Sanusi, thanks again for your mail. I will try and approach your points in
chronological order. I hope people understand that we are not engaged in
'chicken counting here before the eggs are hatched'. What I hope we are
trying to do, is give pointers to the teams that are going to negotiate on
behalf of the political parties that are going to form the coalition for the
October election and perhaps the one in January 2001.

Transitional Government: I think we agree on the fact that the next
president should not be allowed an unfair advantage. How do we ensure that
he does not get that advantage? This is where we differ slightly. I believe
we can do a combination of things. We can ensure that the selection process
(for the leader) is a very fair and democratic one. We can also agree (prior
to the elections) that upon taking over power, the next president will
embark on a massive overhaul of our laws to ensure that there is a level
playing field for all the political parties in the coalition, come following
elections. I gave some examples of laws that can be amended or repealed in
order to diminish the powers of the next president. For instance, I
suggested that the president will not have the power to appoint and fire
chiefs. Some of the points you mentioned about the hiring and firing of
cabinet ministers can also be subjects of negotiations.

I believe if those two items (fair selection and level playing field) are
taken care of, we need not have a short-term presidency. I have this belief
because I think the next government will need a longer period of time in
order to implement certain development projects to impact people's lives;
thus preempting another coup or resurrection of APRC. This was the crux of
my argument yesterday.

However, upon re-reading your piece today, I detected that I might have been
totally off to think that you are advocating for a short term presidency and
the calling of a presidential election in 2003. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now I sense that what you were saying all along was that we should have a
'coalition government' for 2 years to implement (inter alia) the political
reforms needed to ensure a level playing field. Thereafter, you are not
necessarily saying that we should call for a general election after the
initial 2 years. I hope I am not misunderstanding you again.

Well, if this is your position, then I agree with you entirely. This again
goes back to the selection process and the negotiations between the parties.
They can certainly talk about who the prominent players are going to be in
the next government. In other words, the person that is going to be chosen
to be the coalition's presidential candidate, is not going to have a free
hand to form any government he wants. Before the coalition is formed, all
the parties have to agree on who is going to hold key government positions
during the 'transitional period'. For example, in the interest of fairness,
the president and the Attorney General will not come from the same party,
since most of the proposed reforms will have to pass through the Attorney
General before implementation.

According to this scenario, this 'coalition government of national unity'
will be together for 2 years. Thereafter, the parties can part their
different ways and prepare for presidential elections in 2006 if they wish.
If instead what we want is to have another election in 2003, then we have to
come up with a powerful development program that will have meaningful impact
in the next two years. This requires a lot of work. These are not APRC
white-elephant programs that have the only effect of rendering our people
poorer. We need genuine pro-poor policies that will bear fruit before the
next election. Are you confident that the fruits will be ripe in 18 or 24
months? It is certainly doable. But at what cost? Are there other means of
addressing the FAIRNESS issue?

Truth and Restitution Commission: Again, I believe in plea bargaining. We
have to accommodate certain people. I personally will not advocate for
anyone that was directly involved in the massacre of our children on April
10 and 11, 2000. I frankly think that we do not need a commission to get to
the bottom of the criminal activities of this regime. Let us take them to
regular courts where common criminals are tried everyday. If we look at the
evidence and realize that we need vital testimony from certain people in
order to get to bigger wigs, why not --- let us 'bargain' with the less
culpable small fries in order to get to the bigger evil. It is case by case
for me. I do not believe in blanket amnesties.

AFPRC/APRC Kangaroo Courts: I agree with you on this topic that the
so-called commissions of inquiries were/are a mockery to the rule of law.
This was/is nothing but a ploy to extort money from Gambians and victimize
people that had a different ideology from AFPRC/APRC. This was their (AFPRC)
opportunity to seize the 'fancy cars' they dreamt about all their sorry
lives and seize properties at 'Fajara' they knew they can NEVER get earning
their lieutenant salaries.

Was the process fair and transparent? Absolutely not. Were innocent people
victimized? Certainly yes. Should we review those unlawful rulings and fight
for the victims? I am afraid I have to say NO. In my humble opinion, it is
not the place of the next government to fight a battle PPP should have
fought for itself. There are certain wrongs that were committed against the
PPP people that impact Gambians as a whole. For example Decree 89 that
prevents Gambians from electing PPP people if they want to. I can understand
our next government coming forward and repealing that Decree.

But those wrongs are entirely different from wrongs committed against
individuals that were accused of corruption but were victimized by a process
(the Kangaroo Courts). Those people should have fought their battle in 1994.
Some of them absconded from the country. Others just folded under pressure.
Others went to collaborate with the AFPRC/APRC to fight against us. Others
decided to sit on the fence and would not fight with/for us. I have no
sympathy for these people.

Having said that, the next government can certainly say that it will not
recognize the rulings of the bogus commissions as the final letter of the
law. In other words, people that were victimized by those rulings can go to
court and try and overturn the rulings. It would create a big mess in the
country, but the government should not be seen as taking sides for people
that did not fight when they were supposed to. Imagine what will happen if
the courts eventually decide that some properties were seized illegally. The
people that have been living on these properties all these years were doing
so illegally and would now have to compensate the original/rightful owner.
This is a mess we do not want to touch. Let Yaya and his cronies battle it
out with the PPP people that believe that they were victimized. We should
not fight for people that are unwilling to fight with us or fight for
themselves.

It is however another story if PPP people want to join the coalition to
remove Yaya. Because as far as I know, this is not on the cards as we
speak/write, I will not delve into what we should negotiate with them. I was
planning to write one of these days on the 'case to co-opt PPP people into
the coalition'. In due course I will do so if necessary. Suffice for me to
say at this stage that my thinking is that the PPP should willingly and
actively participate in the fight to remove Yaya, without asking the current
Opposition to give them (the PPP folks) a quid pro quo. Just like Buba
Baldeh and Nafa Saho and Fatoumatta Jahumpa and Aji Fatou Sallah etc. are
helping the APRC, ex-PPP politicians should be prepared to selflessly help
the Opposition to defeat Yaya. These ex-politicians know grassroots
politics. They should be prepared to help without being offered a Pajero or
a job at Observer or other perks APRC offers the opportunists that decided
to mortgage their souls to the devils that stole power from them. The only
concession we can give them at this stage is that Decree 89 will be
repealed. We will not stand in their way if they want to go to court and
claim properties that were wrongly taken away from them. If they go to court
and prove that they were not corrupt and the court rules that the property
should not have been seized, let them be our guests and kick out the APRC
cronies that were squatting on their properties. The firings willy-nilly
will also involve complications the next government might not want to be
embroiled in during the next administration. Would we want to deal with
having to compensate people that were unlawfully fired by the mad man ruling
our country? Like I said, some of these people are not with us. Our
government did not create the problem. We should not finance Yaya's illegal
behavior. We should have a policy of looking at matters on a case by case
basis again. We should be in a position to give certain people their jobs
back if they successfully fight for it through the regular courts. But we
CANNOT compensate these people for the crimes Yaya committed. If they have
any sense and guts, they should be fighting Yaya as we speak/write.

Thanks again for your invaluable contributions.
KB



>From: Sanusi Owens <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Owens:  Way Forward
>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:46:07 +0100
>
>KB
>
>No need to apologise for the change of title, in fact
>it gave it some spice to start with.
>
>You have raised some interesting points but to be
>honest with you I have to properly explain my previous
>proposals and from there we can resume this
>interesting debate.
>
>(1)WHY THE UNITED OPPOSITION SHOULD RULE FOR NOT MORE
>THAN TWO YEARS
>
>I still advocate for a Coalition Government that
>should rule for not more than 24 months. Perhaps I
>will be considerate here and say they should rule for
>a minimum of 18 months and a maximum of 24 months.
>I believe that the only way forward for a successful
>Coalition government is to review the transitional
>programme fraudulently hijacked by the AFPRC regime.
>All of us should admit that the First Republic was
>born on 24 April 1970 and suddenly died on 22 July
>1994 when our so called defenders of the constitution;
>the PPP Cabinet surrendered power to the AFPRC-what a
>tragic way to relinquish power.
>Coming to the Second Republic, I still believe that it
>is in its pregnancy. The issues which should have been
>dealt with under the Second Republic have still not
>been delivered yet. We have a constitution that is
>totally been abused by its architects. We have a
>constitution that has made our leaders elective
>dictators. In order to resolve the situation, the
>first task of the Coalition Government is to honestly
>review the Second Republican Constitution.
>
>When one looks at the way the Second Republican
>Constitution came into effect, there were several
>provisions which wrongly incorporated in it. In fact,
>we have just heard news from the Gambia that the APRC
>Government  have introduced the Constitutional
>Amendment Act without consulting the people who
>initially endorsed it by way of vote in a referendum
>held on 8 August 1996.
>
>Our current constitution is typically designed in line
>  with the American Presidential system of Government.
>With this in mind, the President of the Coalition will
>have enormous power to do what he likes. I don't need
>to enlighten you on how Yahya has been hiring and
>firing Secretaries of States. If one looks at the
>provisions of the First Republican Constitution, the
>President had to rely on his parliamentarians to
>choose a cabinet. Imagine therefore if either Sidia
>Jatta, Bah or Darboe were made leader of the
>Coalition, based on the provisions of the current
>constitution, he may appoint who ever he likes as
>Secretary of State with the exception of the elected
>MPS.There are bound to be problems in this area,
>unless the parties in the United Opposition have
>formulated a pre-election/victory agreement.
>
>(2)THE NEED FOR A TRUTH AND RESTITUTION COMMISSION
>
>It appears we seem to be agreement in this area, my
>only reservation is the level of amnesty to be granted
>against the perpetrators. I strongly believe that in
>order for us to certain who was responsible the gross
>abuses of human rights abuses, some will have to be
>granted amnesty, so as to assist the Commission in
>ascertaining the truth. If you could recall during the
>Treason Trials of September 1981, Appai Sonko a fomer
>member of Kukoi Samba Sanyang's Supreme Council of the
>Revolution was granted amnesty in return for him to
>testify as a principal witness. His testimony to the
>court was of significant help to the prosecution in
>establishing the role played by the alleged coup
>plotters of July 1981. Just recently, we have seen
>Nigeria through its Oputa Commission using the
>services of Sergeant Rogers. Sergeant Rogers though
>regarded as the one responsible for the brutal murder
>of Kudirat Abiola and many other political figure has
>freely given detail evidence on why and how these
>political figures were executed. Now lets take a look
>at the situation in the Gambia, the likes of Fabakary
>Kolior a former member of the July 22 Movement has now
>defected to the UDP. Don't you think he could be of
>enormous help to the commission, if he is granted
>amnesty ? There are so many others who will fall under
>this category.
>
>(3)NULLIFY THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONS OF THE
>INQUIRY
>
>Sorry to say but I should have said REVIEW rather than
>Nullify. To be candid with you, I must admit that the
>PPP Government was corrupt. However, the Commissions
>of Inquiry set up to investigate failed in most cases
>in establishing the actual degree of corruption. In
>most cases, these Commissions were mere kangaroo
>Courts, only few of them acted fairly. Most of the
>powers granted to the Commission were obnoxious to
>start with. Having attending some of the Commissions,
>I realised that the Chairmen/Chairperson in most cases
>acted as player rather than a referee. In other words,
>they were never independent to sart with.  Since some
>innocent people have either lost their jobs or
>properties, Don't you think there is a need for the
>decisions of these Commissions to be reviewed
>honestly?
>
>
>Awaiting your views on my proposals and its reasons
>
>Have a wonderful day
>
>Sanusi
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------