DISCLAIMER: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY SS DAFFEH AND
AM FORWARDING IT FOR THE INTEREST OF MANY PEOPLE WHO
EXPRESSED INTEREST IN READING MR DAFFEH'S INTELLECTUAL
WRITINGS.  






                                           IN RESPONSE
TO Dr SAINE

Mr Editor,

Please allow me space in your well-established medium
to respond to Dr Abdoulaye Saine’s article of 3rd
February 2006.

Dr Saine, in your article, you asked why Lawyer
Ousainu Darboe did not make the case for concession
from NADD based on the fact that of all the
constituent parties the UDP polled the largest vote in
2001. Well, I am not in a position to answer that
question because I am neither a Lawyer Darboe
spokesperson nor a UDP insider, but I must say I am
very surprised you asked the question in the first
place. On the 25th of January 2006, you wrote: 

‘Darboe tried in 1996 and 2001 and could not dislodge
Jammeh. It is time for another candidate to give it a
try. This is partly because the political landscape of
2001 and 20006 are very different and the later may
require a different strategy and candidate.’

If you can say the above, why do you now consider it
vital that the UDP should have made a case on the
basis of their previous electoral record? Is this not
a complete sheer hypocrisy? By saying that 2006
requires a different candidate, you have openly
excluded Lawyer Darboe from the race. The only reason
you said this was because it reflects the position of
your associates within NADD. More so, you said this to
promote the vicious conspiracy theory of the Walter
Mitty Lamin Waa Juwara. This statement is an open
manifestation of your utter contempt for Mr Darboe and
the UDP. You have a hidden agenda Doc, and it is to
help Juwara to propel Mr Darboe to the back seat of
the political spectrum. Now that you awfully failed,
you are trying to save your face by being
conciliatory. How many times did Presidents Abdoulaye
Wade and Moi Kebake of Senegal and Kenya respectively,
tried before they finally succeed? Give us a break
Doc. You and the STGDP have used your positions both
pecuniary and as facilitators to blackmail Mr Darboe
and the UDP. Unfortunately for you, they did not
succumb. The only thing you achieved as a result was
the creation of hatred and suspicion among individual
members of NADD Executive, the by-product of which is
the present chaos. It is people like you who are
responsible for NADD’s disintegration, not Mr Darboe’s
resignation. After all, he is not indispensable, for
no one is. How dear you try to pass the bug, Doc. We
have seen the successes of the Sopii and the Rainbow
Coalitions of Senegal and Kenya respectively. Behind
their successes was the appreciation of the existing
political realities including the strength of their
component parties. This was what was lacking in NADD,
and you [Dr Abdoulaye Saine] and your cohorts are the
ones responsible. You tried to down play the electoral
strength of the UDP and yet you don’t want them to
pullout. Do you think they lack conscience? May you
remain a wishful thinker in perpetuity. 

You also asked whether the Memorandum of Understanding
was so blatantly biased against the UDP that it could
not be salvaged through negotiation. What a
conciliatory tone. Have you got any regrets Doc? With
hindsight, I think you should because you are one the
people who created the mess. The UDP never cried any
foul in relation to the content of the MOU. It was you
and your associates in NADD Executive, Lamin Waa
Juwara in particular, who were manipulatively
misinterpreting the MOU, with intent, in order to
promote your vicious and flirty conspiracy against Mr
Darboe and the UDP. Again on the 25th of January 2006,
you wrote:

‘The ongoing political furor over OJ selection as the
presidential candidate for the 2006 presidential
election and not Ousainu Darboe by NADD Executive
cannot be contested on grounds of OJ’s electability.
This is a flawed argument that undermines the very
democratic process that sought to engender and agreed
to by all parties. Flawed as the MOU is, Darboe and
all the presidential aspirants accepted the ground
rules heading into the meeting that selected OJ.’

This was a deceitful and manipulative interpretation
with intent, of the MOU. PART 111 [8] of the MOU
states: ‘The selection of a candidate of the alliance
for the presidential, National Assembly and Council
elections shall be done by consensus; provided that in
the event of 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.’ PART 1V [12] further states: ‘All
agreements and decisions shall be authenticated by
appending the signatures of all the representatives
associated with a given committee of the alliance. All
pages of any agreement of the Alliance shall contain
the initials of the signatories to be deemed as
authentic.’

It is abundantly clear from the above that the
constituent parties, contrary to Dr saine’s
postulation, never intent to base the selection
process of a flag bearer on majority vote, but on
unanimity. It is only when this failed that primaries
can be held. That is the democracy the MOU sought to
engender. It must be remembered that this was only a
procedure designed to produce an electable candidate,
not just any candidate. Although OJ had two
nominations as opposed to Mr Darboe’s single
nomination, it would have been a travesty and utter
disregard for the spirit of the MOU for OJ to be
deemed selected by NADD executive. This is why the
Coordinator in a press release stated [among others]: 

‘The first method utilized to try to arrive at a
consensus was to request for nomination. Some people
were nominated by members of their original parties,
others by members not belonging to their original
parties. Some nominations were not seconded. This was
followed by withdrawal of nominations. In short, this
method gave rise to an impasse which could have left
the Executive with no option but to hold primaries.’

The above was a clear acknowledgement of the fact that
no one, including OJ, was selected to lead NADD. If it
is was not for your malicious intent, Doc, how on
earth can somebody of your intellectual standing
conclude:
1.	that OJ was selected as the presidential candidate
of NADD 
2.	 that some people are contesting or trying to
change the rules enshrined in the MOU because Mr
Darboe was not favoured
3.	 that attacks on OJ’s electability are seeking to
undermine the democratic process the MOU seek to
engender
Is it not because, despite the naivety and the
ridiculous nature of your statements, something you
very well know, they only seek to promote your vicious
hidden agenda? If at all your claim is genuine, why
don’t you produce a document that is signed by all the
constituent parties in pursuant to Part 1V [12] of the
MOU, attesting to the fact that OJ was selected by
NADD Executive. I am sorry Doc, but I think you are
simply a grotesque person. More so, I think you are
deceitful, and a dishonest intellectual.

I am personally very sad that NADD had to disintegrate
in this ugly fashion, but I can perfectly understand
why Mr Darboe had to resign. As a man of integrity,
principles and conscience, I do not expect him to put
up with the level of subjugation, disrespect sheer
hypocrisy and naked character assassination that is
levelled against him within NADD and its affiliated
groups.  It doesn’t provide him with any participatory
role at all. That been the case, I think it was
honourable of him to resign. That is his judgement,
and that is his decision. We got to respect that. It
is absolute rubbish and maliciously absurd for the
likes of Dr Saine or indeed anybody to accuse Mr
Darboe of unwittingly supplanting the collective
national interest for a personal ambition. In fact, we
all know that Mr Darboe have had two ‘Mansaya’ offers
on a silver plate before but he declined them all.
First he was given the candidature for Sami
constituency, which he could have easily won owing to
the fact that, that seat had always been a safe one
for the PPP. He was then offered a cabinet post, which
he declined too. We know these because MC Cham said it
at a Latrikunda Rally in 2001 in the present of the
Ojs the Juwaras. If Mr Darboe is a selfish ‘Mansaya
seeker’, as some people try to portray him, why didn’t
he accept those offers? You know what? it is about
time for you people to stop throwing slurs on the
man’s integrity. He left NADD with no stain of
impropriety on his name. He is a selfless, principled
and respectful gentleman.

It is not uncommon for people to resign from political
parties or governments that they helped to create. In
the UK for example, principal architects of New Labour
like Peter Mandelson, Steven Byers, the Late Robin
cook, Clare Short and David Blunket. have all resigned
from the government amid controversy but the business
of governance still goes on at No.10, Whitehall and
Westminster. This shows that no one is indispensable
but institutions are. If Labour party resigns from the
Commons for example, there would be no labour
government. So Dr, don’t personalise the issue. Mr
Darboe’s resignation is not the problem here. It is
the UDP/NRP pullout.  Is anyone right to call this
betrayal/jamfa? Certainly not. The MOU that
establishes NADD provides that any party can pullout
from the Alliance if it chooses to do so. This shows
that although all parties had a common vision at the
time of the signing, they were cognizant of the fact
that there may arise, in the future, a situation[s]
when either of them may deem it fit to pullout. This
is what we are faced with today. As sad as it is, it
is still in conformity with the spirit of the MOU, and
was foreseen by all the constituent parties.
Therefore, it will be a silly over reaction for anyone
to call it ‘Jamfa’

NADD as was previously constituted is now
non-existent. We got to accept that. However, this sad
situation, and indeed it is a very sad situation, does
not render the common ambition of dislodging APRC
obsolete. Why can’t the opposition learn the great
lesson this stalemate thought them and perhaps try to
regroup again under a different umbrella for the sake
of their common goal? If the present NADD can call Mr
Darboe and UDP ‘power hungry’, why can’t they turn
around and say ok Mr Darboe, ok UDP, ok NRP, we are
joining your coalition because we are not power
hungry. All what we want is ‘Yaya Jammeh Jeepo’, come
October.  If they cannot do this, then their sincerity
in calling others ‘power hungry’ should be subjected
to the ruthless wrath of questioning. I am sure the
UDP and NRP are still committed to the ramification
agenda. UDP and NRP together pulled 41% of the votes
in 2001. That makes them a very formidable alliance
statistically, albeit not that enough [arguably] for a
first past the poll electoral system. However, if the
widely established professional pollster view is
anything to go by, which is: ‘any party that
constantly scores 25% in national elections, is
capable of winning an election’, this is an electable
coalition. With due respect, I don’t think any one
with a sane mind can describe a grouping of 3% PDOIS,
Structureless and spent force PPP, and flip-flopping
Juwara gang, as electable. These people will do the
nation a great favour if they join the UDP/NRP led
coalition. If this is not possible, then it vital that
they conduct their separate politicking in a civilised
and respectful manner. Any attempt to return to the
nasty game that disintegrated NADD would only be doing
a splendid job for the APRC and Ajaratou Yankuba
Touray Mu Yai Compin.

 My message for the opposition politicians and their
supporters is: if you are regrouping, good luck. If
you are not, you must remember that so long as the
APRC continues to be given a mandate, they have a
right to govern because they too are Gambians, and
that is not withstanding anybody’s opinion or belief.

Everyman for himself, God for us all, including APRC.



SS Daffeh
Chelmsford, Essex [UK]







                                              



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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