PART ONE OF HALIFA'S RESPONSE TO FREDOM'S EDITORIAL

Hello Pa,

Thank you for having the courage to speak your mind. At least you are different from people who hide behind corners to say the very things you have written while pretending to be reserving their opinion so as not to harm the interest of opposition unity. Needless to say, you also have one rear virtue which others need to emulate. In short, you do apologise when you discover that your earlier impressions are misconceived.

As a public figure I am accountable to the public for all my actions in the public space. Even my actions in the private domain are not spared. I accept criticism or scrutiny in good faith.
                                    
Such criticisms can only elicit one of two responses. On one hand, it would enable me to rectify a mistake, if one has been committed, and thus make it possible for me to become a better person. On the other hand my response could help others to acknowledge their misconceptions and thus earn me their greater respect and understanding.

You have raised two fundamental issues of concern. You questioned the legality of the co-existence of NADD with other political parties like PDOIS, PPP and NDAM before its leader withdrew his support. Apparently you consider this to be unconstitutional and invited Constitutional lawyers in general and me in particular to clarify issues. I have paused to see whether any constitutional lawyer would come to your rescue but to no avail. I must now give a response because of the compelling circumstances engendered by the utter silence of your constitutional lawyers. I don’t think any of them consider it relevant to rise up to your challenge to clarify the obvious.

Secondly, you claim that I am still parading myself as flag bearer and leader of NADD. You consider this to be unethical and have thus called on me to resign from the post.

First and foremost before quoting your very words and subject them to analysis I would like to express my surprise that the Editor of a famous Online Newspaper like yours, which is considered to have agents even in the bedrooms of  government officials could have failed to be cognizant of  the simple and elementary truth that the Supreme Court of The Gambia, the highest court in the land, has asserted with all the legal authority at its command that NADD, PDOIS, PPP,NDAM,UDP and NRP are all distinct political entities with the Constitutional Right to exist. Only a constitutional Lawyer who is walking on his head will tell you anything different. The law recognises the legality of all these political entities.

Furthermore, you are confused about the relation between NADD and the other political parties like PDOIS, PPP and NDAM. The answer is simple. When the Supreme Court decided that NADD, PDOIS, PPP, NDAM, UDP and NRP were distinct political parties the five political parties simply made commitments to support NADD under which they vowed to co-exist as equals. All of them agreed to participate in elections under NADD ticket. In order to ensure their sovereign equality in decision making in NADD each partner party simply deployed equal number of executive members to join NADD for the transition period. These members could resign and the parties could also withdraw their commitment to the  partnership with NADD and go on their own. This is what happened with the UDP and NRP before the Presidential elections of 2006 and NDAM after the National Assembly elections of 2007. I sincerely cannot understand why it is difficult for you to recognise the legality of the
 co-existence of NADD and those parties making commitment to support NADD. Let me give you some examples to convince you.

When UDP and NRP withdrew their commitment to NADD they also formed an alliance where NRP simply agreed to support another party, UDP. In the same vein NCP has also accepted to support APRC. In the case of NADD the parties which gave support are equal and their members are equally entitled to seek candidature through consensus or a primary in its name. No party is an underling of the other in supporting NADD.  This is the ingenuity in creating NADD as an Umbrella party.

It is amazing that you have nothing to say about Alliances where one Party becomes an underling of another but prefers to call for the de-registration of an alliance which guarantees the equality of all parties that are signatories to its memorandum of understanding. It is equally startling that you see a conflict of interest in the  co-existence of NADD and PDOIS, PPP and NDAM to the point of calling for its de-registration but do not  seem to see a conflict of interest in the NRP accepting to support UDP or NCP accepting to support APRC. Now, may I ask you where lies the conflict of interest between NADD and the other parties which are committed to its memorandum of understanding? The NADD came into being by relying on the convergence of principles that all parties could subscribe to without negating their own party principles. However, all other alliances are based on one party putting its own agenda and principles on ice and render support to the
 principles and policies of another without any conditionality. You see a conflict of interest in the NADD alliance but not in the other Alliances.

You also called the IEC to do its homework and put an end to what you consider an illegal alliance. It is amazing that you did not do your home work to know the essence of the ruling of the Supreme Court before making your call. If you did your home work you would have realized that the present members of the IEC have no moral authority to de-register NADD because of their failure to continue the work of their predecessors who had earlier drafted rules aimed at giving more concrete expression to the Constitutional provision providing for mergers so that there would be no ambiguity or uncertainty in how to proceed to establish alliances.

Pa, if you had done your homework you would have known that the issue of the future of NADD hinges on the rules the IEC is going to establish regarding mergers and coalitions. The existence of the law would have enabled PDOIS to determine whether it could continue to operate under NADD, since it has provided a victorious candidate for both  National Assembly and Council seats in Wuli or fully assess the full implication of its withdrawal from NADD. A little home work done would have enabled you to know that I had proposed for a convening of a meeting of the Inter-party committee just after the Council Elections, which marked the end of a whole electoral cycle, comprising Presidential, National Assembly and Council elections, to strategise on the demands and urgencies of the up-coming electoral cycle. A principal agenda among the urgencies highlighted is the need to review and promulgate regulations prescribing the legal personality of any merger,
 alliance or coalition. This is the demand that all progressive Gambians should add their voices to. Hence, no progressive Gambian would invite the IEC to give legitimacy to its own failure to develop the electoral laws on the question of alliances, in accordance with the demands of political parties and constituencies. In short, the objective of the IEC is to create the legal environment for the proper establishment of all political entities including mergers and alliances and their dissolution. That task has not been fulfilled. Laws that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society are those that enhance freedom of political association of all dimensions. It stands to reason that, where a government eradicates the 50 percent ceiling for electoral victory and thus create the possibility of winning an election without earning the consent of the absolute majority of voters, through the division of the opposition, it is necessary to have laws which
 provide for alliances and mergers of opposition parties to counter such undemocratic motives of amending constitutional provisions. It is strange that you are not advocating for the enactment of electoral laws providing for alliances, mergers and coalition but seem to inciting the IEC to dismantle the only alliance in the country based on agreed principles and acknowledgement of the sovereign equality of all parties. Allow me to take leave of this point by asserting without equivocation that your charge that NADD is a deceptive and illegal political merger is based on ignorance and misconceptions. It has no iota of truth and only a constitutional lawyer with an expertise in writing fiction will back your assertions.

One puzzle that some people are still unable to unravel is why NADD still exists when the PDOIS political force appears to be the only active element in it. The reason is as plain as noon day. The memorandum of understanding of NADD called envisaged participation of its signatories in Presidential, National Assembly and Council Elections under the NADD ticket. For your information, after the Presidential elections the results were analysed by the NAAD leadership. The results revealed that the vast majority either abstained or voted for the opposition. It became evident to us that there was still chance to control the National Assembly if tactical unity was effected among the opposition  parties. Specifically, I was convinced that if we sold the tactical agenda to the people  Either  Dembo Bojang or Rambo could have won in Bakau, Halifa Sallah could have won in SerreKunda Central, Kemeseng Jammeh, in Jarra West; Lamin Waa Juwara, in Niamina Dankunku;
 Hamat Bah could have taken Saloum and  Sidia Jatta Could have won  and did infact win in Wuli West Constituency. In our investigation we also discovered that many Independent candidates could win in Jokadu, Kombo South, Niamina East, Foni Bintang. Could you imagine what type of National Assembly we would have had if you even had Dembo Bojang or Rambo, Halifa Sallah, Kemeseng Jammeh, Hamat Bah, Lamin Waa Juwara and Sidia Jatta in Parliament? Do you see the point? Are you convinced of the ineptitude of most of our critics who do not think holistically to evolve relevant strategies and tactics to shape the destiny of this country or do you want me to proceed to expose their barren conception?

On second thought would you still maintain your earlier view that NADD should have died after the Presidential elections? I Certainly do not think so  No sincere Gambian would disagree that the tactical Alliance we suggested was a legitimate one. Who then should you accuse of insincerity and lack of principles? We agreed to have a National Assembly which would not be a rubber stamp. We formulated the plan to effect a tactical Alliance so that all opposition forces would give support to the strongest candidates who could take on the APRC candidates. We backed this principle by not putting up candidates in Jarra West and Saloum. In two constituencies where the UDP now has seats the MPs acknowledged the effort of NADD activists. This is particularly true for the UDP MP for Sami Constituency.

On the other hand, NRP however, did  put up a candidate in Niamina Dankunku and UDP did put up a candidate in SerreKunda Central. In the same vein they either put up candidates against some Independent Candidates or called on their supporters not to give support to them. Let me highlight concrete examples, the people of Niamina East approached NADD to put up a Candidate. They later agreed that if he stood as an Independent candidate he was more likely to win. I personally deprived my campaign of funds and assisted Ebrima Marenah. He ended up with 2041 votes which was 542 votes short of victory. The UDP did not put up a candidate but the Chairman in his own village of Kudang made it no secret that they would not support his candidature. If there was a tactical alliance he would have won. In Jokadu, the elders came to seek advice on the ticket Ousman Jallow should contest under to avoid conflict of interest between the two alliances. I suggested that he
 should  go on an Independent Ticket and I would personally finance his campaign. The UDP decided to put up a candidate in Jokadu. Ousman came up with 2089 votes which was 630 votes short of victory. On the other hand the UDP candidate had 643 votes which if added to Ousman’s votes would have enabled him to win. If there was a tactical Alliance he would have won. In Foni Bintang the Independent Candidate won just as we predicted. In Kombo South, the Independent Candidate had 4952 votes while the UDP had 1236 votes. If you combine the two the independent candidate would have won by 16 votes. Who then should be blamed for Gambia ’s present predicament? Is it those who hatch the correct courses of actions or strategies and tactics to achieve them or those who follow their ambitions and honour strategies and tactics with utter disregard? The answer is buried in the details I have already presented. There is no need for any one to state the obvious.

It is however clear that NADD did not continue to exist after the Presidential Elections because of any lack of principles. It continued to exist to help put in place a National Assembly which could have served as a formidable oversight institution to put the actions of the government in check. Interestingly enough, NADD ended up with one seat which has been a PDOIS seat since 1997. Lamin Waa Juwara decided to leave thus leaving PDOIS and the OJ faction of the PPP in NADD. The other factions either capitulated to the APRC or the UDP. The election cycle ended with the Council elections which witnessed the participation of 4 NADD candidates and the acquisition of one Council seat in Wuli Nyakoi. Hence NADD could not die a natural death because people from a party who were never in for alloying their political principles accepted to bow down to the demands for unity and having done so on the basis of sound principles stayed the course and are now exploring
 how to achieve the same aim NADD set out to achieve while gradually breathing life into their own political organisation. NADD may have been conquered but the strategic objectives of asserting and affirming the sovereignty of the people, its principles of putting an end to self perpetuating rule and its tactical line of bringing everyone on board to achieve the desired aims are still arising and developing. Every force opposed to these very agenda is disintegrating and dying. This is the verdict of historical science and it is irrevocable.

 For your information, since 2008 the PDOIS membership is being consulted on the need to hold a congress to review the way forward including its future relation with NADD or its nullification. A month was finally set in the first quarter of 2009 but the date coincided with the witchcraft fiasco. It was then rescheduled for July but was again derailed by the fiasco surrounding the incarceration of the journalists. Consultation is currently taking place to schedule a new date. It is the PDOIS Congress which will determine PDOIS’ future relation with NADD and the status of the candidates it has deployed to establish NADD because of the absence of Laws stipulating what happens to political parties which become part of or withdraw from alliances. This is how matters stand on this score. Allow me to move to the next point.

You also claim that I should resign from the post of flag bearer or leader of NADD. Apparently, you are victim of the same disease which afflicts many Gambians. They are always looking for someone to call a party leader or boss. The monarchical mentality does not permit many people to see leadership as division of labour among equals. The world of leadership they know is that some must be more equal than others.

It is therefore important for me to point out to you that there is no provision for a party leader in the memorandum of understanding of NADD. It is clearly stated that any NADD Presidential candidate must be selected by consensus or a primary. There is no provision which says that: once a Presidential candidate always a Presidential Candidate.”  Hence your call for me to resign from an office which I do not hold is misplaced. Your allegation that it is unethical for me to hold such a post is misconceived. Your motive for making a false allegation and then proceed to question my integrity on the basis of a fiction you have invented is dubious. I must therefore emphasise with all the firmness I can command that you are too an important personality to embroil yourself in such grandiose exercise in futile fabrications. You therefore owe me an apology. I  want your readers to be clear that I am not posing as NADD’s flag bearer and Agenda 2011 confirms
 that I am already proposing for a Presidential candidate to be selected in 2011 through a primary comprising the citizenry in general who have given their prior  endorsement to  the agenda or its improved version. I have alluded to the fact that the people may even propose candidates from non partisan domains. I will come to this later as I deal with the NADD Manifesto.I know why you have posted it.
Pa, the other issue of concern to me is your insinuation of lack of sincerity and principles within the NADD leadership. You mentioned lack of sincerity, principles and greed as the cause of the split in NADD. Could you identify those you consider to be lacking in sincerity and principles in NADD which led to its collapse? Could you also identify for me who are currently the insincere leaders in NADD and explain what led you to draw such a conclusion? If those leaders in NADD and those who have left NADD are insincere, unprincipled and greedy then why are you calling on them to unite to remove Jammeh? What is the significance of your lesson that unity is strength? How could the unity of insincere, unprincipled and greedy people give rise to strength to liberate a country?

Pa, this is now the appropriate moment for me to indict those who seek to indict all those who wish to write off all the executive members of NADD..

Many people marvel at the fact that two parties with diametrically opposed objectives are the last to leave NADD but few marvel at the ingenuity which makes it possible to achieve the impossible. What is more intriguing is that the architects of the irony are calling for another marriage of convenience while at the same time calling for a dissolution of the earlier marriage of convenience. Only Shakespeare could have rivaled this tragicomical display of tirades and intriguing commentaries that are being made on NADD’s predicament.

Let me begin with the intrigues. I came to Atlanta in 2003 as minority leader in the National Assembly to promote PDOIS. I was a critic of both the past and present regimes and the youths of SerreKunda Central approved my principled stand against the politics of patronage, pomp and greed. My salary went directly into an account to carry out projects in my Constituency. I held weekly meetings in different communities in the Constituency to inform them of happenings at the National Assembly. I had the mandate to tour the United States and build up a support base among Africans in the Diaspora when all parties were invited by the Gambian Community in the US under the auspices of AGERA in 2003.  It is after addressing such a gathering that the members of the opposition were invited by Gambian Youths for a discussion about unity.

Suffice it to say, when youths first met to challenge opposition leaders to look into the possibility of forming an Alliance they knew very well that they were calling for a unity of opposites. PDOIS and PPP were at opposite camps. NDAM and UDP were at opposite camps.  NRP had already taken the party colour of the PPP after it was banned and none expected one to favour the coming into office of the other. This is not unique to Political parties in the Gambia . This is the essence of a multi party system. When we first met in Atlanta all parties were functioning on their own and should have been left to function in their natural states. Each party should have been left to build its own political base and form tactical alliances to contest elections as they deem fit. At least, this is what PDOIS stood for at the time. Sincerity and full adherence to original principle means that opposites should not be allowed to mix. By now we would have had a more
 vibrant opposition and more opposition members in the national assembly by forming tactical alliances of one sort or the other. You the youths in the Diaspora made it a principle that any body who refused to join the alliance of opposites should be seen to be insincere, unprincipled, greedy and unpatriotic. Hence you forced people to become what they were not and then accuse them of being insincere when they show their true colour. To be sincere is not about being an angel. Who is? To be sincere is to show one’s true colour and stand for what one believes in. Interestingly enough, after people have shown their true colours and are now moving back to what they were you are still calling on them to become  what they are not, and are ready to accuse them of being obstacles to unity, if they stand up for their principles. Some are even calling for the abandoning of the middle ground which embodied the NADD principles and shift further to accommodate
 individual aspirations for leadership.

Who then are unprincipled and insincere, those who call for the impossible or those who sincerely acknowledged what is impossible but tried to create an Agenda which  created a middle ground for opposites to coalesce temporarily without negating their identities.  This is what NADD was. It was about respecting what we mutually endorsed and each to pursue their interest within the rules established and maintain the unity of opposites or abandon the unifying factors and thus negate the unity of opposites and go back to square one.

To be continued







����������������������������������������������������������
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
����������������������������������������������������������