FOROYAA – BURNING ISSUES

Issue Number 93/2003, 4-7 December, 2003

Editorial

What To Expect From The Budget

More Hardship?

During the last budget session, the impression was given that the government
was out to increase taxation so that this year’s spending will benefit the
poor and low income earners.

Motor mechanics were to pay D2500 or D5000 depending on category; carpenters
D1500, D3000, or D5000; bakers D1500, D3000 or D5000, iron benders and
welders D2500 or D5000; tailors D1800, D2500 or D4000; butchers of cattle
D3000; cattle dealers D7500, foreign exchange bureaus D30,000, hair dressers
D1500, D5000 or D10,500. Alien cards for ECOWAS citizens rose to D1000 and
for non ECOWAS citizens D1500. This was done in addition to raising the
prices of petroleum products. A wide campaign was made to give the
impression that there were hundreds of thousands of non Gambians who would
put hundreds of millions into government coffers. What is amazing is that
the sum of money collected from alien registration is estimated to be 25
million. In 2004 50million is anticipated. This is different from the
hundreds of millions anticipated. Hence, despite the expansion of the tax
collection base the budget deficit for 2003 is expected to be D540.7
million, the estimate for 2004 would increase to 895.5 million while 325
million was derived from foreign grants in 2003. Nothing is expected for
2004 unless the government fulfils certain IMF/World Bank conditionalities.

Consequently, the government hopes to resort to foreign borrowing to meet
the budgetary demands.

In 2003, 806 million was spent on debt service, in 2004, 994.7 million is to
be spent on interest payments and 578 the payment of the principal. Hence
1573 million would have to be spent on debt services.

The economy has been driven to a state of standstill. The importers and
retailers are still gripped by uncertainty. The multilateral and bilateral
principles of grants are playing a wait and see game.

This is precisely the reason why civil servants should not expect any
significant increase in their income while inflation is skyrocketing. The
sum the government intends to spend on debt services that is 1.5 billion
dalasis is almost four times the sum of 434 it intends to spend on salary
and other personnel expenditures. We are now caught in a debt trap. Only on
alternative economic policy that gives primacy to the expansion of
production can save the country. This is inconceivable without a humble,
democratic minded and knowledgeable leadership that abhors self enrichment
at national expense and is opposed to the personalization of power. It calls
for a leadership which has strong faith in building the capacity of
institutions and their managers to run things on the basis of clear
strategic directives rather than submit to the whims and caprices of one
personality.


Trials Of Waa Juwara

Lawyer Borry Touray Withdraws From Case

The counsel for Lamin Waa Juwara, Mr. Borry Touray, has declared his
"extreme displeasure" with the conduct of the trial judge in this case and
has decided to withdraw from the case. According to his petition to the
Chief Justice the attitude of the judge to him is oppressive. He claimed
that whenever he rose to make an objection he is overruled even before the
judge gets the gist of what he intended to say. He further claimed that both
his client and himself felt that they were being denied justice.

Meanwhile, the trial resumed at the High Court on Monday. Lamin Waa Juwara
is charged on two counts of sedition contrary to section 52 of the Criminal
Code. On Monday his Lawyer, Mr. Borry Touray filed a motion which touched on
the competence of the High Court to proceed further to hear the matter. He
intimated to the court that the motion touches on section 52 subsection (1)
(a) and (1) (b) of the Criminal Code as well as its constitutionality.

He pointed out that since the motion touched on the jurisdiction and
competence of the court, he wanted the court not to proceed with the hearing
of the case and instead to identify a day for the hearing of the motion.

Mr. Touray submitted that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interpret
the constitution except for sections 18 to 33 and 35 of the constitution. He
went on to say that section 4 of the constitution gives the Supreme Court
express jurisdiction to postulate and interpret each and every section of
the constitution. He further submitted that the role of the Supreme Court
should be distinguished from that of the High Court in section 37, in that
the former seeks to protect the sacred nature of the constitution, and to
guarantee that no law would be made to be inconsistent with the
constitution. He also submitted that it is trite law that a court cannot
further continue to hear a case until the issue of jurisdiction is settled.
He indicated that the type of jurisdictional issue raised here could be
found in prayer 1A. He also asked the question whether the court has the
jurisdiction to interpret the constitution to determine the issue before the
court.

He then submitted that the duty of the applicant (Waa Juwara) as far as the
issue is concerned is to raise questions of constitutional interpretation
and the duty of the court is to refer these issues of constitutional
interpretation to the Supreme Court since the High Court does not have that
jurisdiction. He posed the question: What rights of the applicant are being
restricted or what rights are generally restricted by section 52 of the
Criminal Code?

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Akimoyae Agim opposed the
application. He submitted that the affidavit supporting the motion is
meaningless and should be struck out. He submitted that it is totally wrong
to submit that section 37 (a) of the constitution does not vest the court
with the power to hear the matter. He added that every superior court has an
inherent jurisdiction. He also submitted that the application is
diversionary and seeks to frustrate the court through all manner of time
wasting. He argued that section 214 of the constitution cannot be a subject
for referral. Finally he argued that section 207 of the constitution has no
relationship with issues in this criminal proceedings. It has no relevance
to the issue in controversy in this case, noting that it is the accused not
a newspaper which is on trial in this case.

After hearing both sides the presiding judge, Justice Paul refused the
application. The trial continued yesterday (Wednesday). FOROYAA will give
further reports on the proceedings.


Soma Jobe on Trial

The trial of the former commissioner of North Bank Division (NBD), Modou
Soma Jobe, started on Tuesday 2nd December 2003, before Magistrate Mboob at
the Banjul Magistrates’ Court. Mr. Jobe is charged with stealing by a civil
servant contrary to section 257 of the Criminal Code; in particular he is
charged with stealing 201 bags of rice and 201 bags of sugar. He pleaded no
guilty to the charge.

The prosecutor, Inspector Sainey Joof, applied to the court for an
adjournment and for the accused to be refused bail. Inspector Joof submitted
that the accused is involved in a lot of cases currently under police
investigation and to grant him bail would jeopardize their investigations.

The counsel for the accused, Mr. Gomez, in support of the granting of bail,
submitted that it is a cardinal principle of the Gambia Justice System that
a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He added that his client
has a constitutional right to bail and that this is not a matter for
negotiation. He further argued that his client was arrested since the 24th
of November and had been refused bail which is in breach of section 19 of
the constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also
submitted that the reasons given by the prosecution are frivolous. He
submitted that the court should dismiss the application and grant the
accused bail.

The magistrate in her ruling granted the accused bail in the sum of D100,000
with two Gambian sureties one of whom must have landed property worth the
sum. The bail condition requires Mr. Jobe to be confined to the vicinity of
his home alone. The court was adjourned till the 16th December 2003.

The State of the Gambian Economy

No Public Sector Or Private Sector Led Growth

The declaration by the government that it is going to roll back the state
from any productive activity and concentrate on services and regulations
while the private sector leads the way in carrying the economy forward is
not supported by any comprehensive and realistic policies and programmes to
ensure any degree of success.

First and foremost, the measures that government has taken over the years
have not linked the financial institutions to the economic operators of the
country. Eventually, few enterprises emerged with their independent
financial bases. Most of them depend on the importation of products. Hence
there is very little manufacturing and agro industrial activity for exports.
This makes them to be foreign exchange consumers instead of earners. Few
established importers have tried to engage in re-export trade to supplement
the foreign exchange they gain in the currency market in the Gambia.

As foreign exchange became difficult to get, government has been struggling
to get all those who control foreign exchange to take it to the banking
system. . How the foreign exchange in the bank will enhance private sector
led growth is not stipulated in the policy of government.

Now, the private sector is being squeezed from three angles. Those who use
to re-export, earn CFA and try to scramble for other foreign currencies are
forced to become cautious. This uncertainty is likely to affect importation
patterns and earnings from import and other duties. Secondly, those who used
to scramble for foreign exchange through currency dealers are deprived of
that service and would have to line up in the banking system. This will
affect their rate of importation and deprive government of import duties.

Thirdly, government has been trying to impose artificial price controls and
has adopted supervisory measures which are outside the types required by
law. Consequently, uncertainty is likely to grip those who import.

In actual fact, a number of importers rely on many tactics to bring cheaper
goods to the Gambia and other developing countries. Some of the retail shops
abroad do examine some of their goods which are close to the expiry date and
then ship them out to retailers in the developing countries at concessionary
rates that they could bought before their days of expiry. Other
manufacturers would dump goods that have failed in quantity inspections in
developing countries at much cheaper prices. Others ship second hand or used
commodities.

Government needs to understand the world market policies of many commodities
and how prices can be made fairer.

However, the raids that are employed by government is also likely to breed
uncertainty among such importers and thus affect the volume in importation
of goods. This is likely to affect government revenue and thus reduce
earnings to meet budgetary needs.

Suffice it to say, once government is confronted with an inadequate revenue
base it will become more indebted to finance deficits, reduce services and
increase taxation. The end result is more hardship.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.
Get MSN Extra Storage!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~