Hi Mr. Jallow!
                    Thanks again for your time. You wrote:

"Once again I am not "charging" nor accusing anybody of anything."

Your statement, "the UDP, the dominant group amongst NADD, plays a shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism as r! eflected
in its constant claim of about 40% electoral votes- congruent to the Mandinka population of the Gambia" says two things:

1) The UDP, the largest group within NADD, plays shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism.

2) That the UDP constantly claims about 40% of electoral votes, a figure that matches the Mandinka population of The Gambia.

This in effect charges that or accuses the UDP of deliberate engagement in "shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism". It in effect also charges that the party CONSTANTLY makes claims to electoral votes relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country. In short, your statement accuses the UDP of being a tribalist party. That is why I asked you to provide proof that the UDP indeed is guilty of what you accuse it of. I asked you to prove that the UDP either by statement or inference insinuated Mandinka tribalism. I also asked you to prove, assuming that the UDP did indeed claim the number of votes relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country, how you made the connection that the UDP was linking that figure to the number of votes from Mandinkas and indeed using the tribal card. Your reply in essence says the following:

1) That you did not accuse the UDP of anything.
2) You made an attempt to describe a phenomenon that tribe plays in Gambian politics.
3) That the UDP vote fits the pattern of votes that became a trend in the last two presidential elections.
4) The dynamics of such a trend covertly manifest, match no other tribe but the Mandinkas.

Going from the above, you are saying that it is the results of the votes that play the tribalist card and not the UDP. How can the UDP be responsible for the actions of the Gambian electotate or accidental statistical match of the Mandinka population? Is it logical to accuse the UDP of being tribalist because the number of votes it received during the last two presidential elections are relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country? Do you know how many Wollofs, Fulas, Jolas, Manjagoes etc. make up that result? Are you sure that all those who voted for the UDP were Mandinkas? Let us assume that the other tribes combined made up 10% of the UDP vote. That would discredit your claim that the UDP vote is relative to the Mandinka population. 

If you believe that there was a tribal aspect to the number of votes received by the UDP, why didn't you accuse the Gambian electorate of "shadow Mandinka politics" and leave the UDP out of it? Why did you accuse the UDP? I say why did you accuse the UDP because you used "plays" and "constantly claims". These words denote an active engagement in something. "Play" suggests that the party deliberately engages in a game of Mandinka tribalism. "Constantly claims" suggests that the party all the time claims a figure relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country. However, what you are now saying is that the UDP neither plays the Mandinka tribal card nor claims a figure relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country. In effect, you are acquitting the UDP of your charge of Mandinka tribalism. Thanks and have a good day.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Buharry.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ebou Jallow 
  To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ; [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II - Corrections


  Mr. Gassama,

  Please allow me to make some further clarifications.   I have never disputed the fact that NADD is a political party.  Ousainou Darboe, a member of NADD/( or UDP), did in his arguments before the Supreme Court.  Now this has been my argument:  The registration of NADD does not mean that it is legitimate since the process itself has been abused, and as a result the National Assembly has all rights to make provisions canceling its registration as a political party.  What is salient in my argument is the distinction between NADD as an institutional fact and the process of constituting that fact with a status function in the formula: X counts as Y in context C.  Once again the ruling of the Supreme Court does not weigh in my argument because in any future dispute against the legitimacy of NADD the process of registration shall have primacy over the end product which is NADD a! s a political party. 

  Now with respect to the second part of your argument:  Once again I am not "charging" nor accusing anybody of anything.  I made an attempt to describe a socio-linguistic phenomenon that tribe plays in Gambian politics and obviously the UDP vote is the only statistics that fits that pattern which became a trend in the last two presidential elections. The dynamics of that trend is presumably covert but the effects manifest in statistical figures that matches no other tribe but that of the Mandinka population.  There is no exact science to establish causation but that does not rule out an inductive explanation of the electoral results.  

  It is past midnight, and I look forward to your usual candor and productive challenge with much respect.


  Ebou Jallow


  ***************************************************************************************************************
  Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
    Hi Mr. Jallow,
    I am glad that we have established that "NADD is
    registered as a political party ... and this is a fact established before
    the Supreme Court." Semantics aside, this is indeed what the reality is
    today. This is what you propagated immediately following the ruling and just
    before you had a change of heart. Assigning the establishment of NADD to the
    Supreme Court is a non-issue because that is beyond the court's purview.
    That is the job of the IEC. Deliberating to decide the extent and nature of
    that registration is the Supreme Court's job. That is why it ruled that NADD
    is registered as a political party under prevalent laws and rules.

    Whether the Supreme Court excludes the National Assembly's right to make
    laws regarding NADD is also a non-issue because that issue was never
    presented before the court. The court cannot rule! on something that is not
    before it. The National Assembly by virtue of the fact that it is dominated
    by one party can make all the laws in the world. That is however not the end
    of it. There are various provisions to challenge such laws and throw them
    out when they are deemed to be unconstitutional. Your constant references to
    how the National Assembly can disqualify NADD might in your mind be
    sufficient enough to do so. However whether they are sufficient in reality,
    is a completely different ball game. Now that we have dealt with the first
    question, I would request that we move on to the next.

    The issue relates to your statement "that the UDP, the dominant group
    amongst NADD, plays a shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism as r! eflected
    in its constant claim of about 40% electoral votes- congruent to the
    Mandinka population of the Gambia. "

    My questions regarding this are:

    1. Can you prove such a heavy charge?
    2. How ha! s the UDP by statement or inference insinuated Mandinka tribalism?
    3. Can you please provide the statistical reference or UDP statement stating
    that Mandinkas make up 40% of The Gambia?
    4. Let us even assume that the UDP did in fact claim that they would get 40%
    of the votes. How did you make the connection that they are tying such a
    figure to the percentage of Mandinkas in the country? What did you base such
    an assumption on?

    I look forward to your reply. Thanks and have a good evening.


    Buharry.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ebou Jallow" 
    To: 
    Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:48 PM
    Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II - Corrections


    > Mr. Gassama,
    >
    > Thanks once again. I am very convinced that we are subsequently heading
    > towards an understanding of the social reality surrounding NADD's
    > existence and the pos! sible consequences. Ousainou Darboe vehemently
    > argued against the existence of NADD as a "political party" but instead an
    > "alliance" . This fact is on public record. However, the status function
    > of NADD became an issue during the Supreme Court proceedings since the
    > justices deem it necessary to make a decision based on the merits of the
    > case because the defendant(Attorney General/National Assembly) where also
    > seeking a relief. Once again, the Supreme Court cannot and never
    > "establish" NADD. NADD was already established as a "political party" the
    > moment IEC accepted its registration and made a public notice to that
    > effect.
    > Please let me be emphatically clear about this issue: Nothing in the
    > ruling of the Supreme Court decision excludes the The National Assembly's
    > right to make a provision cancelling NADD's registration with IEC based on
    > the self-evident fact that NADD was fraudu! lently registered and
    > unconstitutional ( Please refer back to the relevant constitutional clause
    > and electoral laws in my earlier posting).
    >
    > Obviously NADD is registered as a political party by Gabriel Roberts and
    > this is a fact established before the Supreme Court. NADD contested this
    > fact but justices ruled that it is indeed a registered political party.
    > Now whether that specific registration is legitimate or not is going to be
    > another legal battle between Yaya Jammeh and NADD. So far all indications
    > clearly show that NADD was never registered according to the law
    > stipulated by the constitution and the electoral laws.
    >
    > My best regards,
    >
    > Ebou Jallow
    >
    > Momodou Buharry Gassama wrote:
    > Hi Mr. Jallow!
    > A couple of corrections. I wrote:
    > "The facts as they stand today is that NADD is a legitimate political
    > party, g! iven such status by the Supreme Court ruling."
    >
    > It should read:
    > "The facts as they stand today are that NADD is a legitimate political
    > party, given such status by the Supreme Court ruling."
    >
    > I wrote:
    > "Facts are a constant that require a set of rules or actions to be changed
    > whereas opinions can change on a whim."
    >
    > It should read:
    > "Facts are constants that require a set of rules or actions to be changed
    > whereas opinions can change on a whim."
    >
    > Thanks.
    > Buharry.
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Momodou Buharry Gassama
    > To: [log in to unmask] ; The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
    > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:28 PM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II
    >
    >
    > Hi Mr. Jallow!
    > Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you find my series of
    > questions complex,! I suggest we take them one by one. We can start by
    > dealing with the first question that you have attempted to answer, that
    > is, the legitimacy or not of NADD. You stated that "NADD is not a
    > legitimate political party but an institutionalized faction within the
    > context of the Gambian Constitution and the electoral laws....The IEC is
    > the only authority in the Gambia that grants any association the status
    > function of a political party..and not the National Assembly, the
    > Executive nor the Supreme Court." Your attempt to isolate the IEC from the
    > National Assembly and the Supreme Court in terms of defining a political
    > party is fallacious. The IEC derives the basis on which to declare any
    > association a political party and its very existence, from laws created by
    > the National Assembly. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter when there
    > arises an issue of interpretation of not only what the I! EC decides,
    > but laws created by the National Assembly. So you see, the three
    > institutions are a necessary part of the functions defined for the IEC. It
    > is in this vein that the issue of the status of NADD's registration was
    > brought before the court that ruled that NADD was registered as a
    > political party and not a coalition of parties, thus forcing the various
    > parties to forfeit their seats in the National Assembly. The facts as they
    > stand today is that NADD is a legitimate political party, given such
    > status by the Supreme Court ruling. Whether you or I feel otherwise is
    > irrelevant. Your opinion of NADD's legitimacy doesn't carry much weight
    > when stacked against the Supreme Court's ruling. In other words, your
    > statements are a matter of opinion and the Supreme Court's ruling is a
    > matter of fact. Facts are a constant that require a set of rules or
    > actions to be changed whereas opinions can change on a whim. Your opinion
    > of NADD's legitimacy as a political party days after the Supreme Court's
    > ruling are the complete opposite of what your stand is today. The fact
    > that arose out of the Supreme Court ruling is however still a constant
    > waiting for the set of rules or actions necessary to change it. That fact
    > is that NADD is a legitimate political party registered under the laws
    > created by the National Assembly and IEC rules. Your opinion days after
    > the ruling was that NADD is in fact a political party under the prevalent
    > laws (see various posts you sent stating such below). Your change of
    > opinion does not affect or impact the reality of what NADD is according to
    > the laws of The Gambia. Thanks and have a good weekend.
    > Buharry.
    >
    >
    > P.S.
    > Here is what you wrote about NADD's declaration as a political party days
    > after the ruling under! various threads:
    >
    > ************* ************ ********** *******************
    >
    > Monday, July 11, 2005 3:15 PM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] NADD NOT A POLITICAL PARTY BUT AN ALLIANCE? VERY
    > DISTURBINGREVELATIONS!!!!
    >
    > King George,
    > If NADD was only an alliance why did it not challenge the IEC's public
    > notice as a political party upon registration ?
    >
    >
    > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:18 PM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] NADD NOT A POLITICAL PARTY BUT AN ALLIANCE?
    >
    > I don't know what "democratic statutes" Yusupha Jow means but the Law in
    > the Gambia is only a matter of what legal
    > institutions like the National Assembly have decided, and its
    > interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is a plain fact.
    >
    >
    > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:42 AM
    > Subject: NADD's POLITICAL SUICIDE.......
    >
    >
    > 1. NADD was registered a polit! ical party by the IEC.
    > 2. IEC made a public notice of NADD's registration as a political party.
    > 3. NADD never contested the notice up until the Supreme Court litigation.
    > 4. The Supreme Court ruled that NADD is a political party, and upheld the
    > NA clerk's decision.
    >
    > Now despite all the semantic spinning about NADD's existence as a
    > "political entity", "alliance" or "party of parties" only one fundamental
    > fact is constant: That NADD has a legal name status-function of a
    > political party, the only entity recognized by the Gambian Constitution
    > and registered by the IEC.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:53 PM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] Who is lying: HALIFA SALLAH vs OUSAINOU DARBOE
    >
    > If you insist that NADD is not a political party then the existence of
    > NADD contravenes the constitution as Halifa mentioned:
    >
    >
    > On the other hand ! if NADD is a political party ( de facto and de jure NADD
    > is a party) then the registration of its member
    > parties has to be canceled according to law.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:15 AM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] Who is lying: HALIFA SALLAH vs OUSAINOU DARBOE
    >
    > Once again NADD never did anything right after registering with the IEC.
    > Instead they have been living a fraud until Supreme Court decision last
    > week. They have only two options now before it is too late:
    >
    > 1. Either withdraw their current registration as a political party and
    > maintain a merger on principle.
    >
    > 2. OR maintain their current registration as one single political party
    > based on a merger in law. And that means no more UDP, PDOIS, NRP or NDAM
    > but only NADD.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The alliance registered NADD as a coalition of UDP, PDOIS, NRP and NDAM.
    &! gt; The IEC understood their merger as a "party of parties", and published a
    > public notice declaring NADD a political party on 25th April, 2005.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 7:08 AM
    > Subject: Re: Press Release By NADD Executive
    >
    >
    > Following the landmark Supreme Court decision NADD's registration as a
    > political party became the only consolidated fact in law. It is neither an
    > "alliance" nor a "party of parties".
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    > ***************************************************************************************************************************
    > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Abraham
    > To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ; [log in to unmask]
    > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:05 AM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II
    >
    >
    > Mr. Gassama,
    >
    > Thank you once again. I have to admit that your series of questions are
    > complex and there was no way I can be faithful to you without the kind of
    > response I gave earlier. In essence what I tried to say in brief is that
    > NADD is not a legitimate political party but an institutionalized faction
    > within the context of the Gambian Constitution and the electoral laws.
    > This became a self-evident fact the very moment NADD registered as a party
    > with the IEC. The IEC is t! he only authority in the Gambia that grants any
    > association the status function of a political party..and not the National
    > Assembly, the Executive nor the Supreme Court. However, the legitimacy of
    > a political party can only take place within a context of constitutive
    > rules ( In this case the Electoral laws and the Gambian Constitution). Now
    > this is what the Gambian laws say about the registration of political
    > parties and mergers:
    >
    > The Constitution of the Gambia: Chap.V
    > PART 7: POLITICAL PARTIES(5) Every association seeking to be registered as
    > a political party shall submit to the Independent Electoral Commission -
    > (a) a copy of the association's constitution;(b) the association's name
    > and full address and the names and addresses of all its officers;(c) the
    > full address of its secretariat, and symbol. The Electoral Laws regulates
    > mergers as follows:
    >
    > Agreemen! ts in Principle: i. Where parties agree verbally, in writing, or
    > in any other form known and unbeknown to the IEC; to consolidate, support,
    > andencourage each other in the contest of elections and in the pursuit of
    > mutual interests.ii. The IEC shall take due cognizance of such agreement
    > if known, but shall deem all such agreements to have been made in private
    > and limited to administrative arrangements and to mutual understand!
    > ing
    > between the parties concerned.iii. The Commission shall recognize parties
    > to such an agreement as individually separate entities and shall give no
    > special consideration to any or all members of the agreement.iv. Any or
    > all parties to such an agreement may nominate candidates to contest
    > elections on the basis of their arrangement, which candidates shall be
    > recognized as candidates of the party in whose name th!
    > ey are
    > nominated. (b) Agreement in! Law Agreement in Law : i. Where parties wish
    > to formally register their convergence with the Commission, such
    > convergence if approved, shall be binding under of the provisions of these
    > rules and the Elections Decree 1996, ii. Two or more registered Political
    > Parties shall be deemed to have legally merged on approval by the
    > Commission in accordance with the Elections Decree 1996 and any other law,
    > following a formal request presented to the Commission by the Political
    > Parties for that purpose. PROVIDED that there shall at no time be less
    > than three political parties registered in the country. iii. The
    > constitutions of the Pol!
    > itical
    > Parties wishing to merge shall make provisions for the authorization of
    > merger. iv. Political parties intending to merge shall give the Commission
    > 30 days notice of their desire to do so, and the notice shall be
    > accompanied by - (a) a spec! ial resolution passed by the National Executive
    > of each of the parties proposing to merge, approving the merger; (b) the
    > proposed full name and acronym, constitution,
    > manifesto, symbol or logo of the party, together with the address of the
    > National Office of the merged party; It is an established self-evident
    > fact that NADD never contested the IEC public notice of the coalition's
    > merger into a political party called NADD. NADD never submitted a party
    > constitution to the IEC but a Memorandum of Understanding which is a loose
    > association of parties that agreed to form a merger in principle. If NADD
    > wanted to create only an alliance it could have stopped short of
    > registering their association with the IEC because the latter registers
    > only legitimate political parties and NOT alliances or "party of parties".
    > However, Mr. Roberts for reasons best known to himself overlooked the
    > stipulations of the constitution that requires a party CONSTITUTION and
    > not MOU for registration purposes. There is a world of difference between
    > a constitution that codifies a merger of political parties in law into one
    > party on one hand; and a memorandum of understanding which
    >
    > expres! ses the non-binding wishes of parties into a merger in principle.
    > Thus NADD is neither a legitimate political party nor an alliance but a
    > subterfuge at best and a fraud at worst. NADD is neither legitimate nor
    > constitutional.
    >
    > Now once we are clear with this issue I will proceed to clarify a subtext
    > of my previous posting concerning the Gambian voting scheme and how NADD
    > intends to manipulate it into a binary-choice function in order to
    > undermine the natural order and stability of the political establishment.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ebou
    >
    > (Momodou Buharry Gas! sama wrote:Hi Mr. Jallow!
    > Thanks for taking the time to respond to my enquiries. However, I must
    > confess that I really failed to understand what you were trying to say.
    > The more I read your post, the more confused I got as to the relationship
    > between the answers and the questions I asked. For example, I asked: " are
    > you saying that NADD is not a legitimate political party?". A simple
    > answer such as "I am saying that NADD is a legitimate / illegitimate
    > political party" would have sufficed. I also asked: "what do base your
    > statement .... Do you have any proof to back such a statement?". A simple
    > answer such as "the proof I have is ..." or "I don't have any proof" would
    > also have sufficed. The same applies to the rest of the questions and
    > issues I raised. Since the issues need "to digested and thoroughly debated
    > before we can further proceed", it would be very helpful if you revisit
    &! gt; the questions and issues I raised and give simple, straightforward answers
    > so we can proceed. I thank you once again and look
    > forward to your reply. Have a good evening.
    > Buharry.
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Ebou Jallow
    > To: [log in to unmask]
    > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:55 AM
    > Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD
    >
    >
    > Mr. Gassama,
    >
    > I thank you for your questions because it has somehow urged me to reflect
    > in dept the current electoral problems facing the Gambia, and the
    > consequent effects of NADD's existence in the Gambian political system.
    >
    > In my earlier posting, I have tried to make a clear distinction between
    > APRC a legitimate political party, and NADD which is an institutionalized
    > faction of convenience with very dubious credentials of a political party.
    > What makes NADD an institutional fact ? In our! world as human beings there
    > are two kinds of facts that are either observer relative or observer
    > independent, e.g! ., a one Dalasi money note or atoms respectively.
    > Observer relative facts like NADD and a Dalasi note are created by human
    > society by assigning them status functions according to some constitutive
    > rules...For example, NADD can only count as a legitimate party within a
    > context of rules...X counts as Y in context C.. This means that only the
    > National Assembly can make legislation within the context of the Gambian
    > constitution to establish an institutional fact such as a political party,
    > citizenship and any piece of paper as a legal tender called money.&nb! sp;
    > The process of making X count as Y is a
    > legislative procedure that generates constitutive rules. The constitution
    > of The Gambia allows only the National Assembly to make provisions for the
    > purposes of the IEC ! and electoral laws by an act of parliament. As such
    > the IEC is the only authority in the Gambia that registers political
    > parties, and the ruling of the Supreme Court just reinforced that
    > institutional fact. The Supreme ! Court decision did not establish NADD as
    > a political party as you and Halifa constantly claim...it just upheld an
    > already established fact which even the NADD politicians contested and
    > argued against. Why did NADD contest its legitimacy as a political party
    > before the highest court of the land is still a mystery that only Ousainou
    > Darboe can explain. Mr. Roberts the former IEC chairman overlooked a
    > fundamental constitutional requirement that any association that intends
    > to register with the ! IEC as a political party must submit a valid party
    > constitution. NADD did never fulfill that requirement but

    === message truncated ===
  __________________________________________________
  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://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤