Hi,
We have for the past several months keenly followed your commentaries(Halifa
and Hamjatta).It goes without saying that at one point the debate was quite
interesting and i for one found it to be educative.
Recent postings have it clearly written on them that instead of disagreeing
for the common good of the Gambia and serving as educational stewards,you
two are engulfed in a personal warfare.How far this will go is hard to
determine.Atleast it's made abundantly clear that this "wrestling" match is
far from over.
I am one who advocates for people airing their opinion and hold debates to
clear doubts(trash out issues)however, when a public issue becomes a boxing
arena with two participants, one heavily armed and the other wearing a
diaper and kid's gloves, it leaves much to be desired.
Think about it.
Yours,
Harona.
>From: foroyaa <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: To Hamjatta
>Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:24:14 -0000
>
>Hamjatta,
>
>When this debate started, the impression was given that you were an
>objective critic who simply wanted to raise questions regarding my
>political
>conduct during the coup period. I considered your motive to be sincere.
>
>However, in your submission of 18 January 2000, it became unmistakably
>clear
>that your objective is far from being an objective critic. One can see from
>the following conclusion that you conceive yourself to be engaged in a
>wrestling contest which culminated with the trumpeting of the end in the
>following words:
>
>+ACI-I have over the past two months or so bored you with my ravings and
>rantings on Halifa, the 1997 constitution and the so-called transition. In
>the process I might and has indeed stepped over the feet of others. Oft
>times knowingly. Oft times oblivious to it. To the innocent I say,
>+ACI-please
>accept my unconditional and profound apologies.+ACI- I make no apologies to
>toe
>curling hypocrites. To them I say, +ACI-in your faces.+ACI- I hope we will
>all move
>on.
> +ACI-For I decided to call it a day. I'm throwing in my towel after
>the bout
>with my good friend Halifa. For I have made up my mind. Now there is no
>point in stretching this exercise to embarrassing levels.+ACI-
>
>Clearly, this blaring overture which announces the end of the contest is a
>thin veil to cover up your egotistical calculations whose vainness I shall
>expose with unmerciful thoroughness.
>
>It is abundantly clear that despite my attempt to offer you an ego
>insurance
>by concluding that we should agree to disagree so that we could conclude by
>leaving the other members to draw their own conclusions, based on the
>evidence placed before them, you preferred to indict me as a historical
>villain in the following words:
>
>+ACI-My contention runs thus: if any individual voice in the public realm
>bears
>a measure of responsibility for the tragic inversion of priorities as The
>Gambia slid towards into the abyss, it would be Halifa's and his
>colleagues.+ACI-
>
>Most assuredly, your intention is no longer to provide objective criticism
>but to serve as both prosecutor and judge with the sole desire to
>assassinate my integrity and that of my colleagues. In this regard I have
>no
>option but to take up your challenge and sweep your contentions into the
>dustbin of history.
>
>The most interesting irony is that you believe that you are really engage
>in
>a wrestling match. You have put on your wrestling gear +ACI-ngemba+ACI-,
>jumped in
>the ring with fans shouting only to eventually declare your triumph and
>your
>desire not to stretch the battle to embarrassing levels.
>
>But Hamjatta, are you really serious that you are engaged in a wrestling
>match or is it a figment of your imagination? Wake up Hamjatta+ACE- Wake
>up+ACEAIQ- If
>you are really serious about a wrestling match, then you should have put on
>your wrestling gear in 1996, not the year 2000. Had you engaged in a real
>wrestling contest in 1996 instead of one conjured in your sleep in
>1999/2000, then your conceptions would not have failed to stand the test of
>truth, time, science and practice.
>
>Clearly, Hamjatta, the arena for the debate on the draft constitution is
>not
>cyberspace, but the Republic of The Gambia. The relevant date was 1996 not
>the year 2000. Let us find out how you fared in your wrestling competition
>in 1996.
>
>Now Hamjatta, when the real debate was on in 1996, what did you say and
>what
>did you do?
>
>+ACI-My adopted political quietism during the transition has been the
>subject of
>your sneering. I will say this to you, Halifa I adopted political quietism
>due to filial duties. It has a lot to do with my ageing father for whom I
>depended on for financial and moral support, who on the point of tears
>begged me not to be part of the politics of the period as a young man. He
>has never in his life ever begged me for anything. No young African male
>with moral tact would every day bring his parents to the point of tears. If
>not only for my love for them, I wish also to be blessed, for my blessing
>mainly comes from respecting and honouring them.+ACI-
>
>Hamjatta, do you mean to say that you were as quiet as a door nail during
>the transition period and had said nothing about the +ACI-downsides+ACI- of
>the
>draft constitution when it really mattered?
>
>+ACI-You are repeating a question I've already answered. I've said I
>adopted the
>principle of political quietism during the transition and after due to
>filial duties. I hope you will now get to the point.+ACI-
>
>Yes, I got you loud and clear. I was simply making an emphasis. In short,
>when one looks at the real arena, one does not see a giant wrestling star
>wearing a wrestling gear+ADs- on the contrary, one sees a person wearing a
>baby's diaper with kid's gloves throwing his fist in the air. It is amazing
>that while you are shouting your voice hoarse regarding the 'downsides' of
>the 1997 constitution in the year 2000, you were quietly sitting under the
>pedestal of patriarchal injunction waiting for a blessing. It is a real
>irony, Hamjatta. A real irony. No wonder you cannot understand the forces
>that were at work and the context within which we had to function. Wake up
>from your sleep, Hamjatta. The wrestling match that you have trumpeted is
>nothing but a by-product of your imagination.
>
>Your criticism of the 1997 constitution has already been made by those you
>are criticising. We have produced 12 solid pamphlets to help all those who
>wanted to have an insight to do so. These pamphlets were published prior to
>the referendum. We never told people what to do, as is clearly evident in
>the pamphlets. We simply explained to them how we saw things and left any
>critical minded person to make his or her own contribution. It was our duty
>to expose the content of the draft constitution and we did. Many active
>young people took these booklets around and tried to explain them to the
>people. No one could accuse us of distorting the real content of the draft
>constitution. We are not aware that the Bar Association or any other
>institution had given the draft constitution such an extensive coverage for
>the Gambian people to know the content. Yet, you did not hesitate to
>establish a barrage of innuendoes, subterfuges, tirades and sophistry to
>give the impression that we were simply selling the 1997 constitution to
>the
>Gambian people. Like a hound which has lost its track you sniffed at random
>for any comment made regarding the 1997 constitution just to drum up the
>erroneous conceptions you have tried to peddle all along.
>
>In my reply to Rene, on an issue entirely different from our debate, you
>decided to interject as follows:
>
>+ACI-Your reply to Rene was very educative and interesting to say the
>least. It
>is interesting to see the lengths you went to reveal the essence of
>Republicanism as opposed to Monarchicalism. Your points were taken.
> +ACI-I do have a problem with the modesty you show towards the
>monarchical
>dispositions of the 1997 constitution whilst interestingly enough you are
>verbose and triumphalist of it's strong points. Your minimalist approach
>when it comes to exposing the downsides of the 1997 constitution is
>beginning to worry me and making me ask where your sense of objectivity and
>fair play is.
> +ACI-In your posting, you stated categorically that +ACI-further more,
>the
>concept of a president for life is a monarchical principle. Such a concept
>should also be alien to a Republican constitution. One may also add that
>having a president who has absolute power to appoint and dismiss cabinet
>members without giving any explanation is also a monarchical principle. It
>gives the executive unchecked authority in determining how departments of
>state are to be managed and transformed all members of cabinet into
>servants
>of a president who can be removed for disloyalty and not necessarily for
>inefficiency and corrupt practices. Such cabinet members, therefore, become
>servants of the controller of executive power instead of owing loyalty to
>the people.+ACI- Interesting stuff isn't? What surprises me though why you
>never
>bothered telling members that you might have been making an indirect
>critique of your beloved 1997 constitution. All that you have mentioned
>above are defects inherent in the 1997 constitution. Today Jammeh is not
>stripped of this +ACI-absolute power to appoint and dismiss cabinet members
>without giving any explanation+ACI- by the 1997 constitution. You never
>bothered
>mentioning this to members.
> +ACI- Again your beloved 1997 constitution never stripped +ACI-the
>executive
>unchecked authority in determining how departments of state are to be
>managed and transform all members of cabinet into servants of a president
>who can be removed for disloyalty and not necessarily for inefficiency and
>corrupt practices.+ACI- It goes without saying that there is no independent
>voice in Jammeh's cabinet. Anyone who cares to note knows that Jammeh's
>cabinet is ram jammed with poodles and functionaries whose first loyalty is
>to their master, Jammeh. It is worth mentioning this also to members.
> +ACI-Most importantly, since the 1997 constitution doesn't have in
>place
>effective mechanisms that in your own words doesn't abolish +ACI-the
>concept of
>a president for life.+ACI- Since the term limit on the presidency was
>deliberately expunged by Jammeh himself, it is safe to conclude that he has
>set himself up +ACI-life president+ACI- which you did acknowledge as a
>+ACI-monarchical
>principle.+ACI- You didn't bother telling this to members. Perhaps most
>seriously, you never bothered to inform The People of all of these defects
>when you were busy selling the 1997 constitution to The People. Where is
>your objectivity? Where was your sense of fair play?+ACI-
>
>At first, your views appear to be very luminous. However, after the
>dissemination of part 1 and part 2 of our booklets, it should be obvious
>to
>anyone familiar with the contents that your allegations constitute a crude
>falsification of reality. It is abundantly clear from the publication that
>we did analyse the monarchical features of the executive presidency. In
>fact, the very ideas regarding the monarchical features of the executive
>presidency is unique to our own analysis of constitutions, in general. This
>is precisely the reason why I asked whether you have read our booklets when
>they appeared, and you responded as follows:
>
>+ACI-Yes, I've read your booklets ages ago when they probably first came
>out.
>Again it struck me odd that you who passionately exposed the shortcomings
>of
>the 1970 Constitution and the Jawara era, would resort to only low risk
>rhetorical questions as your critique of such a fundamentally flawed
>constitution.+ACI-
>
>This is incredible. I have never thought that you could stoop so low in
>your
>deception in the face of glaring evidence that is now before everyone.
>
>Anybody can see, after reading books 1 and 2, which have been dispatched to
>the L, that as far as the art of the deceptive twisting of facts is
>concerned you stand without a rival.
>
>At first, you tried to give the impression that we were not critical at
>all.
>Now, you are whining that our approach was low key. The fact that most of
>the things you considered to be the 'downside' of the constitution have
>already been analysed in books 1 and 2 while you continue to maintain your
>posture indicates to me that your dishonesty has assumed the proportion of
>a
>charlatan. I say this without any desire to assassinate your integrity.
>
>To state what is incorrect unknowingly can be deemed to be an error. To
>deliberately fabricate evidence and gloss over the fact when it is nakedly
>before everybody's eyes constitutes a fraud that is too crude to ignore.
>
>Why do I accuse you of fraud? You want to give the impression that we
>supported all the contents of the draft constitutions when books 1 and 2
>have shown clearly that we objected to many of the provisions. Your
>allegations, therefore, have failed to stand the test of truth.
>
>Furthermore, I have asked you whether you wrote any critique of the 1997
>Constitution during the debate on the draft. You responded in the negative.
>This has shown that your criticisms have failed to stand the test of time.
>
>I asked you whether you have read our critique of the draft constitution,
>you answered in the positive. You argued that our criticism was low key.
>However, you acknowledged that you did nothing. We did something, but you
>di
>d nothing. Despite your allegation that we did little, we published the
>whole content of the draft constitution for anyone who could read simple
>English to understand without being spoon-fed. Needless to say, everything
>dealing with the monarchical inclination of the executive presidency that
>you have alluded to is covered in books 1 and 2. It would not in fact be
>unrealistic for any reader to conclude that you are simply spitting in a
>well from which you may have guzzled. There is absolutely no doubt that you
>have moved from being a mere critic into a charlatan by attempting to
>attribute to me a posture which is manifestly erroneous and attribute to
>yourself views that are extensively covered in our publication.
>
>Suffice it to say, your attempt to stigmatise our effort while extolling
>your political seclusion and nullity, as a virtue, has exposed your
>intellectual dishonesty. This is precisely the reason why I had to raise
>certain questions so that through your comical confessions everyone in the
>L
>will understand that a person who had taken no part in shaping events at
>their moment of happening can have little credibility in discussing about
>strategy, tactics and a way forward for the Gambian nation. You simply
>sought to utilise high sounding phrases just to cover up your lack of
>activity. This is why you sentimentally bewail the absence of an ideal
>constitution whilst in a deceptive fashion you contrive unrealistic
>proposals that would make such an objective unrealisable. Let me offer
>concrete proof.
>
>
>ON THE 1997 CONSTITUTION
>
>Science dictates that in order to understand a situation objectively, one
>must understand its essence and the contextual framework which encompasses
>it. Being faithful to this conception, we did public the content of the
>1996
>draft constitution. This is irrefutable.
>
>Furthermore, we went beyond content to examine the context precisely
>because
>a true understanding of the draft constitution was inconceivable without
>taking content and context as essential ingredients.
>
>Throughout your debate on the 'yes' or 'no' vote for the draft
>constitution,
>you have ignored context and dwelled only on content. You keep on repeating
>what everyone knows, such as the indemnity provision and the lack of a term
>limit. Even people who voted 'yes' expressed their reservation on such
>provisions. Hence, your conceptions of the flaws of the 1997 Constitution
>is
>common place. One does not need to be an intellectual to be aware of these
>flaws.
>
>To shape the life of a nation, however, requires more than platitudes. It
>is
>a question of translating knowledge into practice. Practice in politics
>demands the correct reading of the forces at work, the establishment of
>strategic objectives, the employment of tactics that would ensure the
>realisation of strategic objectives. Such strategic objectives and tactics
>provide for priorities and programmes that could make them realisable.
>These
>programmes are characterised by the setting up of institutions and
>instruments to ensure their implementation.
>
>It is evident that when the coup occurred, the 1970 constitution was
>suspended and executive and legislative power assumed by the coup makers
>independent of the will of the people. They who suspended the 1970
>constitution became the law makers. Hence, the strategic objective was how
>to return the country to a constitutional order and a multiparty electoral
>system. The instrument which time and circumstances created for ensuring a
>return was the National Consultative Committee. Even though it did not
>conduct a referendum, its decision became binding because of the mandate
>given to it by the coup makers. A two year transition programme was
>established leading to the restoration of a constitutional order and a
>multiparty system.
>
>It goes without saying that there could be no restoration of constitutional
>order without a constitution. A constitution could not be promulgated
>without the consent of those who held state power. Hence, an ideal
>constitution could either be drawn with the consent of those in power or by
>overthrowing them and have such other government which will ensure the
>establishment of an ideal constitution.
>
>In stating this, I was simply examining all the variables and the scenarios
>possible for drawing up an ideal constitution. However, you interjected
>that:
>
>+ACI-I'm not amazed that you believed that +ACI-there were only two
>options
>available to the Gambian people, either rise up and overthrow the APRC or
>to overthrow to an electoral contest.+ACI- Again your classical imagined
>Hobbesean State of fear: that we would +ACI-rise up and overthrow the
>APRC.+ACI- I
>don't know where you've got this idea that Gambians were gearing their
>machetes, guns or whatever to fight a civil war. You have used this
>scenario everywhere to instil fear in the hearts of the ignorant. Where is
>the evidence that things were degenerating to this extreme? Didn't the
>chance offer itself on so many occasions but Gambians prefer to pursuit
>the
>avenue of peace and dialogue?+ACI-
>
>I deliberately quoted this to provide a basis for showing the endless
>entanglements that the Gambian people would have found themselves if they
>were to pursue your naive propositions. One can gather from what you have
>said that you did not consider the overthrowing of the AFPRC to come up
>with
>an ideal constitution as a realistic prospect. Hence, the option that you
>left available is drawing up a constitution under an AFPRC Government.
>
>How then were we to restore constitutional order? That was the task before
>us. The National Consultative Committee proposed the establishment of a
>Constitutional Review Commission as the institution which was to draft the
>instrument that could lead to the restoration of constitutional rule. The
>Constitutional Review Commission submitted its draft to the AFPRC who had
>been promulgating decrees. The AFPRC put out its approved draft which
>Gambians could have accepted or rejected.
>
>The National Consultative Committee had also called for the establishment
>of
>an Independent Electoral Commission. Before the referendum on the
>constitution, the dates for presidential and National Assembly elections
>had
>been set as far back as May 1996. The referendum for the constitution was
>set for 7 August and later changed to 8 August 1996. The ban on political
>parties was supposed to be lifted after the registration of voters.
>However,
>on 22 July 1996, Jammeh made a pronouncement which was published by the
>Daily Observer of July 24, 1996 as follows:
>
>+ACI-Captain Jammeh insisted that the proposed September 11 election must
>go
>ahead as planned even if it were to rain on that day.+ACI-
>
>Furthermore, it was added that +ACI-In his speech broadcast life on Radio
>Gambia
>and television, Captain Jammeh, however, made it abundantly clear that the
>ban on party politics would not be lifted before the August 7 referendum on
>the draft constitution+ACIAOw- that the +ACI-ban on political activities
>would be
>lifted after the referendum and that elections would take place in
>accordance with the time frame stipulated in line with the electoral
>laws.+ACI-
>
>This pronouncement indicated two possible scenarios depending on the
>casting
>of a 'yes' or 'no' vote. If the Gambian people rejected the draft
>constitution, the country could have still proceeded to elections according
>to plan without a constitution to prescribe the powers of those elected and
>their limits, as well as the relation of the various institutions of the
>state. In that case, the people would have gone to elections just to elect
>monarchs who would rule by decrees.
>
>The other option is to suspend the elections and extend the transition
>period while a new draft is considered. In that vein, the AFPRC would have
>continued to rule by decrees.
>
>Interestingly enough, this is what you had to say:
>
>+ACI-... that had we voted +ACI-no+ACI-, we would simply return to the
>drawing
>board and come up with a draft that makes more sense than that we were
>being
>blackmailed/threatened with. Has it not struck as absurd that with or
>without a constitution we will be forced to have elections? Why did we have
>to hold elections when the wrinkles in the issue of the document that will
>guide us in the second republic has yet to be ironed out? Why did the case
>arise such that with or without a new elections will be held and the winner
>will be a democratic leader ruling with decrees? Does any of this make
>sense
>to you. Wasn't this a classic case of putting the cart before the
>horse?+ACI-
>
>This shows very clearly that you did not take into consideration the
>concrete realities that prevailed on the ground.
>
>It is also not surprising that you did not see the political imperatives
>dictated by the moment and plunge into an infinitely absurd twaddle by
>projecting the following as a logical deduction which is essentially a very
>paltry conclusion:
>
>+ACI-My problem is getting the right constitution. If it means a delay of
>say a year, so be it. It is easy to shrug this off as another charlatan
>nostrum but it had every chance of bearing fruition then. I have noticed
>streaks of determinism in your interpretation/analysis of the transition. I
>don't wish to sound pedantic, but lets save smugs of fatalism or else you
>would start looking like a high sounding Pangloss turned upside.+ACI-
>
>This is clearly the recommendation of someone who has been condemned to
>political seclusion and does not understand what was what. A delay of a
>year+ACE- Even one who is standing on one's head instead of one's feet
>can
>clearly see that the context did not permit the realisation of such a
>proposal.
>
>Let me repeat again: Gambia was scheduled to hold elections. To postpone a
>decision on a constitution would have meant two things: either to elect a
>president and members of the National Assembly without indicating what the
>role of the institutions were going to be, as well as the relation between
>the judiciary and these various institutions. Decrees would have been the
>order of the day.
>
>On the other hand, one could have recommended for a postponement of the
>elections and therefore give the AFPRC another mandate to rule by decrees
>for a year.
>
>In short, Hamjatta, taking your position that Gambians did not take the
>overthrow of the Jammeh regime as an option, rejecting the draft
>constitution would have meant waiting indefinitely for the AFPRC to deliver
>a constitution which will water down the indemnity provisions and ensure
>its
>negation and further make it easier for the them to be excluded from the
>electoral process or be removed from power with greater ease. The fact that
>you can rattle off such absurd expectations does not give the impression
>that you have an ingenious way of looking at reality.
>
>I am sure that few Gambians would have been convinced that it was best for
>them to be deprived of political participation and be subjected to an
>absolute rule by decrees until they come up with an ideal constitution.
>
>Our position, Hamjatta, was based on the science of political practice.
>This
>science holds that once strategic objectives are established, tactics must
>be established to facilitate their realisation on a quantitative basis.
>This
>calls for a minimum and maximum programme.
>
>Needless to say, those who intend to unite theory with practice must
>establish minimum and maximum programmes in order to work quantitatively
>and
>qualitatively to attain their strategic objectives.
>
>The constitutional debate was brought forth by time and circumstances.
>Once
>the AFPRC suspended the 1970 constitution, one of the strategic objectives
>was to restore constitutional order. Suffice it to say, if the country were
>not to fall behind its point of departure constitutionally, one of two
>things had to happen. It
>had to restore the 1970 Constitution or adopt a better constitution.
>
>Hence, any mature Gambian who had the strategic objective of restoring
>constitutional order in mind would have had to establish a minimum and
>maximum programme. A maximum programme should have entailed the
>establishment of an ideal constitution which is, of course, a subject of
>debate. A minimum programme would have been the restoration of the 1970
>Constitution or anything that could be considered to be more advanced.
>
>When we reviewed the content of the 1996 draft constitution, we discovered
>that it had many flaws which we had tried to expose in our booklets. In
>short, it is not our ideal constitution. However, we gathered that even
>though it had flaws, they were substantially the same flaws that were
>inherent in the 1970 Constitution. On the other hand, it had provisions
>that
>were more ideal than those in the 1970 Constitution. In that respect, the
>adoption of the draft constitution became a minimum programme for the
>restoration of a constitutional order. In our view, if it contained
>provisions that made it to be worse than the 1970 Constitution, it would
>have been proper to call for its rejection. This is how matters stood on
>the
>issue of context. It was on this basis that we supported a 'yes' vote.
>
>To conclude, it is important to mention that we did not support a 'yes'
>vote
>not just to attain the minimum programme of restoring a constitutional
>order. We also saw the approval of the draft constitution as an instrument
>for giving legitimacy to the drive to restore a multiparty electoral
>system.
>This is precisely the reason why an open letter was written to the head of
>state immediately after a 'yes' vote was cast for the restoration of
>political activities.
>
>In our view, it is not for President Jammeh or the APRC to lead the nation
>to work out an ideal constitution. It is for the Gambian people to elect
>those who have no interest in living as monarchs so that they will be able
>to draft the type of constitution that would truly be consonant with the
>letter and spirit of republicanism, in particular, and people's power, in
>general. That is a maximum programme which is still on the historical
>agenda. I hope everything is now abundantly clear.
>
>Hamjatta, I hope it is evident that all your empty chatter is a
>manifestation of someone who is simply trying to cover up the real facts by
>utilising high sounding words in cyberspace. Everything you are now saying
>is simply reduced to a mere figure of speech minus any practice.
>
>Since you did not engage in any form of practice during the transition
>period, you could not fully comprehend what was required at the time.
>Consequently, all the suggestions you are now making cannot but be stricken
>with incurable barrenness. The sooner you acknowledge this, the better for
>your own historical record. Deception is in deed no longer possible.
>
>I will sum up the Koro Ceesay debate after getting your response on this
>issue.
>
>Greetings.
>
>Halifa.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
