I think brother Malick is a bit angry. Remember the registration of NADD
when the candidates have to go through a bye-election. The APRC will not
say anything unless the election goes against them. Hence, LJ's letter can
in fact be saving Hamat, by prompting him to be nominated as an NRP
candidate rather than Independent. Hence, Malick's slur is over the top.
Who is more ultra than the the other? But then some folks are siting in
heaven watching us.
The subject is not about banning Hamat from contesting but actually
informing the IEC that, the supreme law have an issue with it. And to see
the Jammeh hench men as clueless caused the imfamous Bye-Election. They are
watching and plotting. Rather than see LJ's letter as a warning shot, I am
not surprise to see the cadre with knives and stick running around. Thanks
LJ for the vital information. Good men are accused of worst. LJ have cited
all the relevant sections of our law book, yet rather argue base on that,
both Malick, Pa Samba, Modou Nyang all ran amock with baseless rants.
Demba, it is sad to say, but our hearts are more far apart than the banks
of the Red Sea. Good luck to us.
Suntou
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:38 AM, michael roberts <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> "*Ultra nationalist*" what? Can you be a little bit more specific.
> Gambian, Mandinko, Aku, Wollof.....
>
> ------------------------------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: RE: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
> presidency as an independent candidate
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:21:51 +0000
>
>
> Yero, the question is what does Lamin J Darbo hope to gain, going to the
> extend of writing to the IEC to call for the barring of Amats candidacy,
> this man is both vindictive and mischievous and it exposes the side of him
> many people had never seen. I have always been convince that LJD is not as
> neutral as he purports, he is an ultra nationalist hiding behind all these
> fake analysis, pretending that it is tabular rasa, yet anyone who comments
> against what he says becomes heresy, from his little mullahs. These little
> minded or small Gambians think that the world revolves around them to the
> extend that no one can say anything against their false postulations, well
> increasingly their true colours are showing, who would want to go into
> coalition with a bunch of ultra nationalist hell bent on having their way
> only. These postulations is making me really scared for the Gambia the
> level of intolerance for democracy that is being flaunted by the so called
> intellectuals with lots of influence in some circles only go to proof the
> Gambians should be mindful. We have seen what intolerance has brought in
> Rwanda in other to avoid that path we should allow democracy to prevail,
> even if we had twenty parties in The Gambia, if the Gambian people refuse
> to vote for the APRC they will not win, hence the decision of who would
> govern the affairs of the country can only be taken by the electorate. The
> UDP/PDOIS coalition has failed let us just go on and support our various
> parties, but to be so vindictive to this extreme beggars belief.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
> presidency as an independent candidate
> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:15:20 -0600
>
> *[But is it not ironical that the legal doyen of the Gpost and GL, one of
> the "indepsupposed "independent" and critical minded people in these
> forums, is instigating the IEC to do just that to "witch hunt" the United
> Front headed by Hamat Bah?] --Nyang*
>
>
>
> Bro Modou,
>
> I understand your frustration regards to the nature of LJD's submission,
> seemingly a call on the IEC to exercise powers on the constitution to the
> letter to disqualify Hamat from contesting as an independent candidate.
> While I am not versed or familiar with the constitutional stipulation
> argued by both Halifa and LJD, what I can say for certain is that IEC won't
> make an issue (witch hunt certainly my choice of word) out of this one, for
> the simple reason that the benefactor is only Jammeh. I understand that all
> of your camps are seasoned political gurus, so let the respect remain
> always while agreeing to disagree without any one having to be
> disagreeable. Thanks for the correction on my mention of NADD.
>
> Mbaleng Jamm!
>
> Yero
>
>
> *There is no god but Allah (SWT) and Muhammad (SAW) is His messenger.
> Fear and Worship only Allah alone!*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:49:43 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the
> presidency as an independent candidate
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> To use the arguement that the three way race does not pose a serous
> threat to Jammeh hence the IEC will somehow acccept Hamat's nomination as
> an independent candidate will only be used a face saving arguement when
> nominations close tomorrow afternoon in the Gambia. LJD has errred bigtime
> there will be no hiding place for him afer all the dust settles down.
> And also Yero, when the seats (Halifa, Hamat and Kemeseng" were subjected
> to court action the IEC testimony was in agreement the defence that NADD
> was registered as an alliance. So to put it correctly, the IEC never made
> an issue out of NADD. It was the APRC government. You made a good point
> though with the use of the word "witch hunt". But is it not ironical that
> the legal doyen of the Gpost and GL, one of the "indepsupposed
> "independent" and critical minded people in these forums, is instigating
> the IEC to do just that to "witch hunt" the United Front headed by Hamat
> Bah?
> The respect i had for LJD have now vanished in thin air since he started
> the personal attacks and name calling.
>
> Nyang
>
>
> *From:* Y Jallow <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2011 11:20 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [G_L] [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting
> the presidency as an independent candidate
>
> Bro LJD,
>
> The IEC would have only made a problem (witch hunt) out of this
> stipulation if it was a threat to Jammeh's victory, but the divided
> opposition is in favor of Jammeh, and the IEC is a pillar stationed by
> Jammeh. It is certain at this point based on information a friend confided
> with me that it is a three way race as later negotiations to converge the
> two coalition forces failed at the last minute today. The main reason why
> IEC made an issue out of NADD then (to be registered a political party or
> not) was because NADD was a threat to Jammeh's victory. While some of the
> stipulations may be a little bit confusing, all that Jammeh is looking for
> is a simple majority, even by one vote. It does not take political science
> to get to the conclusion of what outcome is expected. Possibly after the
> elections, if the oppositions couldn't get the bloody monster out, then
> hopefully by default the Arab tsunami (citizens uprising) will inspire
> Gambians, despite the fact that there is great selfishness and gullibility.
> We believe in individual success and interest more than we would champion
> collective success. That is sad. To me, the snacks have been broken in all
> angles already. It is leadership crisis combined with poor strategies,
> selfishness, egocentricity, and political greed. The opposition has
> betrayed the trust and confidence of the Gambian people. There is a saying
> in hal pular that goes like, "if you hardly can cry, start pulling your
> facial muscles before getting to the funeral of a love one." You are
> guaranteed that you will be able to shed a tear by the time you get there.
> The election is in two weeks. Those that are fighting can direct their
> missiles to Jammeh, and that is much desired at this hour. One, you have a
> divided opposition. Two, the opposition supporters are not only divided but
> also at each other's throat for the little and the big politics. It is
> certainly a waste of time to cry over spilt milk.
>
> Anyway, the pens are lifted and the ink dried up on pages.
>
> Thanks,
> Yero
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:49:03 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [>-<] Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency
> as an independent candidate
> To: [log in to unmask]
> CC: [log in to unmask]
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *London*
> * *
> *The United Kingdom*
> * *
> * *
> *09 November 2011*
> * *
> *The Chairman*
> *Independent Electoral Commission*
> *Election House*
> *PO Box 793*
> *Banjul*
> *The Gambia*
> * *
> * *
> *Dear Sir*
> * *
> * *
> *Hamat Bah is legally barred from contesting the presidency as an
> independent candidate
>
> *
> * *
> *“No association, other than a political party registered under or
> pursuant to an *
> * Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
> elections”*
>
> *s. 60(1) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia***
>
> With less than a day from candidate nomination for the 24 November
> presidential contest, there are strong indications the so-called “united
> front” of NRP, PDOIS, and GPDP will attempt to field Hamat N K Bah,
> erstwhile leader of the NRP, as presidential candidate outside any specific
> party colours. As the body entrusted with the legal responsibility for
> managing the public election process in The Gambia, the Independent
> Electoral Commission (IEC) must remain alive to its obligation in ensuring
> requisite fidelity to the letter of the law.
> Ala section 49 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the
> Constitution), *“Any registered political party which has participated in
> the Presidential election or an independent candidate who has participated
> in such an election may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the
> validity of the election of a President by filing a petition within ten
> days of the declaration of the result of an election”.*
> Although I am yet to come across anyone placing express reliance on
> section 49 of the Constitution for the proposition that an independent
> candidate is legally able to contest the presidency, there are those, like
> *Foroyaa’s* publisher, who take the view that section 104 of the Election
> Act supports a non-party sponsored candidate for presidential elections.
> Unquestionably, this perspective is erroneous in so far as it placed
> exclusive reliance on the Election Act, a 2001 legislation backdated to a
> January 1996 commencement date. This particular Act started life as (Decree
> No. 78 of 1996, amended by Decree No.91 of 1996, Decree No. 93 of 1996, and
> Act No. 7 of 2001). As inferior legislation, it has no capacity to
> control an express constitutional provision like section 60(1) of the
> Constitution.
> Pertinently, section 104 (1) states that “The conduct of elections to an
> elective office in accordance with the Constitution and this Act shall be
> based on party politics” In so far as this particular section conforms to
> the Constitutional edict on the point of party-sponsored candidates as the
> cornerstone of our public election system, there is no question about its
> validity. However, section 104 (2), in contravention of a specific
> Constitution stipulation on public elections, states that “*Notwithstanding
> subsection (1), a person who is qualified to be registered as a voter under
> the Constitution and this Act may contest as an independent candidate in
> any election*”. This utterly pretentious posture of section 104 (2) of
> the Election Act collides with an explicit Constitutional provision on
> public elections, and must be regarded as of no consequence whatsoever, and
> therefore void under the supremacy clause of the Constitution
> Although section 49 implies a candidate may contest the presidency as an
> independent, it is an extremely weak provision when juxtaposed against the
> express statement of section 60(1) which categorically states that *“No
> association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to
> an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public
> elections”**. *Under *Interpretation* at section 230 of the Constitution,
> *“public elections”* is defined as *“*the election for a President,
> National Assembly and a local government authority*”. *
> It is noteworthy that section 60(1) was an amendment inserted in 2001, and
> must therefore be seen as intended to be a definitive declaration of who
> can sponsor a presidential candidate in public elections. The statement
> that only a registered political party can sponsor “candidates for public
> elections” is too categoric a pronouncement to admit of any uncertainty.
> To avoid invalidation, inferior statutory law on public elections, in this
> case the presidency, must comply with the Constitutional edict on who can
> contest presidential elections, or be voided to the extent of any
> inconsistency. In the accepted doctrinal words of Federalist No. 78, “*a**constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
> fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as
> well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
> body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the
> two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course,
> to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred
> to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their
> agents*”.
>
> Should legal and political doctrine not be good enough for the IEC *
> vis-à-vis* an independent candidate contesting a presidential election, I
> revert to the supreme authority of our Constitution. At section 4, and with
> absolute clarity, the Constitution states that it is “*the supreme law of
> The Gambia and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of
> this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void*”. Clearly,
> section 104 (2) of the Election Act is wholly void and of no consequence in
> so far as it frontally collides with the express declaration of section
> 60(1) of the Constitution on who can sponsor a candidate in presidential
> elections. It is imperative that the IEC perform its mandated duty and bar
> Hamat N K Bah from contesting on 24 November as an independent.
> Notwithstanding section 49 of the Constitution, supported as it ostensibly
> is by sections 104 (2) of the Election Act, *Cap 1:01, Volume I, Laws of
> The Gambia 2009,* there is no question regarding the purpose of section
> 60(1), a 2001 amendment to the text of our supreme law. Undoubtedly,
> section 60(1) explicitly bans an independent presidential candidate, and
> inferior law in the Election Act cannot control a Constitutional provision
> on the same point. In so far as legal supremacy goes, inferior
> legislation, including electoral laws in the Election Act, and, or, IEC
> rules, at variance with the express mandate of the Constitution, are
> invalid to the extent of any inconsistency.
> Accepting that independent candidates contested and won in public
> elections, this is nevertheless not an argument that passes Constitutional
> scrutiny. The fact that law failed to be enforced by competent authority
> does not mean a particular conduct is legally permissible. Although I am
> personally inclined against the illiberal tendency of 60(1), the fact
> remains it is a *bona fide* constituent element of the supreme law of the
> land, and must be enforced.
> Hamat N K Bah must not be permitted to contest the November presidential
> elections as an independent candidate. To avoid unlawful conduct, the IEC
> must reject his nomination in line with the clear mandate of section 60(1)
> of the Constitution.
>
> Lamin J Darbo
>
> Cc:
> *Daily News Gambia*
> *Freedom Newspaper*
> *Gainako Newspaper Online*
> *Gambia Echo*
> *Gambia L*
> *Gambia Post*
> *Hello Gambia*
> *Jollof News*
> *Maafanta.com <http://maafanta.com/>*
> *Senegambia Newspaper*
>
>
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
--
www.suntoumana.blogspot.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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
