Hamjatta, Saul, Sidibeh,
The whole exercise is a school. What Sidibeh has said is profound. We teach
by practice and grow by engaging in self examination.
Saul is right when he pointed out certain remarks that I had made. He should
have also pointed out that I apologised to Hamjatta at a given stage and I
believe my language did change after that stage.
I agree entirely with Sidibeh that language can enhance comprehension or
restrict it. Truth does not necessarily have to be a dagger that bleeds the
heart. Such truth does not liberate the mind. It enslaves it. It stifles
reason and engenders anger. The type of truth we need is one which liberates
the mind by nourishing it with clarity.
I had hoped that through the gradual process of our exchanges, we will teach
each other not only by referring to facts but by referring to conduct. I had
assumed long ago that Saul and Hamjatta would point out some of the remarks
that did not go down well. I would have apologised to prove to them that all
of us should be ready to show decency in our communication.
It did not start that way. I was the one who was initially indicted with
words such as having the knack in believing the most ludicrous of things and
so on. It would have been a sign of arrogance if I protested against the
language without dealing with the essence. I, therefore, thought that by
countering the language and then dwell on the essence, I would have
opportunity to dwell on conduct without being dismissed as having nothing to
say.
I totally accept Sidibeh's conclusion that self imposed discipline should
engender the type of conduct that would breed life into our words and give
them the vitality that they deserve.
In short, we speak to be heard. We hear in order to energise the mind. I am
impressed by Hamjatta's capacity for self reflection. I also wish to tender
my apology to everyone for any words that I used that could question the
integrity of anyone, and I hope we will now continue with the debate by
honouring the dictates of civility. We are heading somewhere through
practice.
I believe my position on the 1997 constitution is clear. We could not
restore constitutional rule without a constitution. A constitution could not
be put before the Gambian people without the power that existed. If the
power was derived from the consent of the people and had no other mandate
but to address the aspirations of the people, one would have expected a
constitution without any strings attached. Where power was derived from the
barrel of the gun, those who presided over the preparation of such a
constitution had vested interest.
In my view, if an independent body prepared a constitution and the power
that be tampered with it, our duty was to examine what they tampered with.
If what they tampered with had made the instrument to be worse than what
Gambians had lived under from 1970 to 1994, then that instrument should have
been rejected, for that instrument would constitute a retrogressive step.
On the other hand, if the instrument which has been tampered with has more
profound provisions than the constitution which preceded it and essentially
the same flaws as that constitution, then it would be a progressive step to
adopt such an instrument and then create the necessary environment for the
people to enjoy their freedom of assembly and association and bring to power
a government whose authority is derived from their consent and one that
would be able to make the necessary constitutional amendments to eradicate
the flawed provisions. I am of the opinion that this is now the challenge
before the Gambian people.
Hamjatta and Saul prefer to rely on a premises which is indefensible.
According to them, we should have rejected a constitution which is superior
to the 1970 constitution, postpone elections and then go back to the drawing
board to prepare a constitution which was ideal.
What would have been the political order if such an option was adopted?
Would the AFPRC have relinquished power during such a period? Of course not,
they would have continued to rule by decrees until we go to the drawing
board and come up with a more ideal constitution.
I kept on asking, how long would that have taken? Was it a better option to
suspend freedom of association, assembly until such an ideal constitution
comes into being? Was it more prudent to adopt a constitution that was
superior to the 1970 constitution and then create a new climate for
political expression and political association that would expand the
democratic space and make it possible for political forces to take over
leadership which would be able to bring about an ideal constitution? What
are members of the L calling for now? Is it not for more pressure to be put
so that the next elections will be free and fair?
Let me ask Hamjatta and Saul who mentioned that the National Consultative
Committee arose because of internal and external pressures, and that
similarly the ideal constitution could have emerged from such a pressure.
When I come to deal with the history, I will state very clearly how the NCC
came into being.
The important point to note, however, is that time did not lead to the
drafting of more advanced constitutional provisions. On the contrary, the
longer the debate on the draft constitution, the more the AFPRC could
understand the provisions which did not serve its interest. In fact, after
the discussions over the air when the draft first emerged, a new draft was
prepared which went further to amend a number of provisions.
As I have mentioned in my last posting, under the 1970 constitution, the
president could suspend or dissolve the House of Representatives. In 1982,
the 1970 constitution was tampered with so much so that the members of the
House of Representatives could not cast a vote of no confidence against the
President since he or she had authority to dissolve the House of
representatives without dissolving the presidency, according to their own
interpretation which we had challenged over and over again without being
given a sympathetic ear.
However, under the 1997 constitution, the members of the National Assembly
can remove the President and the President ha s no authority to suspend or
dissolve the National Assembly.
In my view, what was more sensible for Gambians to do was to accept a
constitution which had so many progressive fundamental provisions such as
enabling the people in constituencies to recall their representatives before
the end of their five year term and then proceed afterwards to deal with the
flaws under the new political dispensation or struggle to change that
political dispensation so that a government can come into being that would
eradicate the flaws.
Finally, Hamjatta and Saul have failed to address my question and preferred
to recall the NCC scenario. I repeat, the constitution has been in force
since 1997 with the flaws that should have led to its rejection, as far as
Hamjatta and Saul are concerned. Why haven't the international community
brought pressure to bear to change those provisions when it is most
conducive to be able to do so? If AFPRC, therefore, continued to put draft
constitutions to a referendum on a continuous basis with all the cost
involved, with political activities suspended, would the international
community continue to provide the funds we needed for such a democratic
exercise?
I pause for their reply.
Halifa Sallah
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
