Mr. Gassama,

Well thanks again....I will get back to you sometime tonight perhaps.  Very good observations, and it is always a pleasure responding to your questions.


Ebou

Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Mr. Jallow,
                    As usual, interesting post. You wrote:

"The recent High Court decision that attempted to police the boundaries of
the constitutional powers of the IEC is both unwise and unwarranted. Nowhere
in the Gambian constitution does the constitution text structure generally
compel the other branches of government to accept any court's reading of the
constitution in the execution of their own constitutionally mandated
functions."

It is rather bold or completely foolhardy to make such a statement. The
danger inherent therein is that some people might be misled into believing
your pronouncements. It is therefore imperative that some light should be
shed on some of your assertions.

In defining the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Constitution states:

"132 (1) Save as provided in section 127, the High Court shall have original
jurisdiction -
        (a) to hear and determine all civil and criminal proceedings;
        (b) to interprete and enforce the fundamental rights and freedoms as
provided in sections 18 to 33 and section 36(5),
              and in the exercise of such jurisdiction, the Court shall have
all such power and authority as may be conferred by this Constitution or any
other law.

         (2) The High Court shall have such jurisdiction in appeals from
courts subordinate to it (other than the Cadi Court) as may be prescribed by
an Act
                            of the National Assembly.

133. The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all lower
courts and adjudicatory authorities in The Gambia, and, in the  exercise of
its supervisory  jurisdiction, shall have power to issue directions, orders
or writs, including habeas corpus, orders of certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition as it may consider appropriate for the purposes of enforcing its
supervisory powers."

Let us break this down and simplify it.
First, the High Court is the first instance for dealing with issues arising
out of the provisions in sections 132 and 133. That is why NADD didn't go to
the magistrate courts or the Supreme Court to seek redress.
Second, the High Court has the power to hear and determine all civil and
criminal cases and as such NADD's case falls within its purview.
Third, the High Court is empowered to deal with issues arising out of
sections 18 to 33 and section 36(5) that deal with the fundamental rights
including political rights. Section 25 (1) states: "every person shall have
the right to - ...
(e) freedom of association, which shall include freedom to form and join
associations and unions, including political parties and trade unions.
(f) freedom to petition the Executive for redress of grievances and to
resort to the Courts for the protection of his or her rights...."

In further dealing with political rights, Section 26 states: "every citizen
of The Gambia of full age and capacity shall have the right, without
unreasonable restrictions -
... (c) to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in
The Gambia."

If NADD felt that the rights of its members to equal treatment were
undermined by the introduction of unlisted voters, it had the right to
petition the IEC and failing to get the desired result, to seek redress from
the High Court.
Fourth, the High Court is empowered to supervise all lower courts and all
adjudicatory authorities (authorities that make decisions or judgments) and
this includes the IEC because it makes judgments relative to election rules.
It also has the power to order or direct all such authorities to do certain
thigs where it feels that such is in conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution. So you see, your statement that it is not stated anywhere in
the Constitution that the courts can compel other branches of government to
accept their interpretation of the law is fallacious. In fact, such a
statement denotes a lack of understanding of how the branches of government
work. It is only the judicial system, i.e., the courts, that can make and
have the power to make judgments based on interpretation of the
Constitution. All the issues we have dealt with here just deal with the
powers of the High Court. The powers of the Supreme Court and other courts
have not even been touched. If we deal for example with the Supreme Court,
it is empowered by section 127 to have original jurisdiction to deal with
issues regarding interpretation and enforcement of all the provisions of the
Constitution save those dealing with fundamental rights, determine whether
any law was made by any authority in excess of the powers conferred on it,
determine whether any person was validly elected as President or National
Assembly member or whether he or she vacated his or her seat therin etc.

You wrote:
"Each branch of government i.e, the NA, Executive and Judiciary must
interpret the constitution for itself in the course of performing its own
duties. "

A high school government class teaches that the legislature makes law, the
executive enforces the laws and the judiciary interpretes the law. You are
calling for complete chaos if all branches of goverment interprete the law
as they see fit. How can laymen without legal training be charged with
interpreting the Constitution? Thanks and have a good day.


                                                                        Buharry.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

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