Dear Lers,

It appears that all that is left now is angry invectives. Every Gambian is
entitled to his or her opinion about any personality. I have explained very
clearly why the adoption of the 1997 Constitution was the most logical step
for Gambians to take at a time when the AFPRC had absolute executive and
legislative power and where decrees had supremacy over all laws.

I have indicated that in putting the draft constitution before the Gambian
people, we had the option of accepting it or rejecting it. If it was
rejected, the APRC would have had to govern the country with decrees until a
constitution was formulated by what would have been a National Assembly, as
Hamjatta said a Constituent Assembly completely dominated by the APRC.

One could imagine what type of constitution would have been placed before
the Gambian people.

Interestingly enough, our learned friend, Hamjatta, believes that the
pressure of the international community would have been sufficient to lead
to the drafting of the ideal constitution. I wonder why that pressure has
not been put from 1997 to date to change the flawed sections of the
constitution.

Immediately after the elections, we called for a multiparty conference with
the objective of combining the strengths of the political parties to take a
stand on certain provisions of the constitution, as well as to prepare
principles of how political parties were to conduct themselves in the
country to ensure peaceful co-existence of political parties.

In our view, the work of broadening the democratic space comes through our
struggle to make our country more democratic. It is a question of moving
from the politics of transition to the politics of a democratic republic.
There is absolutely no doubt we have a better opportunity to expand that
democratic space by quoting rules that are infringed by the government and
compel it to abide by those rules. This is a better method of expanding the
democratic space than a situation where there are no rules and you are
compelling a government to work out rules that could be relied on to govern
a country.

I am glad that events are already unfolding in the country and the world as
a whole which is proving that our stand was correct.

In the last sitting of the National assembly, the APRC members of the
National Assembly were very critical of the APRC. According to Mr Hamat Bah,
a rumour was in the making that Jammeh would dissolve the National Assembly.
However, he further indicated to the National Assembly that he had
investigated with the Attorney General who told him that Jammeh does not
have such powers to dissolve the National Assembly. I am glad that I
supported a constitution which does not empower a president to dissolve the
National Assembly which prefers to be critical.

Furthermore, it was brought before the National Assembly that a crude oil
deal has taken place. Sidia Jatta was able to tell the members of the
National assembly that if any corruption occurs in the country without being
checked by the National Assembly, that very National Assembly should be
considered to be corrupt. He quoted section 109, subsection (2)  of the
constitution which gives the National Assembly the following powers:
"Committees may be appointed-

"(a) to investigate or inquire into the activities or administration of
ministries or departments of the Government, and such investigation or
inquiry may extend to making proposals for legislation."

He indicated to them that in investigating any matter, the members of the
National Assembly have the following functions as stipulated in section 109,
subsection (3):

"For the purpose of effectively performing its functions, each of the
committees shall have all of the powers, rights and privileges as are vested
in the High Court at a trial in respect of-
"(a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath,
affirmation or otherwise;
"(b) compelling the production of documents;
"(c) the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad."

Sidia Jatta emphasised that the National Assembly of the Second Republic is
extremely powerful; that it is more powerful than the executive. He quoted
section 75 of the constitution which reads:

"The National Assembly may, by resolution supported by the votes of
two-thirds of all the members, pass a vote of censure against a Secretary of
State or Vice President on the grounds of-

"(a) his or her inability, arising from any cause to perform the functions
of his or her office;
"(b) abuse of office or violation of any provision of this constitution;
"(c) his or her misconduct in office."

He indicated that the Secretaries of State are as accountable to the
National Assembly as the President and could be removed by the National
Assembly if they fail to carry out their duties.


He alluded to the fact that while the President cannot dissolve the National
Assembly, the National Assembly has power to cast a vote of no confidence
under section 63, subsection (3) of the constitution which reads:

"A person elected as President may at any time during his term of office be
removed from office if, a no confidence motion is passed in the National
Assembly supported by two thirds of the members of the National Assembly."

Sidia, therefore, asserted that if there is a corrupt executive there must
be a corrupt National Assembly if the executive fails to be removed.

He also referred to section 79, subsection (1) (c)  of the constitution
which asserts: "The President shall be responsible for-
"the negotiation and, subject to ratification by the National Assembly, the
conclusion of treaties and other international agreements;"

He asserted that the President has no authority to conclude any
international agreement without ratification by the National Assembly. He,
therefore, called on the members of the National Assembly to abide by
section 112 of the constitution which indicates that "all members of the
National Assembly shall maintain the dignity of the National Assembly
......." and that "all members shall regard themselves as servants of the
people of The Gambia, desist from any conduct by which they seek improperly
to enrich themselves or alienate themselves from the people, and shall
discharge their duties and functions in the interest of the nation as a
whole and in doing so shall be influenced by the dictates of conscience and
the national interest."

He told the members of the National Assembly that they have parliamentary
immunities and what they say in the National Assembly can be published by
any newspaper or broadcast by any media as privileged information; that on
the other hand, if outsiders call press conferences and give information
that is incorrect, the media can be held liable. He, therefore, lamented
why there are so many rumours about corruption in the country when all the
political parties have representatives in the National Assembly; that
instead of the rumours colleagues should test the sincerity of the members
of the National Assembly by feeding them with evidence of corruption and
urging each other to take action in investigating allegations.

He indicated that since the constitution gives them such overwhelming powers
if any evident is provided and anyone member fails to act, that member must
be seen to be in complicity with corruption. He called for a new National
Assembly which will be ready to utilise the powers given to it by the
constitution to safeguard the country from corruption.

I am glad to report that for the first time in the history of representative
institution in The Gambia, all sides in the National Assembly concurred with
Sidia's position. In fact, some members of the APRC stood and gave full
support to what he said.

We are, therefore, interested in practice not demagogy. Governance is a
practical affair. It is a question of making decisions. Historical events
always have their casualties. The decent thing is not to blame those whose
only role was to assume responsibilities that no one assigned them as duties
that each citizen should perform. It is not Halifa Sallah who matters; it is
the Gambian people who matter. It is their will which will determine the
destiny of this nation. The role of each Gambian is to do his or her duty to
the best of his or her ability in the context of his or her times; not to be
anybody's hero but to be true to oneself and others.

I am inspired by one thing, that is,that the Gambian people are gaining
increasing clarity. They are becoming their own saviours.
The young people in the country are organising symposia with increased zeal;
young men and young women are becoming orators. They are discussing
economics, politics, rights and all aspects of life.

I am convinced that Gambia has a future for the eloquence of these young
people has no room for the type the lumpen parlance which I have been
reading in some of the exchanges. Some of the young people who are reading
the exchanges are shocked by the words like 'shit' and so on and so forth
which are common at our beaches
 I hope all of us who have been engaged in this exercise will look inward
and ask ourselves the question: What do we hope to gain by engaging in this
exercise, and how has it served the public interest? It is hoped that those
other subscribers will also address the same questions. If any of us have
gained anything from it, then one could consider the exercise to have served
its purpose.

On the subject of the constitution, a clear line of demarcation has been
made. To Hamjatta and Saul, the 1997 constitution should have been rejected
and The Gambia should have entered the Second Republic without a
constitution and be governed by decrees until the international community
and internal unite to push those in power to come up with the ideal
constitution.

We knew very clearly that the people who were governing had no time to
understand all the provisions of the constitution. They were concentrating
on safeguarding certain interests which they thought would be covered by an
Indemnity clause. We, therefore, managed to bring a constitution into force
which is superior to that of the first republic and are now working to
consolidate its provisions and utilise it as an instrument for expanding the
democratic space.

I would like to know all those Gambians who support Saul's and Hamjatta's
position to communicate their views through this medium so that all of can
contribute to the debate and learn new things from each other. If no one has
anything to add to the debate on the 1997 constitution, then I will proceed
to
revisit the Indemnity Clause and make my final submission on Koro's case.

Since the climate of respect seems to be degenerating, I will be addressing
my mails to the L instead of any given person until all the concerns raised
are fully addressed.

Greetings.

Halifa Sallah


-----Original Message-----
From: Hamjatta Kanteh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:43
Subject: Re: To Hamjatta and Saul


>Halifa,
>    I will begin with a very trivial issue which will expose the
>shams/pick-and-choose in your so-called "principles of Democracy." You

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

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

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