INTERVIEW WITH HALIFA SALLAH

ON HAMAT BAH’S COMMENTS IN THE  STATES


PART ONE

FOROYAA: HAMAT BAH Claims that negotiation is going on between NADD and the 
UDP/NRP Alliance and that within a short period of time one candidate will 
be selected by the Opposition to contest the forth coming presidential 
elections?

HALIFA: At the moment no arrangement is in place for the two sides to meet.  
When Hamat left a consultative process had started between Mr. Darboe and 
myself to explore whether any basis could be developed to serve as a 
foundation for any negotiation.  Confidentiality was requested and agreed 
upon. Hamat’s comments in fact derailed the whole process.

FOROYAA: Why?

HALIFA : He created the impression that he had access to information 
regarding negotiation which had not even commenced and further remarked that 
NADD was just interested in position which completely misconstrued  and 
trivialised the far reaching analysis and exchanges that I had with Mr. 
Darboe.  The NADD executive gave me the exclusive mandate to discuss with 
Mr. Darboe without informing them of any details until agreement is reached 
for initiating negotiations.  When Hamat made his remarks curiosity and 
uncertainty set in and the whole process had to come to a stop pending 
further clarification on what he was propagating in the US.







PART TWO

In this edition we continue with the interview with Halifa Sallah, NADD’s 
flag bearer, on comments made in the United States by Mr Hamat Bah of the 
UDP/NRP Alliance.



FOROYAA: Why the need for Confidentiality when your own supporters were 
demanding to know what was going on in the midst of the widespread notion 
that an agreement has been reached

HALIFA: It is true that many NADD supporters at home and abroad felt 
disarmed. They contacted me to ask about developments and I could not 
explain anything to them. The reason for this is simple. None of the sides 
requested for the talks. Interlocutors having sympathy for either side 
respectively intervened in good faith to promote Consultation between Mr. 
Darboe and myself without any conditionality or agenda. We had the option to 
chat and depart or create an agenda for further consultation. The only 
request made by the inter locator from the other side is confidentiality. I 
had to respect that wish and requested for a mandate from the NADD Executive 
to enter into talks without having to report to them until something 
conclusive is reached. I respected the request for confidentiality because 
of the fact that this was the first opportunity to build trust between the 
two sides. I am sure all keen observers of Gambian polities would notice 
that during the period of the talks no derogatory remarks against the 
UDP/NRP Alliance and its leaders could be attributed to the NADD leadership.

FOROYAA: What axe do you have to grind with Mr. Hamat Bah?

HALIFA: I have no axe to grind with Mr. Bah. He simply put me in a tight 
corner and compelled me to explain what was happening to every one and thus 
nullified the very confidentiality sought by the other side for the two 
sides to engage in a consultation exercise.

FOROYAA: How?

HALIFA: Mr. Hamat Bah said that there were people in NADD who wanted to use 
others as their ladder, some who never launched their parties some whose 
party never had a single meeting and others who had been in politics for 20 
years but never got more than 2% of the votes. He then went on to state that 
these are the people who wanted equal share with those who had 36% and 8%. 
He was emphatic in saying that this was not possible. He said that they (UDP 
and NRP) made a serious mistake in accepting the principle of sovereign 
equality of parties in NADD.He emphasized that they should not have accepted 
equal representation, noting that it was this mistake that led to the fall 
out of NADD

Mr. Bah then went further to deal a blow on our consultative process by 
asserting that he will not disclose the discussions going on at the moment 
between the two alliances that we will agree on a flag bearer. He added that 
what complicated the negotiation is that NADD wanted positions; they wanted 
the cake that is not yet baked. He concluded that they are not going to make 
any agreement as to who will occupy which position. The president will do 
that. This is what Mr. Bah said in the U.S.

FOROYAA: What do you have to say?

HALIFA: Mr. Bah’s claim that negotiations were on between the two alliances 
could only be attributed to two things. He was either referring to my talks 
with Mr. Darboe which had nothing to do with the sharing of positions or 
that he was referring to negotiation that did not exist. In either case the 
statements were at least inaccurate and at best misleading. The people in 
the Diaspora still have access to Mr. Bah. Could he be asked to explain 
which talks were on where NADD was asking for position? I repeat NO such 
talks are taking place. My consultative exercise with Mr. Darboe had no 
agenda. Nothing about position was discussed. It was also being done under a 
climate of perfect equality. This is the first point.

FOROYAA: Would NADD agree to the view that treating all parties as equals 
led to the fall out of NADD?

HALIFA: That is the second misleading notion that Mr. Bah sold in the U.S. 
Of course if one relies on common sense logic what he said would appear to 
be true. However if one analyses the reality one would consider his state to 
be unfortunate since others would also exercise their right to reply.

FOROYAA: What do you mean?

HALIFA: First and foremost, an alliance is not a ladder for just one party 
but for all parties constituting it. He can be equally accused of using an 
alliance as a ladder. Such negative way of looking at things will not take 
us any where. Secondly if flag bearers of alliances are determined by 
records of previous election then Mr. Darboe would have never been the 
presidential candidate in 1996. Prior to that he never participated as a 
candidate in elections.

Thirdly, the leader of one of the parties he mentioned had won an election 
as an independent candidate during the first Republic and was unseated only 
by a coup d’etat.

Suffice it to say that the PDOIS that he was trying to trivialise by 
referring to 2% had put up five candidates in the 2002 parliamentary 
elections and earned two seats while having over 20% in all the other three 
constituencies while NRP put up 15 candidates only to earn one seat, which 
he Mr. Bah had lost in a by election. It is therefore difficult for me to 
understand Mr. Bah’s logic. What he has conveyed is that there in no spirit 
of negotiation in the UDP/NRP camp and that they are coming up with a sprit 
of imposing their will. This is at least haughty in approach



to negotiation which can never succeed.

FOROYAA: Mr Bah said that the policy of treating parties as equals was a 
mistake. What is your view on this?

HALIFA: It is unfortunate that I am being dragged into such a discussion at 
the moment when we should be engaged in the process of dislodging the APRC 
regime. Leadership requires hindsight. Let me ask every Gambian this simple 
question. When we met in the US after delivering our speeches in Atlanta in 
2003 and were asked whether any party could dislodge the APRC why didn’t the 
UDP assert then that it had the potential to do so and simply called on the 
other political parties to give it solidarity? Of course, if this was said 
there would not have been any need to select a Coordinator. The UDP would 
have been asked to send envoys to the various political parties to seek 
their support .The parties which felt that UDP could lead them to victory 
would have joined them.

In retrospect, when we met in the US the UDP had boycotted the parliamentary 
elections and had no seat in the National Assembly. NRP had lost one seat 
and had only one seat. Only PDOIS had two parliamentary seats. The case of 
the UDP leader was still in court. There was immense hostility in the camp 
of the opposition.

In my view, the parties were right to state at the time that none of them 
could present itself as the leader of the fold. No party could take the 
posture of being superior to the other to the point of playing a big brother 
role on the basis of its individual strength and credibility.

I am one hundred percent sure that if the UDP had taken the posture that Mr 
Bah is asking it to take now when we first met, all the representatives of 
the other parties would have left the hall to go about their business. I 
stand to be corrected.

We therefore created NADD as an umbrella party to create unity in the midst 
of diversity among the opposition parties because no single party had the 
strength and credibility to serve as a rallying ground for other parties. 
This is the simple and elementary truth. This umbrella party was designed to 
address the individual weaknesses of the member parties and further 
galvanize their collective strength and integrity.

In order to ensure that the equality of the parties is reserved as a 
tactical instrument to consolidate the strength of the opposition in order 
to ensure victory the existence of NADD was limited to five years after the 
assumption of office by the flag bearer. During the five years all political 
parties will be able to retain their individual political support and still 
claim ownership of their collective achievements under NADD. The restriction 
of the mandate of the flag bearer to one term was to eradicate the 
advantages of incumbency so that any political leader who failed to contest 
in 2006 would have equal opportunity to seek the mandate of the people in 
the next following election by relying on a party’s numerical strength. The 
principle of creating an umbrella party under which collective leadership is 
exercised was designed not only to harness the numerical strength of the 
parties but to build up the potential to harness voters who are either non 
committed to individual parties or are supporters of the ruling party. The 
collective leadership also serve as an insurance against any allegation of 
tribalism or sectionalism. Equality and collective leadership in NADD 
offered each voter the personality one could love and trust to justify one’s 
trust for the opposition.

Herein lies the viability of NADD. Mr Bah says this was a mistake what he is 
offering is imposition of dominance by the UDP. Clearly his proposition 
would not have created unity among the opposition from the very beginning.

FOROYAA: But has an alliance like NADD ever happened?

HALIFA: NADD is a united front. In some cases countries are fortunate to 
have an opposition party which is capable of winning an election on the 
basis of its own numerical strength but can better do so by co-opting other 
opposition parties in an alliance which it leads. On the other hand, 
countries may be faced with a situation where the people are not sentimental 
about parties and are very willing to put party affiliation aside to form a 
united front to achieve an aim.

A clear example of this is Gambia in 1996 and 2001 when the UDP operated as 
an umbrella party for the parties which were banned. I have also pointed out 
the cases of Tumani Toure and in Mali and even Nino Vieira in Guinea Bissau, 
where the people disregarded both the ruling party and the opposition . NADD 
could have been another example.

FOROYAA: What is the way forward?

HALIFA: I have said that people are calling for an alliance. We should 
explain what the two alliances are offering the people and ask them to make 
their choice as to which form of alliance should be the basis of unity. As 
far as I am concerned, I have made it clear that I have accepted to be flag 
bearer because of my conviction that I could be accepted by all political 
constituencies in The Gambia. However, I am also willing to hand over to 
anyone who can be better promoted among all political constituencies in the 
country.

FOROYAA: Some are asking why you accepted to be flag bearer.

HALIFA: Let me also ask why did, I accept to be Coordinator when I was 
Secretary General of PDOIS?  It is duty that called and I had to answer. I 
would like to remind people that I did not apply to be  a Coordinator nor 
did I want to be one. When I appeared in Atlanta I was the Minority Leader 
of the National Assembly of The Gambia and I accepted to be Coordinator not 
to become an apolitical civil servant but to facilitate a process. My 
mandate ended with the signing of the MOU. However all the parties agreed to 
elect me as Coordinator again? That is trust.

Needless to say, I did not apply to be flag bearer. Just I was unanimously 
selected as Coordinator I was again unanimously selected as flag bearer of 
NADD. I accepted because duty called on me to do so. If duty again calls on 
me to hand over the responsibility to someone who can better lead us to 
success I am again willing to do so. I am willing to do whatever duty is 
imposed on me.

FOROYAA: Mr Bah alluded to a party which for twenty years could only get two 
percent of the votes.

HALIFA: I am the flag bearer of NADD. Since NRP and UDP cam into being I 
stood in three elections. In 1997 I stood with a UDP candidate in Serrekunda 
East. I had 8500 votes. He had 8000 votes. The APRC candidate had 9500 
votes. This is not what is called 2% of the votes. In 2002 those who 
boycotted elections campaigned against me but I won. In 2005 I stood for 
NADD and won. The picture Mr Bah has been insinuating regarding the flag 
bearer has no affinity to what is on the ground. This is the chapter and 
verse of the whole story.

FOROYAA: What is NADD doing at the moment?

HALIFA: We are not convinced that a one party led alliance can be promoted 
successfully. Hence Sidia and his team are in the URD; Waa and his team have 
covered LRD and they are now in CRD and will come down to Baddibu. Landing 
Jallow Sonko and his team will cover Nuimi, Jokadu and CRD North. As flag 
bearer we will engage in debriefing when they come back to know the way 
forward.

FOROYAA: You must have a lot of money.

HALIFA: That is what we do not have. We have changed our strategy. We used 
to rely on established organisations like Movement for the Restoration of 
Democracy in the Gambia in UK or Save The Gambia Democracy Project in the 
USA. Now we have opened up new strategies to receive solidarity from any 
individual Gambian who wishes to give cash or kind. Our partners can 
continue to do their best while we explore new avenues for funding. We need 
paper, ink, cassettes, T-shirts, caps, etc. The response is encouraging. We 
can only be as effective as Gambians want us to be.

FOROYAA: Any last words?

HALIFA: I hear some people saying that if the opposition is not united they 
will not provide funds or vote. My view is that whether one casts one’s vote 
or not others will vote for the APRC. What Gambians should do is to give 
their maximum, be ready to vote and then encourage the opposition to be 
united.

The hands-off policy is a fatalist policy. It will only lead to the 
retention of the status quo. In our view people should insist that the two 
alliances come together. However if that fails people must learn to judge 
where the fault lies. I can assure every one that I will be able to explain 
my point of view with clarity and history will never indict me for not 
taking the right decision at the right time to defeat impunity and poverty 
which are dual factors that fetter the liberty and prosperity of the Gambian 
people..

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤