Hi Mr. Jallow!
                    Thanks for your time. I agree that we sign off on this
thread. Have a good evening.


                Buharry.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ebou Jallow" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-III


> Mr. Gassama,
>
> I think what I have stated earlier last night is crystal clear enough and
> I do not think engaging in polemics is going to help.  I was just
> describing an inverse insight into a socio-linguistic phenomenon which can
> be experienced but cannot be explained because there is an absence of
> expected intelligibility in the statistical data itself.
> Now you may disagree with what I have said but that in itself does not in
> any way explain the phenomenon I try to describe.  If you have any theory
> concerning the UDP electoral votes in the past two elections please share
> it with me by all means.  Until then Mr. Gassama, I would prefer to rest
> my case on this issue and the immanent legitimization crisis of NADD.
>
> All the best,
>
> Ebou
>
> Momodou Buharry Gassama <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Mr. Jallow!
> Thanks again for your time. You wrote:
>
> "Once again I am not "charging" nor accusing anybody of anything."
>
> Your statement, "the UDP, the dominant group amongst NADD, plays a shadow
> politics of Mandinka tribalism as r! eflected
> in its constant claim of about 40% electoral votes- congruent to the
> Mandinka population of the Gambia" says two things:
>
> 1) The UDP, the largest group within NADD, plays shadow politics of
> Mandinka tribalism.
>
> 2) That the UDP constantly claims about 40% of electoral votes, a figure
> that matches the Mandinka population of The Gambia.
>
> This in effect charges that or accuses the UDP of deliberate engagement in
> "shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism". It in effect also charges that
> the party CONSTANTLY makes claims to electoral votes relative to the
> number of Mandinkas in the country. In short, your statement accuses the
> UDP of being a tribalist party. That is why I asked you to provide proof
> that the UDP indeed is guilty of what you accuse it of. I asked you to
> prove that the UDP either by statement or inference insinuated Mandinka
> tribalism. I also asked you to prove, assuming that the UDP did indeed
> claim the number of votes relative to the number of Mandinkas in the
> country, how you made the connection that the UDP was linking that figure
> to the number of votes from Mandinkas and indeed using the tribal card.
> Your reply in essence says the following:
>
> 1) That you did not accuse the UDP of anything.
> 2) You made an attempt to describe a phenomenon that tribe plays in
> Gambian politics.
> 3) That the UDP vote fits the pattern of votes that became a trend in the
> last two presidential elections.
> 4) The dynamics of such a trend covertly manifest, match no other tribe
> but the Mandinkas.
>
> Going from the above, you are saying that it is the results of the votes
> that play the tribalist card and not the UDP. How can the UDP be
> responsible for the actions of the Gambian electotate or accidental
> statistical match of the Mandinka population? Is it logical to accuse the
> UDP of being tribalist because the number of votes it received during the
> last two presidential elections are relative to the number of Mandinkas in
> the country? Do you know how many Wollofs, Fulas, Jolas, Manjagoes etc.
> make up that result? Are you sure that all those who voted for the UDP
> were Mandinkas? Let us assume that the other tribes combined made up 10%
> of the UDP vote. That would discredit your claim that the UDP vote is
> relative to the Mandinka population.
>
> If you believe that there was a tribal aspect to the number of votes
> received by the UDP, why didn't you accuse the Gambian electorate of
> "shadow Mandinka politics" and leave the UDP out of it? Why did you accuse
> the UDP? I say why did you accuse the UDP because you used "plays" and
> "constantly claims". These words denote an active engagement in something.
> "Play" suggests that the party deliberately engages in a game of Mandinka
> tribalism. "Constantly claims" suggests that the party all the time claims
> a figure relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country. However, what
> you are now saying is that the UDP neither plays the Mandinka tribal card
> nor claims a figure relative to the number of Mandinkas in the country. In
> effect, you are acquitting the UDP of your charge of Mandinka tribalism.
> Thanks and have a good day.
> Buharry.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ebou Jallow
> To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ; [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II - Corrections
>
>
> Mr. Gassama,
>
> Please allow me to make some further clarifications. I have never disputed
> the fact that NADD is a political party. Ousainou Darboe, a member of
> NADD/( or UDP), did in his arguments before the Supreme Court. Now this
> has been my argument: The registration of NADD does not mean that it is
> legitimate since the process itself has been abused, and as a result the
> National Assembly has all rights to make provisions canceling its
> registration as a political party. What is salient in my argument is the
> distinction between NADD as an institutional fact and the process of
> constituting that fact with a status function in the formula: X counts as
> Y in context C. Once again the ruling of the Supreme Court does not weigh
> in my argument because in any future dispute against the legitimacy of
> NADD the process of registration shall have primacy over the end product
> which is NADD a! s a political party.
>
> Now with respect to the second part of your argument: Once again I am not
> "charging" nor accusing anybody of anything. I made an attempt to describe
> a socio-linguistic phenomenon that tribe plays in Gambian politics and
> obviously the UDP vote is the only statistics that fits that pattern which
> became a trend in the last two presidential elections. The dynamics of
> that trend is presumably covert but the effects manifest in statistical
> figures that matches no other tribe but that of the Mandinka population.
> There is no exact science to establish causation but that does not rule
> out an inductive explanation of the electoral results.
>
> It is past midnight, and I look forward to your usual candor and
> productive challenge with much respect.
>
>
> Ebou Jallow
>
>
> ***************************************************************************************************************
> Momodou Buharry Gassama wrote:
> Hi Mr. Jallow,
> I am glad that we have established that "NADD is
> registered as a political party ... and this is a fact established before
> the Supreme Court." Semantics aside, this is indeed what the reality is
> today. This is what you propagated immediately following the ruling and
> just
> before you had a change of heart. Assigning the establishment of NADD to
> the
> Supreme Court is a non-issue because that is beyond the court's purview.
> That is the job of the IEC. Deliberating to decide the extent and nature
> of
> that registration is the Supreme Court's job. That is why it ruled that
> NADD
> is registered as a political party under prevalent laws and rules.
>
> Whether the Supreme Court excludes the National Assembly's right to make
> laws regarding NADD is also a non-issue because that issue was never
> presented before the court. The court cannot rule! on something that is
> not
> before it. The National Assembly by virtue of the fact that it is
> dominated
> by one party can make all the laws in the world. That is however not the
> end
> of it. There are various provisions to challenge such laws and throw them
> out when they are deemed to be unconstitutional. Your constant references
> to
> how the National Assembly can disqualify NADD might in your mind be
> sufficient enough to do so. However whether they are sufficient in
> reality,
> is a completely different ball game. Now that we have dealt with the first
> question, I would request that we move on to the next.
>
> The issue relates to your statement "that the UDP, the dominant group
> amongst NADD, plays a shadow politics of Mandinka tribalism as r! eflected
> in its constant claim of about 40% electoral votes- congruent to the
> Mandinka population of the Gambia. "
>
> My questions regarding this are:
>
> 1. Can you prove such a heavy charge?
> 2. How ha! s the UDP by statement or inference insinuated Mandinka
> tribalism?
> 3. Can you please provide the statistical reference or UDP statement
> stating
> that Mandinkas make up 40% of The Gambia?
> 4. Let us even assume that the UDP did in fact claim that they would get
> 40%
> of the votes. How did you make the connection that they are tying such a
> figure to the percentage of Mandinkas in the country? What did you base
> such
> an assumption on?
>
> I look forward to your reply. Thanks and have a good evening.
>
>
> Buharry.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ebou Jallow"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II - Corrections
>
>
>> Mr. Gassama,
>>
>> Thanks once again. I am very convinced that we are subsequently heading
>> towards an understanding of the social reality surrounding NADD's
>> existence and the pos! sible consequences. Ousainou Darboe vehemently
>> argued against the existence of NADD as a "political party" but instead
>> an
>> "alliance" . This fact is on public record. However, the status function
>> of NADD became an issue during the Supreme Court proceedings since the
>> justices deem it necessary to make a decision based on the merits of the
>> case because the defendant(Attorney General/National Assembly) where also
>> seeking a relief. Once again, the Supreme Court cannot and never
>> "establish" NADD. NADD was already established as a "political party" the
>> moment IEC accepted its registration and made a public notice to that
>> effect.
>> Please let me be emphatically clear about this issue: Nothing in the
>> ruling of the Supreme Court decision excludes the The National Assembly's
>> right to make a provision cancelling NADD's registration with IEC based
>> on
>> the self-evident fact that NADD was fraudu! lently registered and
>> unconstitutional ( Please refer back to the relevant constitutional
>> clause
>> and electoral laws in my earlier posting).
>>
>> Obviously NADD is registered as a political party by Gabriel Roberts and
>> this is a fact established before the Supreme Court. NADD contested this
>> fact but justices ruled that it is indeed a registered political party.
>> Now whether that specific registration is legitimate or not is going to
>> be
>> another legal battle between Yaya Jammeh and NADD. So far all indications
>> clearly show that NADD was never registered according to the law
>> stipulated by the constitution and the electoral laws.
>>
>> My best regards,
>>
>> Ebou Jallow
>>
>> Momodou Buharry Gassama wrote:
>> Hi Mr. Jallow!
>> A couple of corrections. I wrote:
>> "The facts as they stand today is that NADD is a legitimate political
>> party, g! iven such status by the Supreme Court ruling."
>>
>> It should read:
>> "The facts as they stand today are that NADD is a legitimate political
>> party, given such status by the Supreme Court ruling."
>>
>> I wrote:
>> "Facts are a constant that require a set of rules or actions to be
>> changed
>> whereas opinions can change on a whim."
>>
>> It should read:
>> "Facts are constants that require a set of rules or actions to be changed
>> whereas opinions can change on a whim."
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Buharry.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Momodou Buharry Gassama
>> To: [log in to unmask] ; The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II
>>
>>
>> Hi Mr. Jallow!
>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you find my series of
>> questions complex,! I suggest we take them one by one. We can start by
>> dealing with the first question that you have attempted to answer, that
>> is, the legitimacy or not of NADD. You stated that "NADD is not a
>> legitimate political party but an institutionalized faction within the
>> context of the Gambian Constitution and the electoral laws....The IEC is
>> the only authority in the Gambia that grants any association the status
>> function of a political party..and not the National Assembly, the
>> Executive nor the Supreme Court." Your attempt to isolate the IEC from
>> the
>> National Assembly and the Supreme Court in terms of defining a political
>> party is fallacious. The IEC derives the basis on which to declare any
>> association a political party and its very existence, from laws created
>> by
>> the National Assembly. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter when there
>> arises an issue of interpretation of not only what the I! EC decides,
>> but laws created by the National Assembly. So you see, the three
>> institutions are a necessary part of the functions defined for the IEC.
>> It
>> is in this vein that the issue of the status of NADD's registration was
>> brought before the court that ruled that NADD was registered as a
>> political party and not a coalition of parties, thus forcing the various
>> parties to forfeit their seats in the National Assembly. The facts as
>> they
>> stand today is that NADD is a legitimate political party, given such
>> status by the Supreme Court ruling. Whether you or I feel otherwise is
>> irrelevant. Your opinion of NADD's legitimacy doesn't carry much weight
>> when stacked against the Supreme Court's ruling. In other words, your
>> statements are a matter of opinion and the Supreme Court's ruling is a
>> matter of fact. Facts are a constant that require a set of rules or
>> actions to be changed whereas opinions can change on a whim. Your opinion
>> of NADD's legitimacy as a political party days after the Supreme Court's
>> ruling are the complete opposite of what your stand is today. The fact
>> that arose out of the Supreme Court ruling is however still a constant
>> waiting for the set of rules or actions necessary to change it. That fact
>> is that NADD is a legitimate political party registered under the laws
>> created by the National Assembly and IEC rules. Your opinion days after
>> the ruling was that NADD is in fact a political party under the prevalent
>> laws (see various posts you sent stating such below). Your change of
>> opinion does not affect or impact the reality of what NADD is according
>> to
>> the laws of The Gambia. Thanks and have a good weekend.
>> Buharry.
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>> Here is what you wrote about NADD's declaration as a political party days
>> after the ruling under! various threads:
>>
>> ************* ************ ********** *******************
>>
>> Monday, July 11, 2005 3:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] NADD NOT A POLITICAL PARTY BUT AN ALLIANCE? VERY
>> DISTURBINGREVELATIONS!!!!
>>
>> King George,
>> If NADD was only an alliance why did it not challenge the IEC's public
>> notice as a political party upon registration ?
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] NADD NOT A POLITICAL PARTY BUT AN ALLIANCE?
>>
>> I don't know what "democratic statutes" Yusupha Jow means but the Law in
>> the Gambia is only a matter of what legal
>> institutions like the National Assembly have decided, and its
>> interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is a plain fact.
>>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 7:42 AM
>> Subject: NADD's POLITICAL SUICIDE.......
>>
>>
>> 1. NADD was registered a polit! ical party by the IEC.
>> 2. IEC made a public notice of NADD's registration as a political party.
>> 3. NADD never contested the notice up until the Supreme Court litigation.
>> 4. The Supreme Court ruled that NADD is a political party, and upheld the
>> NA clerk's decision.
>>
>> Now despite all the semantic spinning about NADD's existence as a
>> "political entity", "alliance" or "party of parties" only one fundamental
>> fact is constant: That NADD has a legal name status-function of a
>> political party, the only entity recognized by the Gambian Constitution
>> and registered by the IEC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] Who is lying: HALIFA SALLAH vs OUSAINOU DARBOE
>>
>> If you insist that NADD is not a political party then the existence of
>> NADD contravenes the constitution as Halifa mentioned:
>>
>>
>> On the other hand ! if NADD is a political party ( de facto and de jure
>> NADD
>> is a party) then the registration of its member
>> parties has to be canceled according to law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] Who is lying: HALIFA SALLAH vs OUSAINOU DARBOE
>>
>> Once again NADD never did anything right after registering with the IEC.
>> Instead they have been living a fraud until Supreme Court decision last
>> week. They have only two options now before it is too late:
>>
>> 1. Either withdraw their current registration as a political party and
>> maintain a merger on principle.
>>
>> 2. OR maintain their current registration as one single political party
>> based on a merger in law. And that means no more UDP, PDOIS, NRP or NDAM
>> but only NADD.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The alliance registered NADD as a coalition of UDP, PDOIS, NRP and NDAM.
> &! gt; The IEC understood their merger as a "party of parties", and
> published a
>> public notice declaring NADD a political party on 25th April, 2005.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 7:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: Press Release By NADD Executive
>>
>>
>> Following the landmark Supreme Court decision NADD's registration as a
>> political party became the only consolidated fact in law. It is neither
>> an
>> "alliance" nor a "party of parties".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> ***************************************************************************************************************************
>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Abraham
>> To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ; [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [>-<] PENDING BYE-ELECTION FRAUD-II
>>
>>
>> Mr. Gassama,
>>
>> Thank you once again. I have to admit that your series of questions are
>> complex and there was no way I can be faithful to you without the kind of
>> response I gave earlier. In essence what I tried to say in brief is that
>> NADD is not a legitimate political party but an institutionalized faction
>> within the context of the Gambian Constitution and the electoral laws.
>> This became a self-evident fact the very moment NADD registered as a
>> party
>> with the IEC. The IEC is t! he only authority in the Gambia that grants
>> any
>> association the status function of a political party..and not the
>> National
>> Assembly, the Executive nor the Supreme Court. However, the legitimacy of
>> a political party can only take place within a context of constitutive
>> rules ( In this case the Electoral laws and the Gambian Constitution).
>> Now
>> this is what the Gambian laws say about the registration of political
>> parties and mergers:
>>
>> The Constitution of the Gambia: Chap.V
>> PART 7: POLITICAL PARTIES(5) Every association seeking to be registered
>> as
>> a political party shall submit to the Independent Electoral Commission -
>> (a) a copy of the association's constitution;(b) the association's name
>> and full address and the names and addresses of all its officers;(c) the
>> full address of its secretariat, and symbol. The Electoral Laws regulates
>> mergers as follows:
>>
>> Agreemen! ts in Principle: i. Where parties agree verbally, in writing,
>> or
>> in any other form known and unbeknown to the IEC; to consolidate,
>> support,
>> andencourage each other in the contest of elections and in the pursuit of
>> mutual interests.ii. The IEC shall take due cognizance of such agreement
>> if known, but shall deem all such agreements to have been made in private
>> and limited to administrative arrangements and to mutual understand!
>
> === message truncated ===
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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
>
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.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://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤