Section 22 is forward looking while Schedule 2 is specifically concern
specifically about the actions taken by or under the AFPRC Junta, which
preceded the 1997 Constitution. Thus, there is no conflict between the two.
Like I said, there is enough case law on this already.
Thanks
Daffeh
On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Lamin, there is no point in them doing so. There is an overwhelming case
> law in this area and their chances of success is utter. It would not make
> any economic or political sense for them to do what you are asking them to
> do. It will not only open them to judicial ridicule-the case will be deemed
> frivolous and rightly dismissed most likely with cost-, it will amount to
> utter waste of time and money as well.
>
> I think your views about the PPP is bit over the top particular when you
> said you welcome their ousting through a military coup. Anyway, I have a
> party to support and defend, and it's called the United Democratic Party.
>
> Thanks
> Daffeh
>
> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>
> wrote:
>
>> But this is the precise argument Daffeh. If BB asserted his property
>> rights, the PPP could have done the same thing. It matters not whether the
>> outcome was a foregone conclusion.
>>
>> In part at least, Schedule 2 conflicts with Chapter IV, more specifically
>> Section 22 of the Constitution on "Protection from deprivation of
>> property". There was clearly an argument to be made in the event the PPP
>> asserted its property rights as there was absolutely no attempt to even
>> casually connect Section 22 to Schedule 2's draconian provisions.
>>
>> Although Schedule 2 entrenched itself, it was not entrenched by the
>> critical Section 226 of the Constitution that precluded any amendment to
>> Section 22 except via a National Assembly/referendum process.
>> Notwithstanding the purported ouster of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can
>> indeed attempt to reconcile these apparently irreconcilable aspects of the
>> Constitution. This avenue could be triggered by the PPP asserting its
>> property rights over confiscated party offices in Banjul and Brikama. It is
>> not an argument to say this would have been a futile route as we know that
>> one party always loses in judicial disputes. Even if the action was struck
>> out on a motion for summary judgement pursuant to Schedule 2, the proper
>> thing to do for a party in government for upwards of three decades is to be
>> creative in its public arguments after it was booted out.
>>
>> Whilst we are on Schedule 2, what do you think about the indemnity clause
>> inserted in the Schedule?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> LJDarbo
>> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 1:36, UDP United Kingdom <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> About the provisions above, the truth of the matter is that
>> they form part of the supreme law of the land and therefore valid and
>> enforceable. In fact, they have been enforced by the courts in The
>> Gambia against certain people including BB Darboe.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Daffeh
>>
>> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Demba, the constitutional Review Committee
>>
>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 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]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>>
>
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
