Discourse With Halifa Sallah
By Saikou Ceesay
http://www.dailynews.gm/index.php?id=dn_home&tx_wecdiscussion[single]=84706
In this series of interviews, we bring for you an exclusive interview with Halifa Sallah, former flag bearer of the NADD in the 2006 Presidential elections. It is our objective to bring to light controversies surrounding the failure of the Gambian opposition leaders to form a united front capable of being a credible alternative to the APRC regime.
We started with Omar Jallow (alias OJ) of the PPP, then Lawyer Darboe of the UDP who broke ranks with the alliance in the run up to the 2006 Presidential elections; and in this edition it is Halifa Sallah, the Coordinator of the opposition alliance NADD. Below are excerpts of the interview:
Could we say that heads of opposition parties are not committed to the idea of a united opposition front in the country?
To form a united opposition cannot be seen as a principle. The principle is to build a genuine opposition which could bring about a genuine multiparty system and genuine change. The building of a United Opposition is a tactic under conditions of governance which does not create options for genuine multi party contest. For example if the procedure existed for a second round of voting in the absence of 50 percent majority opposition parties would go on their own to seek the mandate of the people so that each will know its weight if they wish to forge an alliance in the second round. In the absence of that a united opposition was the missed opportunity Gambia needed to bring about a genuine democratic environment for multi party contest. In my view those who are interested in change would be committed to the tactics but those who are not will always put their aspiration to occupy a post above the objectives of bringing about change to protect and promote the liberty, dignity and prosperity of the people.
Is it a requirement of the signed MOU that NADD could be registered as a political party?
The agreement is for NADD to put up candidates in the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections. This is clearly stipulated in article 8 of the memorandum of understanding. Allow me to quote it in avoidance of doubt. It states: “The selection of the candidate of the Alliance for the Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be done by consensus: provided that in the event of an impasse selection shall be done by holding a primary election restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates comprising the chairman, chairwoman and youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency. Article 16 states that the Alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol…” There is no doubt that NADD was formed with the intention to put up candidates under its umbrella. It is the election laws which say that NADD could not put up candidates in its name until it was registered with the IEC. The election laws did not have any provision on how to register an alliance. The IEC had mandate to decide on issues that are not provided for by law. The Executive committee decided to prepare for NADD’s registration under the existing laws and leave the IEC to decide the final outcome.
Can we say that the criteria set in the MOU for the registration of candidates was met only by the UDP?
Selection of Candidate was based on two fundamental principles. It had to be done either through unanimity or through a Primary. A UDP affiliated person or any body could have been selected unanimously. In terms of primary delegates had to be party chairwomen, chairmen and youth leaders from each ward. The contention is that if a primary was held a UDP affiliated person could have been selected as a candidate. This is now a matter of mere speculation since the UDP leader opted to resign from NADD instead of calling for a primary.
Do you think national debate is the way forward for the opposition parties as mentioned in Foroyaa’s Friday 23 October editorial?
A country needs a credible Government and a credible opposition. Since the Government is afraid of a debate the opposition could start a healthy debate for the people to learn to listen to divergent views and make in formed decision as to which group of people should form a government and which group should serve as major opposition party to monitor and check the activities of government. In short, Obama and Clinton did engage in debates but that did not make them enemies at the end. Debate is the life blood of a democratic society. Without it a multi party system becomes a vegetable.
It is believed that in politics what matters is number, so why political heads like your humble self opted for NADD candidacy when UDP leader should be nominated as suggested by others?
I had no interest in becoming a presidential candidate. I have been with Sidia for years and he stood as presidential Candidate. I had no interest in being coordinator. If I had my own free will I would not have accepted to be coordinator of an alliance. I accepted to be a coordinator because I felt that duty has called on me to do so. I accepted to be a Presidential candidate because I do not run away from responsibilities when they are unanimously entrusted. For your information one must distinguish two phases of NADD’s process of nominating a presidential candidate, that is, the phase before the UDP leader resigned from NADD and the phase after he resigned from NADD. Before the resignation of the UDP leader he had the option to recommend for the holding of a primary where numbers would have counted and Halifa Sallah may never have been part of that contest.
After the resignation of Darboe and the pulling out of UDP and NRP the issue of numbers did not arise since the committee established to nominate a Presidential candidate did agree unanimously to select me. Rejecting their nomination was not a responsible option. It is also important to point out that NADD was not preoccupied with the number of votes a person had in previous elections but was formed to ensure that our collective strength could enable an electable candidate to win. The facts revealed by the results of the 2006 Presidential elections confirm that numbers do not always add up. In short, in the 1999 -2002 report of the IEC which was submitted to the National Assembly it is stated that the UDP leader had 149,448 votes while the NRP leader had 35,671 votes. The expectation was that if the two parties formed an alliance in 2006 they will get an equivalent of their two results in the 2001 Presidential elections which amounted to185, 119.
When the two parties left NADD and formed their Alliance along with GPDP, the UDP led Alliance managed to get 104,808 and not the 185,119 votes anticipated. However when the NADD took part in bye elections before its disintegration, it had the upper hand in popular votes. Numbers do count sometimes. However under given circumstances it is tactics that bring the numbers. That is how Tumani Touray became the President of Mali. He met parties with majorities but he was the electable candidate and won on an Independent ticket. We must find out what the people want to succeed.
Can you tell us what justifies the registration of NADD after knowing that it would lead to the lost of opposition seats in the National Assembly?
I have already said that it was a requirement of the law for a political entity to be registered with the IEC before it could be put up as a candidate. We formed an umbrella Party and had to register it for any body to stand as a Candidate in its name. The constitution has provided for the formation of an Umbrella Party in the form of a merger. In such a case no seat would be lost. Moreover the advantages of establishing NADD outweighed the disadvantages of losing the seats which could be regained in a bye election which is what happened.
Can you tell us the main obstacle that led to the failure of the NADD coalition?
NADD was not a homogenous group. It was heterogonous in principle and aspirations. The only thing that could have kept it together is recognition and adherence to its articles and institutions. The solution was there to handle an impasse in selecting a Presidential candidate. This was not put in place. My honest opinion is that the leaders submitted to a political process they either did not understand or did not believe in and when it became clear what it entailed they abandoned the process.
Why was it a mistake to withdraw your nomination as NADD candidate and later come for it?
The UDP leader caused great confusion by making reference to the first attempt to select a Presidential Candidate without giving an accurate picture of what happened. He mentioned that in the first instance my nomination was withdrawn but introduced later by Sam Sarr on the grounds that the first withdrawal was a mistake. A big debate unfolded among the executive as to what should be done after the successful launching of NADD. Some proposed that the launching should take place in every division to enable the members of the different parties to work together as NADD members. Others felt that we should proceed with the selection of a presidential candidate before popularizing the NADD agenda. Eventually, it was agreed that a date should be agreed to do the selection.
On the day of the selection, a delegate of the NRP and another from NDAM nominated and seconded the candidature of OJ. The UDP delegate nominated the UDP leader. Sidia Jatta and Amie Sillah who represented PDOIS nominated and seconded Halifa Sallah’s candidature. I was surprise and requested to speak to Sidia Jatta privately. Sidia told me that their proposal was for a criteria to be drawn for selection and if that fails they should resort to a primary. He indicated that the two of them had to make a quick decision to select me so that they PDOIS would not be seen to lack a choice since delegates were making choices without criteria. We both recalled article 8 which indicated that the executive could only select someone on the basis of unanimity. Otherwise we should go to a primary. Since more than one person was already nominated it was clear that there was an impasse.
Advancing my name was a futile exercise. Sidia therefore withdrew my nomination. The executive decided to adjourn and meet again to see whether the impasse could be overcome. At that meeting Sam replaced Amie Sillah. I do not recall him saying that it was a mistake to withdraw my candidature. You may talk to him for further clarification. I remember the arguments he gave regarding the establishment of the criteria to guide the selection and the Chairman insisting that if he has a nomination to make he should do so. Sam did say that he was putting Halifa Sallah nomination forward again. I think the action was more a sign of protest so that the executive will work on some criteria rather than just making conflicting nominations which could lead us nowhere. All the nominations were eventually set aside and a committee was set up to work on a criteria for selection. This was the outcome of the first debate for selection of a Presidential Candidate. Up to that point no executive member had proposed for a primary.
Is it correct that there is insincerity among heads of opposition leaders?
No one has any grounds to accuse any one of insincerity. The Leader of the NDAM and the Interim Secretary General of the PPP were part of the UDP Alliance in 2001 and things fell apart after the elections. The NRP had even taken over the blue colour of the PPP when it was banned in 1996. Hence the animosities were already there. Each had an interest to pursue. Just like constitutions protect people with diverse interest NADD created principles, procedures and institutions which could foster unity been diversity. We contested elections and won them irrespective of the antagonistic contradictions between some of the leaders. Each just behaved as expected. Those who felt disappointed are those who expected more than what NADD was worth. Neither PDOIS nor my humble self regrets being part of NADD. We were constantly accused of putting ideological purity over the need to unite to bring about change in the Gambia.
We sacrificed everything to prove our critics wrong. Now we can move about with a clear conscience. I proposed a party led alliance to be formed six months before the 2006 Presidential election which is in line with the Agenda of the UDP but none of the parties endorsed it. We also agreed to hold a primary incase of an impasse none of the parties proposed to have it. There is need for each to draw vital lessons and move away from passing moral judgments. As the old saying goes those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Could we say that heads of opposition parties are not committed to the idea of united opposition in the country?
To form a united opposition cannot be seen as a principle. The principle is to build a genuine opposition which could bring about a genuine multiparty system and genuine change. The building of a United Opposition is a tactic under conditions of governance which does not create options for genuine multi party contest. For example if the procedure existed for a second round of voting in the absence of 50 percent majority opposition parties would go on their own to seek the mandate of the people so that each will know its weight if they wish to forge an alliance in the second round. In the absence of that a united opposition was the missed opportunity Gambia needed to bring about a genuine democratic environment for multi party contest. In my view those who are interested in change would be committed to the tactics but those who are not will always put their aspiration to occupy a post above the objectives of bringing about change to protect and promote the liberty, dignity and prosperity of the people.
Do you know that Gambians are of the view that the ultimate decision to select any Presidential candidate is theirs?
Since I stepped foot on my home land over 30 years ago I have been working to ensure that the sovereign Gambian people do know that it is their sovereign right and authority to determine which person becomes their Presidential candidate and office holder among other positions of representation. I am sure many Gambians are fully aware of their sovereign powers to determine their manner of government and to criticize, scrutinize and restrain their leaders. Unfortunately there are many others who still submit to intimidation, inducement and prejudices based on blood ties, place of origin, gender, tribe and other status. Our duty is to open their eyes and all of us will become free and prosperous. In fact, I am now calling for the Alliance of the people as the starting point for ensuring alliance among the political elite. People have crticised NADD for being a closet agreement which we are now trying to explain to the people. Agenda 2011 aims to start the debate about unity from the level of the people. All political forces and parties in the country should explain what type of Unity they stand for and how it could be put into effect. The people would then be able to determine what is realistic and what is not.
Does the Gambia have a history of self-perpetuating government and if so is APRC a self perpetuating government?
Gambia does have a history of self perpetuating Government. We have never had a peaceful transfer of executive power. The country has never introduced any term limit for holding executive power. No effort has been made to decentralize
Power. Executive power has never been restrained by independent and impartial institutions, civil society or an enlightened citizenry. The APRC has transformed the constitutional instruments to enable the mandate of district, village and regional heads to be determined by the executive. It has eliminated the second round of voting and introduces patronage at all level of national life. Security of tenure is not guaranteed and access to development is bargained for loyalty.
In your candid opinion was the PPP government a self perpetuating government?
The PPP regime started the history of self perpetuating rule. It has not left any history of peaceful transfer of executive power either from one person to another or one party to another for almost 30 years. It maintained all the monarchical features in the executive. It could appoint and dismiss ministers without the involvement of parliament. No term limit was placed on the executive. No separation was made between party, president and the state. The executive was above the scrutiny and restraint of Instruments, institutions, civil society and an enlightened public. Patronage was the order of the day.
Why would anybody think that if Hamat Bah or Lawyer Darboe is voted in would lead to a self perpetuating government?
No one should accuse them before they assume the office. What is not helpful is the UDP leader’s comment that the Gambia does not have a history of self perpetuating rule. I don’t know why he signed the memorandum of understanding of NADD which states in article 2 that” The goal of the alliance is to put an end to self-perpetuating rule, ensure the empowerment of the people so that they can participate in sustainable development” NADD promised to put an end to the history of self perpetuating rule by limiting the term of the flag bearer to one so that a level ground would be created for multiparty contest.
In order to achieve your target goal, political parties must address the young people’s urgent needs by creating jobs, reducing crime levels and even combating AIDS pandemic that is reportedly claiming many lives globally?
The urgent needs of the young people for employment; the fight against crime and the HIV/AID pandemic should be the concern of both Governments and opposition. The Government has a duty to protect the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the citizenry. The opposition has a duty to make its positive contributions while exposing the shortcomings of the government and offering alternative policies.
Do you think Gambians will listen to you [the opposition] after your falling apart?
The duty of Gambians is not to ignore opposition parties because they have fallen apart but to listen to what they have to say in order to make informed choices. This era is the era of the people. The people should no longer rely on hearsay. They must challenge their leaders to engage in debates on all issues of national importance. They should not see criticisms and exposures of shortcomings as negative. They should see those initiatives as mechanisms to access correct information to be able to make informed choices. The people could only safeguard their sovereignty if they take ownership of their minds, seek correct information in order to make informed choices. The battle for clarity in the camp of the opposition is not a sign of disarray it is the only way to build the credible opposition that could engage the APRC and prove to the Gambian people that it can provide a better alternative. I am therefore inviting all youths of intellect, character, skills and values to join us in this sovereign national debate to define the future of this country. In this way each of us will become a part of the architects of a destiny of liberty, dignity and prosperity.
Finally is there any need for opposition parties to come together as a united front?
The UDP has made its position very clear. It sees itself as the major opposition party and that all other parties should embrace its leader as the flag bearer. My position is that they should go to the people and promote that form of Alliance.They should not make the mistake of the past by advocating for what they do not believe in. I still maintain that NADD served UDP more than any party in the Alliance. In short, by the time we sat to form an Alliance UDP had boycotted the National Assembly elections and had promised never to participate in elections until its conditions were met. How would UDP have come back into the electoral process and not lose face, without the opposition front we formed? It is the opposition coalition which enabled Kemeseng to gain the Jarra seat. He lost the seat when he went back to the UDP. This should be food for thought. As far as I am concerned I am going on to put my proposal to the people. I would want a neutral nation builder to emerge, a man or woman who would accept to run a transition government of between 2 to five years and then preside over a free and fair elections that would give Gambia a good democratic start, for governments to emerge which will only serve for no more than two terms and then give way to others to serve. I hope all party leaders would eventually endorse this and then be among the council of wise men and women who will select the only candidate who will stand against President Jammeh.I will keep the media informed of my grassroot consultation with the people. This time no party will stand between me and the people. This is the last but one service I want to do for the Gambian people, especially the future generation.
Source: The Daily News
http://www.dailynews.gm/index.php?id=dn_home&tx_wecdiscussion[single]=84706
****************************
email: [log in to unmask]
URLs: http://www.gambia.dk
Bantaba in Cyberspace: Http://www.gambia.dk/forums/
****************************
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
