"Fatoumata" <[log in to unmask]>

> Musa:
>
> I do understand your arguement. However I am basing my views on the legal
> terms. Officially none of these parties exist anymore. But then as NADD
was
> initially meant to be an alliance of parties or a party of parties, I
still
> maintain that legally (officially), none of these parties exist. That
> explains why the opposition NAMs lost their seats at the National Assembly
> and had to be re-elected. The legal choice was either to maintain the
> parties or maintain NADD. That's how the Alliance became a party instead
of
> a coalition of parties.
>

Fatoumata,

Again wrong!

The Supreme Court decision did not abolish the original parties; what it
said in essence was that those NAMs who had joined NADD had in effect lost
their seats in parliament because they had ceased to members of their
original parties (under whose tickets they were elected).

The original parties are still registered with The IEC. What they (the
original parties) have had to do was to reorganise their party structures,
selecting caretaker officials to administer their parties. Halifa made this
fact very clear in one of his interviews with 'Foroyaa' in the aftermath of
the court decision

Darboe did not need to resign from UDP because he was not a NAM and
therefore, technically, did not 'leave the party under whose ticket he was
elected'.

Regards,

Kabir.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤