Halifa,
    I believe I've indicated to you from the onset of how material limits
would hamper any attempts on my analysis to look/be empirical. No, I don't
have a copy of the 1997 constitution here with me in the UK. But I'm very
familiar with it and my arguments against it's defects are demonstrably
superb to say the least.
    Are you saying that the Indemnity Clause is not as pervasive as I keep
arguing here? I believe without any doubt at the back of my mind that the
pervasive nature of the Indemnity Clause is such that any attempts to bring
members of the erstwhile AFPRC or people/persons who acted in their name and
or executed actions on their behalf during the transition period, CANNOT be
brought before a law court to question their actions and no law court in the
land would entertain any such case that would revoke their indemnity. Sorry I
cannot quote the relevant provisions. I ain't that smart.
    Koro's death occurred during the period aforementioned and as such is
covered by the SWEEPING Indemnity Clause. Why do you think that Koro's family
has never resorted to the law to seek justice for their son? Do you think it
has not occurred to them that they are rendered hapless by the Indemnity
Clause even though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that helps
their case?
    I await your response.
Hamjatta Kanteh

hkanteh

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

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

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