grasp all, lose all.”

While the one man unanimously referred to as his boss, Macky Sall, brought in leading opposition figures into his office for consultation and collaboration in Senegal’s fight against the COVID-19 menace, President Barrow remains ‘quarantined’ within the thick walls of State House only to make the occasional dull speech after the social media thermometer shows the red alert.

But one opportunity the Barrownites would not miss is the battle for food aid and its attendant advantages. After sitting by and letting individuals and political organisations take the lead in helping Gambians with sanitary gear and food items, President Barrow and his clique were sure to appear on the scene in classic Indian-Police Style: to arrive at a Bollywood crime scene when the criminals had already escaped.

After a questionable declaration of approval of D500 million as government budget for the fight against COVID-19, the Barrow Administration could not provide a clear breakdown as to how the funds would be used. When a leaked budget associated with the said funds appeared on social media, there was a line item for the purchase of condoms which irked the public. Then came the furore associated with the huge amounts identified for the payment of allowances to staff of the Ministry of Health. This further angered the public and then the Finance Minister stated that D143 million had already been spent on the COVID-19 fight; again the reaction from the public was an accusation of siphoning of the funds since there was no tangible evidence as to how those funds were spent when frontline workers still lacked the appropriate tools to work with.

As if the foregoing missteps were not damaging enough for the Barrownites, they floated a tender for the procurement of rice only for the supply to be presented to the public barely 24 hours after the deadline for the submission of bids. Clearly there was something fraudulent about this process. The contract was allegedly granted to a lady with blood ties with one of President Barrow’s close associates even though the lady had no proven record of dealing in rice.

An observer of the COVID-19 rice palaver made the following allegation that has been re-echoed in many quarters:

“Long term President Barrow Financiers Fatoumatta Jawara and her Brother Abubacarr Jawara of GACH mining and security were awarded exclusive rights to the Covid19 Rice procurement contract without going through the formal bidding process . This was done at the directive of President Barrow. This is another scheme to boost the coffers of his financial supporters prior to 2021. It’s also noteworthy to point out, this Same Abubacarr Jawara won exclusive rights to Sanyang Sand Mining Contract without any bidding process, unilaterally awarded via the President’s directive. See the pattern here?

“These two are NOT rice importers. They are now scrambling to buy the Rice from actual rice importers who never got a chance at winning the contract.

The Jawara siblings are now currently having issues supplying all the required rice because the importers are now trying to sell their rice to them at higher wholesale prices, which in turn is pushing them to sell to Government at 1,450D/50kg bag, 300dalasis over retail prices.”

Having bungled the timing, and muddied the procurement process, of the emergency food aid programme, one would have thought the Barrownites would be extra cautious and especially prudent in the distribution of the rice. But again they went ahead and showed clear signs that they will never act in good faith. The first known recipients of the COVID-19 rice package are groups clearly affiliated with the Barorownite’s political bandwagon, the Banjul-based group dubbed “Benno Japalleh Adama Barrow”, and members of the President Barrow Fan Club.

A little bit of subtlety would have helped disguise this malfeasance, but the Borrownites are not known for mental acuity. Take a look at the announcement posted on one of their platforms; the Barrow Media Empowerment Facebook page made this post on Wednesday, April 29:

“Today Wednesday 29 APRIL 2020 more than 1500 bags of sugar was given to the people of NPP in west coast region by the Secretary General and party leader of National people’s party.NPP. H.E PRESIDENT ADAMA BARROW. we are so proud of you as a leader.MR President.”

And this clearly politically motivated skewed distribution of the COVID-19 rice comes fast on the heals of some really vitriolic remarks uttered by President Barrow’s Vice President as she presided over the unveiling of the first consignment of the rice package. The VP had some really tough words for Gambian youths whom she described as lazy for not turning up to load and offload the rice. She asserted that the daily paid labourer’s job offered for the transportation of the rice was a good source of employment.

Momodou Sabally

As we continue to interrogate the proposed Draft Constitution (the Draft) in the tradition of public conversation, issues central to equality and the fundamental precept of the separation of powers are being partially considered in this instalment.

Although not a part of the justiciable constitutional text, the preamble would ordinarily constitute a true reflection of the letter and spirit of the document. In the extravagant claim of the incongruent first and second paragraphs of the Draft preamble, the people of Gambia “… having had the opportunity to express our views and aspirations on how we wish to be governed, affirm that this Constitution is the embodiment of our will and resolve for democracy … separation of powers … equitable distribution and use of resources, the rule of law, equality and observance of the principles of fundamental human rights and freedoms”.

In light of the above, I propose to examine separation, equality, and equitability.

The concept, now a firmly established constitutional principle across the democratic world is rooted in the simple if sublime proposition that governmental powers must be located within the legislative, executive, and judicial domains of a polity in a manner that keeps them “separate from, and independent of, each other as the nature of a free government will admit; or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of unity and amity” (Federalist 47)

That separation also entails the branches acting as checks on each other.

On the physical layout of the Draft, separation is arguably adhered to.

But the spirit and actuality of separation are smothered by an ‘animal farm’ tendency that accords differential treatment to the doctrine among the branches of government.
For example, in the Draft, the President is removed via an elaborate impeachment mechanism involving the National Assembly (NA) and the Judiciary. The role of the Judiciary may be regarded as a safeguard against legislative vandalism but considering that an impeachment process is exclusively a public function, it is improper to allocate decision making functions to participants outside the three branches government.

In that regard the delineated process may be faulty but at least all three branches are involved.

If the process of presidential removal in the Draft is given a qualified pass, how should a Superior Court Judge (a Judge) be removed from the bench given the democratic principle of separating power and its concomitant philosophy of checks and balances?

In the Draft, the removal of a Judge is a wholly internal process. What role is accorded the President is merely ceremonial, as in merely suspending or dismissing a Judge after a decision was reached by the Judiciary’s internal and largely collegial deliberations.

By section 194 (1) of the Draft, “a Judge may be removed for – (a) inability to perform the functions of his or her office arising from infirmity of body or mind; (b) gross misconduct or misbehaviour; (c) serious breach of a code of conduct applicable to judges; or (d) bankruptcy or entering into an arrangement with creditors”.

The removal process is triggered by either the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on its own motion, or a petition to it by a member of the public. If the JSC is persuaded it petitions the President for the removal of the Judge who then issues a suspension within seven days.

Inside fourteen days of suspension, the President, acting on the advice of the JSC, “… shall – (a) in the case of the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal comprising – (i) a judge of a Supreme Court or its equivalent in a country with a common law tradition and jurisdiction, as chairperson; (ii) two other superior court judges from separate countries with a common law tradition and jurisdiction; (iii) a legal practitioner of not less than twenty years’ experience with high moral character and proven integrity; and (iv) one person, not being a legal practitioner, with not less than twenty years’ experience in public service affairs and of high moral character and proven integrity.

On the other hand, if the target of removal is “… a judge of the Supreme Court, other than the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal comprising – (i) the President of the Court of Appeal, as chairperson; (ii) two other persons who hold or have held office as superior court judges; (iii) one legal practitioner of not less than fifteen years’ experience with high moral character and proven integrity; and (iv) one person, not being a legal practitioner, with not less than twenty years’ experience in public service affairs and of high moral character and proven integrity”.

In all other cases “… appoint a tribunal comprising – (i) a judge of the Supreme Court, as chairperson; (ii) two other persons who hold or have held office as superior court judges; (iii) one legal practitioner of not less than fifteen years’ experience with high moral character and proven integrity; and (iv) one person, not being a legal practitioner, with not less than fifteen years’ experience in public service affairs and of high moral character and proven integrity”.

As delineated in the Draft, removing a Judge raises troubling concerns, not least because it must be held in camera.

In CAMERA!

The process turns the separation principle on its head. As a sovereign country, Gambia must not look outwards for direct players in removing its Chief Justice.

Why must Judges decide the fate of other judges in a process that excludes any participation by the NA? In Kenya at lease a role is played by the Speaker of its National Assembly as Chair of the Tribunal constituted to investigate allegations against a Judge.

Even this is unsatisfactory given the separation principle and its handmaiden of checks and balances.

The Judiciary must subject itself to peer-scrutiny involving the NA in removing a Judge. It is a more transparent process and concentrates the mind of a Judge who may be more inclined to prolong matters given the nicer environment of close door removal hearings.
Far more troubling than the internal adjudication of a Judge’s fitness for office is the issue of retirement benefits as stipulated in the Draft.

According to 195 (1), “a judge of a superior court shall, on retiring, be entitled to any gratuity payable to him or her and shall, in addition, be paid a pension equal to the salary from which he or she retired, if on the date of retirement he or she has served as a judge of the superior court for an aggregate period of not less than ten years”.

At 195 (2) of the Draft, “where a judge of a superior court retires with less than ten but more than five years’ service as a judge of the superior court, he or she shall, in addition to being entitled to any gratuity payable to him or her, be paid a pension equal to three-quarters of the salary from which he or she retired”.

In the event the above provisions are unmet, (195 (3) of the Draft states that “a judge of a superior court who has not satisfied any of the conditions prescribed in subsection (1) or (2) shall, on retiring, be paid such gratuity and pension as may be approved by the Judicial Service Commission”

“Aggregate period”!

In effect, a Judge can work a few years, go international, utilised the revolving door to return with a view to accumulating the requisite period for a gold-plated pension package nicely carved in the Draft for a Judge by a CRC headed by a Justice of the Supreme Court. It is akin to what is called the military industrial complex in US political parlance.

Is this not the very definition of conflict of interest?

If earlier assertions of conflict regarding the appointment of a serving Judge as Chair appear esoteric and remote, is this unjustified “aggregate” policy written into the Draft not a crystal clear provision that will directly benefit a member of the CRC?

As if the CRC was afraid of retired Judges begging at Tippa Garage or the Traffic Light on Kairaba Avenue, 195 (5) of the Draft stipulates that “a pension paid to a judge of a superior court in accordance with this section shall be subject to increases as the salary of a serving judge of the superior court of the equivalent level”.

What the separation principle envisages is the operational independence of judicial officers and hence the protection of tenure in its fullest sense.

If this kind of pension is available to a Judge, how about a National Assembly Member and all other public servants who served decades and contributed immensely to the economic development of The Gambia.

What country pays a segment of the public workforce gold plated pensions whilst a vast segment of pensioners in the same public sector is mired in penury.

And don’t tell me about challenging the obvious discrimination in Court as the Draft state that its “validity or legality … is not subject to challenge by or before any court or other organ of the State” (see 7(3) of Draft).

The pension issue belong in separate legislation and not a national Constitution.

We urge the Judiciary to work collaboratively on a fairer pension scheme for everyone.
What is presented in the Draft for Judges is not “equitable distribution and use of resources”

Why amend if the Draft ought to be rejected for outraging the conscience of a conscionable people through blatant preferential treatment arguably informed by conflict of interest.

An equal not preferential and exceptional Gambia!

Lamin J. Darbo

By Abdullah Samateh

The coming to power of Mr. Adama Barrow as president of The Gambia marked the end of the darkest chapter in our history and revived hopes that a bright future was in sight. It meant a return to the ideals and values we hold as a people, but which remained elusive during the 22-year reign of Yahya Jammeh. While on the campaign trail, the then coalition candidate promised commitment to the restoration of those ideals and attainment of the nation’s long-pursued aspirations. No one at the time cast the slightest doubt on his determination to deliver on his promises. After all, Mr. Barrow was widely perceived as a comrade in the fight against oppression who experienced firsthand our tragic plight under the dictatorship. In short, Barrow was the living embodiment of the future the people envisioned post-dictatorship.

However, the dramatic events that followed his rise to power, culminating in the growing discontent the country is witnessing today, is a testament that this was a misplaced trust and a serious misjudgment of the man the people entrusted with their future. Today, the president that was once hailed as the people’s hero during the heydays of the coalition government is now widely viewed as the villain-in-chief. He stands accused of plunging the country into a quagmire of chaos and uncertainty, as a result of his incompetence and lack of political sagacity.

Indeed, Barrow is central to any gains made or loses incurred under his watch. Yet neither the gains nor the losses wouldn’t come to pass without the actions or inactions of other stakeholders. Logically, accusing fingers will be pointed at him as the Commander-in-Chief while political turmoil sweeps the country. However, other stakeholders should not be left off scot-free without being held accountable. In fact, one could argue that the missteps made by the coalition members and other influential players in Gambia’s political landscape have inadvertently invited the current predicaments. Their actions allowed Barrow a convenient space to work quietly towards the realization of his hidden agenda. These include the coalition’s failure to abrogate the Jammeh-era constitution sooner by expediting the drafting of a new one, the coalition’s disunity and subsequent disintegration, and the rise of partisan journalism in the new dispensation.

It’s indisputable that the coalition succeeded a regime that had left behind a legacy of bad governance, dysfunctional institutions, and a staggering economy. Thus, it came in with onerous burdens on its shoulder. In well-functioning democracies, the succeeding administration assumes office to build on the successes of its predecessor and move the country forward. In the case of The Gambia, the coalition had to clean up the mess it inherited and begin de novo. Under such undesirable circumstances, priorities should be determined by the urgency of the moment. Given that the Jammeh era constitution — the document that decides our fates — is fraught with loopholes, draconian and self-serving clauses, the coalition should have prioritized the drafting of a new constitution that reflects the true aspirations of the people and ensures swift justice for the victims of the previous government.

Whether the failure to do so was a deliberate move on the part of the coalition is debatable, but what is crystal clear is that President Barrow had a vested interest in delaying a new constitution.

During his 2017 meet-the-peoples tour, Barrow sent a veiled warning that the laws of Jammeh dictatorship, including the Executive Order, were still in effect and he had them at his disposal. To show skeptics he meant business, he embarked on a firing spree of cabinet members – mainly his coalition partners – senior civil servants, and a sitting member of parliament whose loyalties, he believed, lied elsewhere.

He must have acted out of firm belief that the dictator’s constitution empowered him to rule as he wished. Since then, he has committed numerous, glaring legal blunders in his quest to assert his authority and cling on to power. His actions have often sparked firestorms of outrage and created deep divisions within the country. Regrettably, Mr. President cannot be denied taking ‘controversial measures’ that are in line with the provisions of that constitution, even whereas they provoke public indignation.

Thus, a new constitution would have curtailed Barrow’s controversial powers, delivered justice to the victims and deterred corrupt practices. It might have even stipulated the transitional term to be served by him. In other words, a new constitution would have spared the nation much of the noise triggered by the president’s actions. Interestingly, that unique moment to draft our dream constitution presented itself while the coalition was still a united front. In fact, it’s public knowledge that the coalition had among its ranks the finest legal minds and renowned human rights advocates, who could have produced the people’s constitution within a short span of time. Its failure to identify this as an urgent priority and our collective silence have contributed to the emergence of the status quo.

Equally, the rise of partisan journalism in the new dispensation — precisely in the build-up to the legislative and municipal elections – is in my view one of the underlying causes of the existing situation. This was the period when the political climate became sharply polarized over the best winning formula the coalition needed to adopt. It was apparent that the coalition members were on a collision course. The traditional role of the Fourth Estate is to represent the diverse voices of the people and hold the leadership to account. Strangely, this core value of media profession came into the peripheral vision of ‘some’ media practitioners during that critical period of our history. They chose to act as the mouthpiece and frontline fighters of their party leaderships or those they sympathize with amid the political tensions. So, the tensions heightened and division took root since then.

Similarly, ‘some’ civil society members, who are prominent members or sympathizers of certain political parties, were seen to be representing the interest of their parties and, as a result, lost listening ears among their opponents. Their fiery rhetoric and constant criticisms of other political leaders, while sparing their own arouse suspicions that these organizations were being used by ‘some’ to attain political ends.

Consequently, instead of promoting convergence of views and preventing the coalition from disintegrating at that critical moment, they partook in exacerbating political animosity amongst the rivals. In fact, the level of mistrust reached a point that propositions put forward by one political party, however genuine and practical, were perceived by others as a premeditated move to score some political points. The principle that ideas should be gauged on the basis of their merits and not who advanced them was flouted time and again. This is how partisan politics poked its ugly nose into the politics of our transition period at a surprisingly early stage. One would have expected that the unity of purpose and pursuit of the greater good that brought the coalition to power would reign supreme throughout the transition, not partisan politics that took over almost from the start. Worse still, the same pattern of politicking continues unabated.

Finally, President Barrow was, at his election, a novice leader, who was devoid of political knowledge. But to give credit where credit is due, he never tickled our ears, if anything he was very forthcoming about his slender governing background. He allayed our fears, however, by assuring us that the country was in safe hands thanks to his coalition partners, including erudite scholars and seasoned politicians who would help guide us to the Promised Land. In essence, President Barrow unequivocally informed The Gambians that the country would be collectively run by the coalition members despite him being the president. His utterances were received by his colleagues with a silence of consent, without expressing reservations or objections. Thus, it would only be fair for the successes and failures of the coalition to be attributed to all the constituting members. Now that things have started to fall apart, if Barrow is blamed for plunging the country into chaos, his estranged colleagues should equally be blamed for dereliction of duty. We must not be oblivious of their role in the difficulties we are experiencing today. Remember, after the rift had widened among the members in the wake of local elections, some of his partners distanced themselves from the coalition. They then shifted their energy toward fishing for and exposing every misstep made by him without offering alternatives. Others continued to defend his actions; achievements and blunders alike, saying they wouldn’t abandon one of their own at any cost.

As we can see, the coalition’s failure to mend fences and rise above their differences created a virtual power vacuum that allowed Barrow and his loyal underlings to work towards the realization of his hidden agenda. As political rivalry gained momentum, Barrow reached out to enablers of the former regime and a coterie of other opportunists that were ever willing to do what they do best: grooming a dictator and plundering our meager resources. Barrow could have been denied the time and space to do the damage he has already done if the coalition members remained united.

Yes, hold him accountable for the terrible situation we have found ourselves in, if you must. But do not spare his coalition partners and other key players. They are equally guilty.
In short, our current predicaments are the result of a collective failure. And the situation calls for a thoughtful reflection on our own attitudes and approaches, putting aside our emotions and biases to see where we went wrong as a nation. If we do, we can avoid the recurrence of such mistakes including future Jammehs and Barrows.

The writer, Abdullah Samateh, is a Gambian academic resident in The Sate of Kuwait.

Take it for granted or consider it as a very special case of criminality and low expectations, our revolution, country, and government is hijacked by ‘incompetently incompetent’ thugs. Believe it or not, our president by design or by default is refusing to lead. What standard did our government and president use to justify having uneducated, unsophisticated loud mouths like Henry Gomez, Siaka Jatta and Dou Sanno as government and presidential advisers? What threshold and qualifications did they have to meet before they were hired as presidential advisers? Or is it a matter of political compensation with our taxpayers’ money and lives?

As I began to write this paragraph, I felt warm tears dropping on the keyboards of my computer. I was crying. Really, I was crying not for myself but for my people trapped under an incompetent and insensitive leadership in the Gangster Republic of The Gambia under Barrow. The thought of the betrayal of the sacrifices of our forebears, revolutionaries that went to prison and lost their lives in the fight for better Gambia. For now, it is safe to say they died for nothing until we get our country and government back in good hands. It is the height and biggest insult to our common struggle for Barrow to choose to surround himself with idiots like Henry Gomez, Seedy Njie, Siaka Jatta and the list goes on and on.

Any country that has incompetent, brainless political hacks like Dou Sanno, Siaka Jatta and Henry Gomez as government and presidential advisers is royally screwed. The word ‘competence’, ‘qualifications’, and ‘leadership’ has been bastardized in New Gambia. Incompetent men are appointed to run ministries they have no competence to run. Just this morning, I have had to make a post on Facebook to ask my Gambian friends who the current Gambia minister of youths and sports is. Since the former minister of youths and sports Henry Gomez was booted out in a cabinet reshuffle, his successor has been eerily and disturbingly quiet. Very worrying for a minister of youth and sports who has not come up with any noteworthy initiatives for the youths and sports in our country. If he has, he has not been seen and heard to be doing so.

Former American president, George W. Bush described it as the soft bigotry of low expectations that has been bedeviling most of our citizens in third world countries. It shocks and saddens me to see the Gambian minister of health trending on Facebook because he declined to be part of the pilfering of Covid-19 response funds. Incorruptibility and proactive leadership is expected of leaders and holders of any public office. With all due respect, he should not be celebrated for being what he should be and doing what he should do as a minister. He owe us loyalty, competence, incorruptibility, and respect.

Ask an average Gambian and village why they support the incumbent president. Their answer is hundred percent sure and likely to be because they have a relative in the cabinet or because the current government brought electricity and pipe borne water to their villages. These are not privileges accorded to them but their rights. Few days ago, I received 1200 US Dollars from the American government under Donald Trump. I got this not because I voted for him but because he owe me this responsibility of care as my head of government and state in these trying times for everyone in the world.

Right this minute, poor Gambians are going hungry because our president does not care. The Gambians that are not going hungry are fed thanks to the generosity of private Gambian citizens that are marshalling resources on and offline to feed their fellow but poor Gambians. Gambians need to stand up and protest for their rights. Gambians need to stand up and protest for their government to use their tax monies judiciously to hire the qualified advisers and minsters to guide the running of our government. It is our government and our president. We voted for our president and government. We pay for our government to be run with our taxes, bilateral grants sought and given in our name and loans even our predecessors would still have to pay long after we are all dead.

Alhassan Darboe is a Gambian Communication scholar, consultant, and Real Estate businessman. He writes in from his base in U.S.A. He is currently a graduate student at Arizona State University’s Hugh Down School of Human Communication. The views expressed in this article do not represent the editorial position of The Fatu Network.

In an interview with The Fatu Network, the Chair of the Constitutional Review Commission (the Chair) failed to refute the charge that the CRC significantly plagiarised provisions of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya (Kenya 2010), at times lifting whole sections and transplanting them into the Draft of a proposed new Constitution for The Gambia (the Draft).

And this notwithstanding claims by the CRC that the Draft embodies views of Gambians garnered in an involved national and international consultation process with them.

Exclusive views of Gambians indeed!

Rather extraordinarily, the Chair of the CRC, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and potential next Chief Justice given the personnel dynamics of that Court, complained about theorising by those who failed to participate in the process.

His anger was palpable.

Was I worried?

Obviously!

In July 2018, I contended that the CJ or his designee should not chair the CRC as it was in conflict with the doctrine of the separation of power. I argued: “Even a rudimentary understanding of the doctrine of separation will substantiate the contention that this type of law making is not a core function of the judiciary and must therefore not be chaired by the CJ or his designee from amongst the ranks of the active judicial bench”.

I relied on the ECHR decision in McGonnell v The United Kingdom thus: “The Court thus considers that the mere fact that the Deputy Bailiff presided over the States of Deliberation when DDP6 was adopted in 1990 is capable of casting doubt on his impartiality when he subsequently determined, as the sole judge of the law in the case, the applicant’s planning appeal. The applicant therefore had legitimate grounds for fearing that the Bailiff may have been influenced by his prior participation in the adoption of DDP6. That doubt in itself, however slight its justification, is sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the Royal Court, and it is therefore unnecessary for the Court to look into the other aspects of the complaint”.

The Chair’s rather powerful position in the judicial hierarchy requires that he displays appropriate sensitivity to persons and issues, especially persons likely to appear before him in one role or the other.

Be that as it may, I will plough on regardless.

Reacting to the interim Draft, I did say on QTV to the hearing of the CRC’s media chief that it suffers from plagiarism. In constitutional matters there is no distinction between theory and its definitional opposite. Undoubtedly they swim in the same waters and the courts’ work is the application of theoretical principles to a factual context of the dispute and what comes out, especially before a Supreme Court, may represent its philosophical leaning.
In the democratic world, the values protected in the public space are of universal application with the forerunner being the first ten amendments to the American Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The modern source document in international public life is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Together they embody values chiselled out of the same stone and faithfully speak to the same culture. In that vein, there will always be coincidence of thought.

That coincidence of thought and similarity in values notwithstanding, the words encapsulating them must of necessity be different. Words are not mathematical calculations where several people working separately may have the same precise answers for pages.
For example, the following national and international instruments on expression encapsulate identical values but true to the sacrosanct terrain of originality, the wordings are different:-

1st Amendment to the American Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10 (1))

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19(2))

1. …

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 9)

• Every individual shall have the right to receive information.
• Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.

Driving home the point, the Prado, and Pajero are both state of the art four-wheel vehicle models but Toyota, and Mitsubishi dug into their engineering skill and technical finesse to impose and maintain brand distinctiveness and originality of the final product.

Is it too much for the CRC to do its own drafting? Why must it copy and paste significant sections, sometimes importing whole Chapters of its Draft from Kenya 2010?

For example, Chapter III of the Draft, on National Values and Principle, coincides almost identically with Chapter II (10) of Kenya 2010. Similarly, Chapter V on Leadership and Integrity wholly mimics Chapter VI of Kenya 2010.

More disappointing than importing these two Chapters into the Draft is that they are not provisions that belong in a national constitution. In separate legislation perhaps but even here they may not measure up to the prophylactic structure built around of the fundamental freedoms against discrimination. I refer specifically to section 28 of the Draft whose infraction is dubiously designated a “violation of the Constitution” with all that entails.

However plagiarising is designated, be it ‘international best practice’ or ‘adaptation’, the CRC was not constituted to engage in copious copying and pasting of any constitution.

What happened to coincidence of thought expressed originally!

Gambia’s national pride should prevent it supporting this so-called Draft for the ages.

Lamin J. Darbo

By Alhassan Darboe

I will open this sentence by paraphrasing the acclaimed Nigerian columnist, Sam Omatseye who in these troubling times of the ravaging plague (Covid-19), philosophized that leaders are never any thing you expect them to be. Omatseye argued that of all human qualities, “we can applaud courage, the prince of all qualities, which also fires vision. We need not only the audacity of action, but first the boldness of the thinking mind”. Take it for granted or treat it as a special case of low expectations in our country, if the communication, actions and inactions of the Gambia government laid bare anything, it is the paradox of UDP producing two leaders from within its ranks in the time of a so-called revolution that never lived up to its billing.

I call the emergence of Mayor Bensouda and president Barrow from within the UDP ranks as paradoxical because both leaders sprout forth in the time of a so-called revolution that ousted a dictator. Both leaders came from one party yet chose to lead differently. Barrow, the dictator’s successor does everything to maintain the vestiges of dictatorship he arguably fought so hard to uproot at the cost of health, freedom, and lives of his friends in the struggle.

Bensouda, mayor of Kanifing municipality went on to become a sophisticated, world class and revolutionary leader at a municipal level. And another, president Barrow went onto become a total waste of sacrifice and resources at the highest office of our land. Sad indeed if you ask me. But what do I see and know really? James Allen, British philosopher, and writer ages ago argued that in a moment of crisis (es), circumstances does not make the man, it only reveals him to himself.

As Covid-19 made its way to The Gambia, it was time for Barrow to show proactive leadership, to communicate, show imagination and empathy for his people; majority of whom live on less than 2 dollars a day. According to risk communication scholars, Adame and Miller (2014), risk communication is essential in how consumers receive information about potential risks and create an opportunity to change behavior. In order to change behavior and become informed, risk communication needs to motivate audiences for the desired behaviors.

But alas it took drama and incessant complains on social media for our “reactive” not “proactive’ president to finally muster the courage and imagination to act and address our nation on what was a rather uninspiring and poorly delivered statement. How do you explain the wisdom of our president visiting Senegal with a whole cabinet for a meeting and few days later engaging in a risk communication to curb a deadly disease after public going against WHO guideline by travelling and holding meetings in a Covid-19 positive country? According to McComas (2006),risk communication is an “exchange of information among individuals, groups, and institutions related to the assessment, characterization, and management of risk” (p. 76).Barrow having surrounded himself with uneducated political thugs like Dou Sanno and Henry Gomez failed to understand the importance of risk communication and how the message is perceived in relation to the individual and group as not only objective but subjective.

Meanwhile, as Barrow continues to sit down to wait on poor Gambians in a state of emergency to feed themselves, a young, sophisticated, educated, and dynamic mayor is at the forefront of affairs marshalling resources to feed our hungry population. He has cut on the down municipality’s travel budget to free up funds to effectively fight the pandemic. The young mayor from within UDP ranks is improving markets, instituting modern trash collection strategies throughout the municipality, and doling out small business loans initiative to the young and women. When I paid visit to the KMC offices few months ago, he ran the office of the mayor with sophistication and efficiency similar to the American white house.

Once again, take it for granted or take it as a special case, we have a slow, reactive president who instead of surrounding himself with professionals decided to recycle political hacks from Jammeh era to help him master Yahya Jammeh’s play book better than Jammeh himself. Yahya Jammeh would have been more generous, proactive, responsive, and empathetic in serious and apocalyptic times like these.

References

McComas, K.A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Journal of Health Communications, 11, 75-91.

Adame, B.J., and Miller, C.H. (2014). Vested interest, disaster preparedness, and strategic campaign message design. Journal of Health communications, 1-11

Alhassan Darboe, writes in from U.S.A. He is a communication consultant and graduate student at Arizona State University’s Hugh Downs School of Human Communication.

The story of U.S. leadership in the global battle against Covid-19 is a story of days, months, and decades. Every day, new U.S. technical and material assistance arrives in hospitals and labs around the world. These efforts, in turn, build on a decades-long foundation of American expertise, generosity, and planning that is unmatched in history.

The United States provides aid for altruistic reasons, because we believe it’s the right thing to do. We also do it because pandemics don’t respect national borders. If we can help counties contain outbreaks, we’ll save lives abroad and at home in the U.S.

That generosity and pragmatism explains why United States was one of the first countries to help to the Chinese people as soon as reports emerged from Wuhan of another outbreak. In early January, the United States government offered immediate technical assistance to the Chinese Centers for Disease Control.

In the first week of February, the U.S. transported nearly 18 tons of medical supplies to Wuhan provided by Samaritan’s Purse, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and others. We also pledged $100 million in assistance to countries to fight what would become a pandemic – including an offer to China, which was declined.

Our response now far surpasses that initial pledge. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the U.S. government has committed nearly $500 million in assistance to date. This funding will improve public health education, protect healthcare facilities, and increase laboratory, disease-surveillance, and rapid-response capacity in more than 60 of the world’s most at risk countries– all in an effort to help contain outbreaks before they reach our shores.

Our aid helps people in the most dire circumstances. For instance, the U.S. government works with NGOs to deliver medicines, medical supplies, and food to the Syrian people, including those living in regime-held areas. We are helping United Nations agencies and nongovernmental organizations build more water, sanitation and health facilities across northern Syria to prevent the spread of the virus. We are aiding friends from Africa to Asia, and beyond.

America’s unsurpassed contributions are also felt through the many international organizations fighting Covid-19 on the front lines.

The U.S. has been the largest funder of the World Health Organization since its founding in 1948. We gave more than $400 million to the institution in 2019 – nearly double the second-largest contribution and more than the next three contributors combined.

It’s a similar story with the U.N. Refugee Agency, which the U.S. backed with nearly $1.7 billion in 2019. That’s more than all other member states combined, and more than four times the second-largest contributor, Germany.

Then there is the World Food Program, to which the U.S. gave $3.4 billion last year, or 42% of its total budget. That’s nearly four times the second-largest contributor, and more than all other member states combined. We also gave more than $700 million to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), more than any other donor.

We are proud that when these international organizations deliver food, medicines, and other aid all around the world, that too is largely thanks to the generosity of the American people, in partnership with donor nations.

Our country continues to be the single largest health and humanitarian donor for both long-term development and capacity building efforts with partners, and emergency response efforts in the face of recurrent crises. This money has saved lives, protected people who are most vulnerable to disease, built health institutions, and promoted the stability of communities and nations.

America funds nearly 40% of the world’s global health assistance programs, adding up to $140 billion in investments in the past 20 years – five times more than the next largest donor. Since 2009, American taxpayers have generously funded more than $100 billion in health assistance and nearly $70 billion in humanitarian assistance globally.

Through that assistance, including as the single largest contributor to the World Health Organization’s budget, the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with the people and government of The Gambia as we face – together – the threat this virus poses. I and my team at the U.S. Embassy will continue our work to coordinate assistance with other donor countries and organizations, to support the truly heroic work being done by Gambians from Kartong to Koina. United, together, we will defeat COVID-19.

Our help is much more than money and supplies. It’s the experts we have deployed worldwide, and those still conducting tutorials today via teleconference. It’s the doctors and public-health professionals trained, thanks to U.S. money and educational institutions. And it’s the supply chains that we keep open and moving for U.S. companies producing and distributing high-quality critical medical supplies around the world.

Of course, it isn’t just our government helping the world. American businesses, NGOs, and faith-based organizations have given at least $1.5 billion to fight the pandemic overseas. American companies are innovating new technologies for vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and ventilators. This is American exceptionalism at its finest.

As we have time and time again, the United States will aid others during their time of greatest need. The COVID-19 pandemic is no different. We will continue to help countries build resilient health care systems that can prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks. Just as the U.S. has made the world more healthy, peaceful, and prosperous for generations, so will we lead in defeating our shared pandemic enemy, and rising stronger in its wake.

The writer, Richard Carl Paschall, is the US ambassador to The Gambia

Ostensibly he appointed the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) and it was to him the Commission submitted its Draft Constitution (the Draft) on 30 March 2020. He can neither delete nor add a word to the Draft. Absent at the point of conception, and with obviously no role as mother or father, His Excellency President Adama Barrow is restricted to the function of midwife between the CRC and the ratifying authorities, i.e., the National Assembly, and the people through the mechanism of a referendum. If the Draft passed both stages, he must assent.

When the country liberated itself from totalitarian excess routinely manifested in executive vandalism including through dubious ‘lawful’ channels, there was no serious debate that the nation needed a brand new framework document, a document stripped of the internal violence to democratic government and separation of power that pervades the structure of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution).

That systemic flaw notwithstanding, it is unsound to argue that any replacement of the Constitution, regardless of blatant mediocrity, is good to go. The question of whether the CRC struck the proper balance around the structure of government, and between that structure and the people via the fundamental freedoms is a live one but with the Draft so heavily plagiarised from Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, and packed with clearly non-constitutional provisions, the jury is out on whether this document can be supported through the various stages of the ratification process.

A more unforgivable sin is the sheer prescriptive detail of this Draft.

In his seminal work, “Make No Law: the Sullivan Case and the First Amendment”, Anthony Lewis, the distinguished former legal correspondent of the New York Times submits: “Those who framed the Constitution and its most important amendments used spacious phrases … The Framers laid down principles rather that specifics, and they surely did so intentionally. They chose to avoid binding the future with a code of precise instructions. They understood that precision is the enemy of permanence. Detailed rules, which necessarily reflect the limited vision of any age, become obsolete as circumstances change. A rigidly detailed constitution would not last, so the framers gave us values to protect, in bold strokes: “no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. They wrote a document whose grandly phrased provisions can be interpreted, faithfully, to deal with new circumstances. Writing in 1819, Chief Justice Marshall put it that the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs”. The Constitution remains our fundamental law because great judges have read it in that spirit”.

Added to the Draft’s prescriptive nature are some serious inconsistencies between provisions of critical importance. For example, is independent candidacy explicitly permitted or are public elections the exclusive preserve of political parties? This is a live question of great significance.

In any case, as midwife, the Executive must now travel the document and its Bill to the Solons of the Republic in line with the stipulations of several laws including the Constitution.

Section 226 (1) of the Constitution permit its alteration by “an Act of the National Assembly”. Delineating that alteration process, section 226 (8) states: “No act of the National Assembly shall be deemed to amend, add to, repeal or in any way alter any of the provisions of this Constitution unless the title of the Act clearly indicates that intention and the Act does so in express terms”. Section 226 (9) drives home the point!

In this section:-

• References to this Constitution include references to any law that amends or replaces any of the provisions of this Constitution;

• To the alteration of this Constitution include 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 to this Constitution.

In the Legislature, the Draft must be supported by no less than 43 National Assembly Members (NAMs). Stated differently, a mere 16 NAMs voting against the Draft is enough to permanently sink and prevent it from reaching the people through the referendum stage of ratification.

Notwithstanding its laudable proposal for independent agencies, the Draft’s volume interferes with internal coherence and is of dubious compliance with the rule of law.

It is my contention that Gambia must move away from the prescriptive form of constitutional engineering, a task achievable only through shedding the excess fat in the Draft. We must create a constitution grounded in “principles rather that specifics”, and this “to avoid binding the future with a code of precise instructions” for precision, undoubtedly, “is the enemy of permanence. Detailed rules, which necessarily reflect the limited vision of any age, become obsolete as circumstances change”.

There are universal values a democratic constitution must protect but this Draft is way short of the minimum standards a document like a national constitution must acquire to pass the requisite test of balance and neutrality, a document, so to speak, that can serve as a fitting legacy for posterity.

Subsequent contributions shall deal with specific queries against this heavily plagiarised Draft.

I shall not be joining the caravan for a “yes” campaign!

The writer, Lamin J. Darbo, is the founder of Dabanani Law Centre in Sukuta.

.