Hamjatta,

Thank you for your response.I am never one to balk at apologizing if l am
wrong, and l promise you l will do so if l see that l am. I need you to
understand that my defense of Halifa was not based on any form of hero
worship or blind support as you alledged, but rather on my desire to see
justice and fairness prevail in everything, and that l will defend anyone,
Gambian or not, if l feel that they are being held responsible for something
l do not feel they should bear total  responsibility for.

 I can see that l failed to understand that it is the effect that Halifa's
influence as a writer who can influence public opinion, and who took the
positions he did regarding these two issues is what you had an issue with.l
never did defend the allegation that Foroyaa said that Koro's death was an
accident, how can I? And here, l am not saying you accused me of this, just
making a clarification.

However Hamjatta, l did raise several questions in order to get a better
understanding of your arguments, but they were never addressed until now in
this posting. Even though you say it was the fact that someone who can
influence public opinion taking the stance that Halifa did was what you
objected to, you constantly kept referring to the Constitution as "his
Constitution" l needed to know why you make this referral. It gave me the
impression that he single-handedly authored the Constitution, and that all
the gross disregard for human rights by this goverment  was attributable to
him. You did finally say in your 1/18/00 posting that

"of course it would bewholly unfair to contend that it was Halifa and CO's
who should take blamefor Jammeh's treachery. This is unfair. Of course unlike
Jammeh, Halifa has no standing army, has no dipping pot to splash cash for
his chosen cause or a
 militia to carry machetes to carry out his orders."  but not prior to this.

By the  same token,and because you never clarified these points, you gave the
impression that Halifa's objection could have stopped Jammeh from Running for
office, given us a better Constitution, and prevented the course that things
have taken in our country.

For example even  in your last posting you wrote:

QUOTE
"Throughout all this debate, I have maintained that with a Term Limit, we
could peacefully change gov'ts without resorting to violence. Today Ghanaian
don't need to wage civil wars against Rawlings for at the end of his two
terms, there is a constitutional provision that disqualifies him for a third
term. Zambia has it, Nigeria, South Africa et al. In today's African
democracy, it is safe to contend that without the term limits there would be
some sort of upheaval where the ruling clique holds the angle and oppresses
it's People. Term Limits are now a prerequisite for any democracy. People can
put up with Jammeh's treachery so long as they know he is not there
indefinitely but only for a two term presidency after which he will vacate
office. They will patiently wait in peace until the day he has to go without
resorting to violence. With an indefinite term in office, the People agitated
and in the extreme might resort to unsavoury methods to alleviate their
sufferings. Today [assuming there was really a coup], some junior officers
has thought it would go down well if they get rid of Jammeh because of the
prevalent corruption, abuse of office and betrayal of the People. The vicious
cycle continues. On the other hand, South Africa, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania,
Ghana, et al., has their term limits. They won't be agitated to the point of
taking up arms against their corrupt leaders for they know there is a
specific time frame within which they [leaders] would step down.
Interestingly enough Rawlings is apologising to the Ghanaian people for the
wrong he has done to them whilst he was in power, for finally, thanks largely
to the term limit, Ghanaians don't have to put up with him. They don't need
guns to humble Rawlings this way; only their term limit would suffice.
    Contrast this with our situation. The People demanded a term limit to the
presidency in the draft constitution but was expunged from our midst by the
AFPRC. Halifa thought nothing wrong with this on the grounds that Jawara had
his indefinite term limit so what's the big deal? Good gracious. Another
naive reason he gave then was that when Jammeh's two term are over, Gambians
should just vote for another candidate even if Jammeh stands. How naive and
simplistic. Elections are not that simple. What has happened in 1996 is a
pointer to my argument that even against the wishes of the People Jammeh
could still install himself as president. What will the People do about it?
Pick up arms? Another military take over? The Gambian another hell on earth?
    Any historical disquisition of July 22nd. And it's aftermath wouldn't
look kindly on Halifa and CO. They have contributed unwittingly in no small
means to this abysmal state of affairs"
 END QUOTE

If  I understand you now, and correct me if l am wrong,  raising objection to
the issues regarding the 1997  Constitution,  Jammeh running for office and
the Koro affair  should have been made by Halifa for the record is your only
issue with him. This is fine, and if this was clear to me all along, you
never would have seen me take the position that l did. However, even here,
how can you justify that it is only the lending of credence you criticize,
when you are clearly laying quite a burden of responsibility that certainly
cannot be justified only because someone lent support to an idea.

You also wrote:

"Over the past three months so many allegations of massive
corruption has been propounded many of which has been shown to hold water.
What is Halifa's precious constitution doing about it? Why are we not having
our impeachment hearings? If the executive is as weakened as Halifa would
like us to believe why didn't the new non-partisan vocal National Assembly
members speak for the People and start the proceedings against Jammeh? The
questions are many. I could go on and on. The fact of the matter is this:
Halifa has virtually nothing to show for this vacuous aggrandised theme of
'Democratic Space' that he keeps telling us he had helped to create. But by
espousing political expediency, misplaced enthusiasm and blind pragmatism
that has led to a retrogressive of inversion of priorities during the
transition that is clearly leading to a tragic climax, Halifa and CO has
little or nothing to show for it."

 Now, Hamjatta, it is one thing to accuse an individual who can sway public
opinion
of lending credence to something that was not in the interest of the public,
but it is quite another to give the impression that taking the position they
did had the effect of rendering the non-partisan National assembly members
incapable of  speaking up on behalf of the people, and is responsible for
plunging the country into shambles.

It was statements like these and  others similar to it throughout your
postings that led me to ask the question: did Halifa write the Constitution
without any imput from anyone else, and was his support of this document the
only thing that made it into law, and without his support, would this
document have been nullified and the drafters sent back to the drawing board
to start all over again to put a more favourable Constitution on the table.?
Would that new Constitution then have eluded the chopping block of Jammeh?
These questions of mine were not addressed, and if the answers to them were
affirmative, then l would not only have concede that l was wrong in my view,
but then l could have seen the justification of your statements laying such
heavy responsibility for  the chaotic state of our country on  Halifa.

Is it really our Constitution that permits these things to happen, or is it
just that any  Constiution would have been  plainly ingored   by a  leader
whose desire to stay in power is enough to nullify any obstacle in his way,
even the law of the land?  My contention is that no matter what constitution
we had on the table, it would have been rendered to the same state as the one
we have now. l will support your right to state your dissappointment in
Halifa for what you feel was a bad judgement, but this judgement if it was
bad, is not the sole reason that we have the mess that we now have in our
country, and your statements implied this in my opinion.

If the Constitution has provisions to allow this to happen, were they put
there by Halifa, or are you saying that he knew  about and supported changes
to a Constitution that he knew would permit these things to happen, and that
these changes were made before the document was voted on, and unbeknownst to
the people, but known to Halifa?

Is it also possible that Halifa did not envision  events to unfold as they
have ? Certainly his argument that having a transition was better than
continuing under military rule where the situation could have been even worse
since any and everything in the name of "emergency powers" could have been
perpetrated on the people is a very valid one in my opinion. l do have a hard
time envisioning Halifa  as someone  that would knowingly put into motion
events that would knowingly subject our country to what it is undergoing
right now, and l also fail to see what purpose all of that would serve for
him? Do you not feel the same?. Is he really  the worst that our country has
to fear ? Perhaps a flaw in judgement on his part, and lack of insight as to
how things will  eventually unfold is a fair accusation, and making that
clear, but nothing more. ( and yes, you did finally  clarify this) was
enough. Afterall how many of us actually had hopes that a new era was
unfolding for our country when the coup makers announced their objectives,
myself included, and only to see a nightmare unfold in the long run?

You also wrote:

"Over the past three months so many allegations of massive
corruption has been propounded many of which has been shown to hold water.
What is Halifa's precious constitution doing about it? Why are we not having
our impeachment hearings? If the executive is as weakened as Halifa would
like us to believe why didn't the new non-partisan vocal National Assembly
members speak for the People and start the proceedings against Jammeh? "

Now, unless Halifa single handedly wrote the Constitution, and made
allowances to permit  the occurrencies of all the atrocoties unfolding in our
country,including the rendering of all our public officials incapable to
speak up on behalf of the people, and to take the president to task for
disregarding the rule of law,  then how can you possibly justify that  his
lending credence alone can make him responsible for all these things you
bring to bear on the soldiers of one individual, and when you now maintain
that it is only his influence as a public figure who lent credence to a
flawed decision that you criticise? This is much more than just criticism,
but rather an attribution of direct responsibility, or at least the
impression is given. As l said, it is only in your last posting that you
stated

"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.
This is highly contentious. The
realism rooted in it however, goes that, events that Halifa gave and lend
credence to during the transition has a direct and indirect bearing on recent
events. The long and short of it is that Halifa should bear/should part
responsibility for the retrogressive nature of our State of affairs."

This is fine, but the clarification should have been made much earlier.

Also, the allegation further made by Mr Manneh also leaves me with the
impression that after the Constitution was drafted, and explained to the
general public in readiness for voting on it, that the changes made to it by
Jammeh were known to and endorsed by Halifa, and that such changes were not
known by or explained to the public, so that they actually voted in an
altered Constitution unbeknownst to them.

Now, if this is what happened, then l stand corrected in my criticism of your
attribtion of all these responsibilities to Halifa.  l do hope you and Mr
Manneh will shed light on this point, because then l can see how your
attributions of responsibility to Halifa can perhaps be justified.

Perhaps  your dissappointment in someone you say you had revered in the past
is what made your tone so heavily accusatory, and l am gald that in the end,
you did point out clearly  what your contention was all along, although it
was not always clear. Infact, the whole thing gives one the impression that
Halifa is definitely the culprit for all our woes, and my position was that l
 do not believe. this at all.

Halifa may have done something that in your eyes was not expected of him, and
l guess his explanations were not sufficient for you, and this is your
perogative, but this dies not have to hold true for everyone who followed the
debate, and this is also one of the points l wanted to get across to you.This
is not akin to any kind of blind support, but just a position that l took.

There is a whole country and a host of people both in and outside the
government   who can and should stand up to support the course of justice if
they truely serve the people, and to blame this inaction on one individual's
vocal  support of  a flawed Constitution is just too simplistic, and assigns
to him an overwhelming influence that l do not believe he posseses.

Jabou Joh

In a message dated 1/21/00 3:34:28 AM Central Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

Jabou,
      I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I will "launch at you
 with machetes held high for addressing" Halifa's role during the transition.
 Far from your perception, I welcome your contribution. I only attacked you
 because instead of showing why you think we are wrong on Halifa, you went
 gung-ho calling us "cronies of the new political class." Now this was
 misconstrued and very unfair because you don't know me. If you are the good
 Muslim sister that you project yourself online to be, then you would have
 realised your gaffe and you would humble yourself by apologising to us.
 Contrary to your notion, I don't know you so I have nothing personal against
 you. It would be very foolish of me to hate you when I don't even know you.
     It would really help us all if you contextualise your arguments. That way
 we would be in a good position to ascertain if you had brought the wrong
 charge sheet to the wrong address. Having said that, I shall address your
 points in the interest of an intelligent debate as you put it.
     Your first concern was why I shelved "all the responsibilities" of the
 current state of affairs of the Gambia. You wrote: "the responsibility being
 heaped on Halifa gives the impression that this guy is mightier than anyone
 in our country, as if his acceptance or rejection of the Constitution could
 have stopped what has been unfolding in our country." Now it certainly would
 have helped if you had quoted where I said that Halifa should bear "all
 responsibilities" for what is happening in the Gambia. If you go back to my
 posting of 18/01/00, you would observe that I wrote "of course it would be
 wholly unfair to contend that it was Halifa and CO's who should take blame
 for Jammeh's treachery. This is unfair. Of course unlike Jammeh, Halifa has
 no standing army, has no dipping pot to splash cash for his chosen cause or a
 militia to carry machetes to carry out his orders." Clearly you had
 misconstrued my position and was jumping at shadows when you alleged that I
 had shelved all responsibilities on Halifa's shoulders and by such act, had
 attributed superman qualities to him.
      My judgement that "IF ANY INDIVIDUAL VOICE IN THE PUBLIC REALM BEARS A
 MEASURE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRAGIC INVERSION OF PRIORITIES AS THE
 GAMBIA SLID TOWARDS THE ABYSS, IT WOULD BE HIS" [note the emphasis], does not
 confuse rulers with powers of political decision over the action of States,
 and writers with influence on public opinion. Heads of government do not act
 as individuals, and are not mere voices. They command massive material
 resources. Halifa is not clearly a head of a state. As it happened, no
INDIVID
 UAL VOICE IN THE PUBLIC REALM during the transition, called outspokenly and
 repeatedly as Halifa for adherence to a bogus process so-called a transition
 to democratic rule, the eligibility of Jammeh's candidature even though
 Jammeh would be both player and referee at the same time or vouchschafe a
 flaw ridden constitution that was tailor-made for him [Jammeh] to tighten his
 grip on power. This is my contention. And since all these aforementioned
 issues metaphorsed into the present quagmire of our country, it is safe to
 repeat without any fear of exaggeration or libellous intent my assertion
 that: "if any individual voice in the public realm bears a measure of
 responsibility for the tragic inversion of priorities as the Gambia slid
 towards the abyss, it would be his." Do you disagree? It is your prerogative
 to disagree.
     Also, you did ask a lot of rhetorical imperative questions. Since they
 are too many to answer here, I shall devote my attention to the most
 demanding ones. You asked: "could his [Halifa's presumably] condemnation of
 Yaya Jammeh's desire to run for office have stopped Yaya from running?"
 Probably not. Why did I upbraid Halifa for supporting or seeing nothing wrong
 with Jammeh's candidature? Simple. How can an election be free and fair when
 one of the players is at the same time a referee; hell bent on installing
 himself as president at all cost? No wonder Halifa never condemned the 1996
 election as unfair and unfree except when I had to force it from his lips
 online in this forum. So are you saying like Halifa that there is absolutely
 nothing wrong with Jammeh being referee and player at the same time? Let me
 know your thoughts on that.  I thought I had made it abundantly clear that
 Jammeh as a citizen of the Gambia, notwithstanding his military past, can
 stand for the presidency so long as he is eligible under the rules of the
 Gambia. There is world of a difference between him being both player and
 referee and an independent individual seeking the office of President. There
 can be no free and fair elections under such a set up. This is the point.
 Matter of fact of, the National Consultative Committee, recommended a care
 taker care administration that will see to the end of the transition because
 it had the foresight to see that Jammeh [the ruler/incumbent] running for
 office would have all the stench of player being referee at the same time.
 Predictably, Jammeh expunged this recommendation from our midst because it
 was clearly not in his interest. This in effect makes ineligibility a case.
 Unbelievably, our learned friend Halifa, begs to differ.
     The final question I will tackle from you will be what you refer to as
 your million dollar question for me. You asked: "Do we really have the kind
 of atmosphere in the Gambia right now where a move to impeach the President
 will be undertaken diligence on behalf of the people by those elected to
 represent us?" Probably not. I did not make much of a noise about the
 so-called new vocal non-partisan National Members or the equally vacuous
 aggrandised theme "democratic space." Halifa did. So I reasoned that if the
 "democratic space" is such as Halifa thinks it is then why are the new vocal
 non-partisan National Assembly members not proceeding with impeachment
 hearings when clearly impeachable offences appear to have been made. It
 should be you and Halifa who should be explaining why your assertions
 contradict the current political nous. Do you agree with Halifa that indeed
 our "democratic space" has been widened to new levels unheard of in the
 History of our country?
     Further you contemplated that: "no doubt some will speak up and come
 forward, but where will their efforts lead in the face of a government that
 has demonstrated that they do not necessarily have to abide by the law in
 their efforts to get what they want?" Jabou, Jabou, my good sister; need I
 remind you that better your voice be heard at the right moment on the right
 issue? Even if Halifa's voice would be disregarded, it is better he speak up
 for tomorrow's sake than forever keep his silence on the inexcusable premise
 of his voice not being heeded by the current regime. For there will always be
 tomorrow. And tomorrow will ask which voices spoke for the People at the
 right time. This is the point. Forget being ignored by Jammeh, say what is
 the truth and your conscience shall set you free. You prowl the corridors of
 Gambia-L everyday upbraiding Jammeh. Does even he listen to you? Will that
 make you stop saying the truth? I hope you get it.
     On the desk I'm writing this, is a straw poll I conducted after I started
 this debate with Halifa. Of the 21 Gambians I polled in the Southeast and
 Greater London Area of England, some 85% said they either voted for PDOIS or
 would have done so if they had voted in 1992. Today only a tiny fraction
 would still vote for them. Of that 85% only 20% still think they can trust
 PDOIS. When I asked why the sudden change of heart. They all repeat the Koro
 case and the 1997 constitution. They all keep on saying that the PDOIS of pre
 1994/5 is not the same PDOIS of today. If you think my compatriots and I are
 part of a lunatic fringe then both you and Halifa are mistaken. PDOIS is in a
 mess and it would take a major miracle to win back the support it has lost
 from it's traditional supporters which are primarily the youths [18-35 ranges
 of age]; what is dubbed the post independence generation.  I certainly don't
 have much taste for psephology I cite it here for you to get the message that
 many young people out there share the views I express herein.
     Frankly I was hoping that the next time I write about Halifa would be
 when I debunk his misconceptions on the Indemnity Clause. I hope I have
 answered your concerns. This debate has gone for too long and to the point of
 ad nauseaum. We are merely stretching and repeating what had been said
 before. Really we all should be invigorating our energies and resources on
 what could possibly lead to redemption of our hijacked country.
 Good Morning
 Hamjatta Kanteh >>

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

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

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