Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue

Issue No. 77/2005, 3 – 5 October, 2005

Editorial

AFTER THE BY-ELECTION WHAT NEXT?

Gambia’s political forces are taking shape. What is now abundantly clear is that the APRC is going to come face to face with NADD in the 2006 presidential elections. The situation in the Gambia has prepared the ground for the development of the two forces. The developments in Upper Saloum have shown that the call by the Commonwealth for the creation of an environment that is free to ensure a fair multi party contest is still a distant project. Incidentally, even a FOROYAA journalist was arrested by one Manlifa Sanyang under the pretext that the arrest was ordered by the Commissioner. This was on the day of elections when neither the Commissioner nor the security forces had any authority to arrest anyone in connection with elections.

This falls within the authority of the presiding officers and the IEC. The level of intimidation and manipulation in Upper Saloum is unimaginable. Saloum was completely under siege by armed security forces. Some of them stopped people on the road to ask for ID cards. All draconian law enforcement measures were utilized to interfere with the freedom of movement of the citizenry. The result of the elections in Saloum needs scrutiny by way of an election petition. The results of the elections however need to be analysed objectively. President Jammeh said he wanted the Upper Saloum and Serrekunda Central seat. In Serrekunda Central, the APRC was not only defeated, it appears that their supporters have even decided to abandon their party. Thus the votes of the APRC decreased by a thousand votes compared to what they polled at the 2002 National Assembly elections. This happened in spite of the fact that the candidate campaigned on the basis of the record of the president.

Now, Jammeh should stop blaming the mayors/chairpersons and wolves in sheep’s clothing for their electoral failures. Since his name was utilized as the platform of the APRC the defeat should be attributable to his record.

The victory of NADD in the by-elections confirms that Gambia is now poised for a formidable presidential election for 2006. NADD’S campaign method has shown that the opposition is maturing. The people are taking interest in the politics of issues and NADD should influence all its members to abandon dirty politics for good. The insults and character assassination during the APRC meetings.

If the APRC fails to abandon this trend they will commit political suicide before the 2006 presidential election. The Gambian have shown that they are now interested in issues and not frivolous allegations.







THE BY-ELECTIONS

THE SERREKUNDA CENTRAL BY-ELECTION

By Amie Sanneh and Fatou Janneh

Thursday, 29th September witnessed yet another historic event in the lives of Gambians. The by elections are a consequence of the four opposition members, namely, Halifa Sallah of Serrekunda Central, Kemeseng Jammeh of Jarra Central, Sidia Jatta of Wuli West and Hamat Bah of Upper Saloum vacating their seats upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. All four of them contested these seats and NADD gained the upper hand in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

In Serrekunda Central, Abdoulie Sanyang of the APRC stood against Halifa Sallah of NADD. Presiding officers described the election as free and fair but they were disappointed by the low turnout of voters. They suggested that the low turnout of voters might be due to the fact that the by-election took place on a working day which deterred many from voting. An APRC polling agent pointed out that the by-election was free and fair as the electorate followed the procedures laid down by the IEC. "As polling agents from different political parties," he said, "we have no problem and we consulted the presiding officer when and where necessary. Anyway, we must rely on the results."

Another polling agent at B19 expressed his disappointment with the low voter turnout. "We do not know why people did not come out since this morning. They might come before the official closing time at 4 p.m.," he said.

The voters we spoke to described the election as free and fair. In most of the polling stations, the majority of voters were women. In polling stations such as Bundung Six Junction, Bundung Lower Basic School, Fass Medina and Marce Ngelew, young people dominated the queue. At the Serrekunda Mosque, many women and youth could not hide their support for the NADD candidate. "I need not hide my identity. I voted for NADD because I know NADD is here for everybody, especially the youth," he said. Some women expressed similar sentiments. "We are proud of Halifa," they said. As we moved from place to place we caught up with the APRC candidate, Abdoulie Sanyang at polling station B29. In a brief interview he expressed his hope in what he called the "truthful response of the electorate" after a vigorous campaign. "You see ,when I look at my people I wonder what I can do for them, because I really want development to take place in Serrekunda Central, that is why I aspire to be a National
 Assembly member" Sanyang opined. We reproduce the full text of the results below.

Polling station Codes NADD APRC

Bundung Six Junction A B18 199 168

Bundung Six Junction B B 19 195 128

Bundung Six Junction C B20 194 193

Bundung Bantaba Street A B21 173 99

Bundung Mosque A B22 143 207

Bundung Mosque B B23 164 130

Bundung Mosque C B23a 121 84

S/K East Mini StadiumA B24 107 190

S/K mini stadium B B25 59 116

Bundung Bantaba Street B B26 266 187

Bundung Bantaba Street C B27 238 124

Bundung white house B28 90 60

Medina Faas A B29 199 132

Medina Faas B B30 135 67

Arren Babun Fatty A/B B31/B32 228 121

Bundung Bore hole A B33 188 207

Bundung bore Hole B B34 249 210

Bundung Lower Basic Sch B35A 103 64

Bundung Lower Basic sch B35 204 145

Nusrat Sen Sec School A B37 223 149

Nusrat Sen Sec School B B38 262 119

Mauritani School A B39 149 64

Mauritani School B B39A 107 42

S/K Lower Basic Sch A B83 279 159

Serrekunda LBSB B84 263 114

Plaza Cinema A B85 194 88

Plaza Cinema B B86 180 74

S/K Central Mosque B88 127 48

Jan Jan Road A/B B87/87A 270 99

Marche Ngelew A B89 213 187

Marche Ngelew B B89B 175 102

Xtian Mission Church A/B B90 206 107

TOTAL 5911 3984



Out of 32 polling stations, the former minority leader, Halifa Sallah took a lead at 28 polling stations and had a majority of 1927. Abdoulie Sanyang won at Serrekunda East Mini-Stadium polling stations A and B, Bundung Borehole and Bundung Mosque A.



Free and Fair Elections

After the declaration of results, we spoke to the APRC candidate, Abdoulie Sanyang. He said that the election was free and transparent. "After the announcement of the results, I was very calm, because I know everything is with god. This is the way it should be. It is not a problem. The election is free and transparent. I know it is his (Halifa) luck. That’s the way things should be," he remarked.

Mr Sanyang said that he did not know why he lost to Halifa Sallah. He noted that he could not force people to come out and vote for him. "What I could do is to talk to the people and I did that in the campaign. I was certain of victory during the campaign because of the turnout I got during my meetings. I thought I will make it, but unfortunately things changed. I accept things in good faith, Sanyang remarked.

Mr Sanyang said he will continue to work with the people of Serrekunda Central. "I am part and parcel of Serrekunda Central. I will continue to help my people. I will try to tap funds from various institutions in order to bring development to Serrekunda Central," he remarked.



ELECTION DAY IN UPPER SALOUM

By Abdoulie G. Dibba

The people queued patiently and calmly as early as 6.30 am in Kerr Auldi, the first polling station I visited. There were 14 polling stations in Upper Saloum Constituency. Our reporter was able to visit 10 polling stations out of the 14 stations. The people came out in their large numbers in the early part of the voting. This led the Returning Officer in Janjangbureh, Mustapha Carayol, to tell FOROYAA that the voter turn out in this by-election was good. This good turn out was however short-lived. The Presiding Officers did announce the judgment of the High Court regarding people who possessed voting cards but their names are not in the register of voters.

In Panchang polling station (F 18) for example, 24 voters were discovered to be in possession of voting cards but their names did not appear in the register of voters and as a result, they were denied the opportunity to vote by the Presiding Officer.

The Chief, the Commissioner and some members of the APRC campaign committee had difficulty digesting the decision. Tension ensued as some people struggled to have authority over the Presiding Officer who was adamant in his decision.

"This is not my decision. It is the ruling of the High Court but if you are not satisfied with it, you are free to see the Returning Officer," said the Presiding Officer.

The people started to chant different slogans: "We will vote" "You will not vote" "What will stop us from voting?" some people asked. "If your name is not in the list of voters" others answered.

As tension built up, the Chief, Commissioner, Sulayman Kebbeh, and some NIA personnel arrived. People surrounded the Chief and raised concerns. Some were asking the Chief to return their voting cards to them in order to enable them to vote. Others were lodging complaints against those who were saying they would vote, to the Chief who said they would vote. This position was supported by the Commissioner. Sulayman Kebbeh, an APRC sympathiser, verbally attacked those who were saying that people whose names are not in the list of voters would not vote and advised the Presiding Officer to be careful of himself. The Presiding Officer told Sulayman that he (Presiding Officer) is working under instructions and if they are not satisfied with his decision, they should see the Returning Officer and not him.

The same situation prevailed in the two polling stations in Njau, and the two polling stations in Batti. As the Chief, the Commissioner and team moved from one polling station to the other. The Returning Officer of the area told this paper, "The NADD party took his institution (IEC) to court regarding the voting status of those whose names did not appear in the voting list, and the court ruling is that such people cannot vote and therefore will not vote."

Our reporter talked to 50 people who indicated that their voting cards were collected on the pretext that some items like rice, sugar, milling machines, etc were donated to the division and those who fail to surrender their voting cards would not benefit. Up to the day of the voting, people were seen running after those who collected their voting cards, asking them to return their cards to them to enable them to vote. Up to the end of the voting, some of them told this reporter that they couldn’t get their cards.

In Panchang polling station, the NIA arrested one Samba Baldeh and the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) also arrested a journalist under the authority of the Commissioner, according to Manlafi Sanyang, the head of the PIU. The Commissioner however disassociated himself from the arrest of the journalist who was released immediately by the PIU.

Some voters who were arrested and detained in police stations and those whose cards were not returned did not vote on Election Day. The table below shows the votes cast in each polling station and votes obtained by each candidate:



Polling Station Votes obtained

Baati Ndarr A APRC 375 NADD 54

Baati Ndarr B APRC 248 NADD 53

Jareng Madijama APRC 294 NADD 347

Nioro Tukulor A APRC 220 NADD 95

Nioro Tukulor B APRC 143 NADD 126

Fass B APRC 144 NADD 222

Fass A APRC 228 NADD 69

Kerr Auldi APRC 15 NADD 338

Njau B APRC 353 NADD 212

Njau A APRC 249 NADD 204

Panchang A APRC 217 NADD 177

Panchang B APRC 278 NADD 89

Bantanto Kerr Lai APRC 128 NADD 177

Bantanto

Ebrima Kah APRC 54 NADD 291



Sainey Mbye APRC = 2, 956

Hamat N. K. Bah NADD = 2, 454



Kemeseng Jammeh Sweeps The Polls

By Sana Saidykhan

The NADD sponsored candidate, Kemeseng Jammeh was declared duly elected after he defeated the APRC sponsored candidate, Saidykhan in last Thursday’s polls by 470 votes. Mr Jammeh polled 3444 votes while Mr Saidykhan polled 2974 votes. Speaking to reporters after the declaration of results, Mr Jammeh first thanked the electorate and then went on to indicate that he won the polls even though four buses ferrying his supporters were grounded by security forces. He expressed his disappointment with the security forces for what he described as a conspiracy of the highest order. He said that he lodged the complaint to the IEC, the security chiefs and the secretary of state for the Interior who said they had ordered their release but the order was not executed until the polls closed.

Mr Jammeh indicated that NADD would have to discuss ways and means of remedying this act, which he said is a serious indictment as far as Gambian democracy is concerned and is against the dignity and integrity of his people.

Mr Jammeh who has been elected for the second time in two years promised" "I shall continue the role of oversight. I shall always try to advocate for what is in the interest of the people. I will serve as a watch in the National Assembly to monitor the activities of the government as to how the resources of the country are managed."

The APRC candidate declined to comment.

The election was conducted in a calm and serene atmosphere but the voter turnout was low. The returning officer, Mrs. Sarah Johnson, the divisional commissioner, Mr Landing Manneh and the police commissioner at Mansakonko all expressed similar sentiments. Chief Jarjusey however could not hide his rage for the high court decision to allow only registered voters to vote.

Below are the results of the by-election:

Polling station NADD APRC

Pakalinding E36A 264 99

Kanni Kunda E43 233 295

Sankwia E42A 54 24

Sankwia E42 307 144

Soma Sateba E38 188 305

Soma Sateba E38A 51 72

Soma Angalfuta E48 56 109

Soma Angalfuta E40 65 171

Soma Newtown E39 101 198

Soma Misera E41 75 261

Soma Misera E41A 47 84

Toinataba E34A 209 30

Toinataba E34 401 74

Jabisu E45A 30 76

Misera E30 45 232

Diganteh E29 42 409

Karantaba E46A 287 58

Karantaba E46 280 175

Si Kunda E35 461 37

Pakalinding E37B 230 121



Total 3444 2974







HALIFA HARPS ON UNDER 17

"THE FIRST SUCCESS STORY" – SALLAH

By Fatou Janneh

Barely a day after a local newspaper front page story quoted a politician as saying that Halifa Sallah has denounced President Jammeh’s sponsoring of the Under 17 national team, this reporter caught with Halifa and interviewed him.

"As far as sports is concerned, the first success story of this country is the Under 17 team. And why I say success story is that the Baby Scorpions have gained African Championship and are representing Africa in the world," remarked Halifa Sallah.

In an exclusive interview held at his office (People’s Centre) in Churchill’s Town on Friday 23rd September 2005, Mr. Sallah opined that it is a tremendous achievement that no one can ignore. Even those who may not be Gambian citizens may appreciate the good work of any human being.

According to Sallah, it will be strange for any Gambian not to be supportive of the good effort and success of any Gambian. He however emphasized that patriotism requires each citizen to acknowledge the good done by the other, since development is a collective initiative. He stressed that development cannot be an individual initiative.

When asked what needs to be done to promote sports in The Gambia, the former Minority Leader remarked that "this is where I differ with the government and that is what they (the government) should be telling people. My position is that the national budget is D3.2 billion and if you look at the Department of Youth and Sports, it is allocated only D18 million and that is meant for salaries and anything else from SoS down. So you wonder what is there to promote the youth and sports."

Mr. Sallah asserted that the president’s promise to give $1 million or its equivalent, D28 million to the Under 17 national team in order to promote them is not coming from the national because otherwise, the budget for Youths and Sports would have been more than D18 million.

"Now, the question is, where is the money coming from? And why has it not been contributed to Youth and Sports so that they will finance the Under 17 national team. It is very clear that the president is seeking to promote himself and not the Gambian nation. He is not supporting the Under 17 team so that we see it as the Gambian nation supporting her children, but as a president supporting a team. And I believe that is very wrong," he emphasized.

According to Mr. Sallah, if the government wants to promote sports, they must see it from two angles: that sports prevents ill-health because the stronger the person the less chance the person has in becoming ill very frequently, secondly when one invests in sports rather than spending money on the curative side of health, you are contributing money to prevent ill-health.

Dilating on angle two, Sallah pointed out that if you encourage people to develop any initiative, it means they are also bringing integrity and resources (human resources) that can produce wealth.

He further stressed on the need to encourage sports which he said cannot be attained unless there is systematic planning.

"For example, if you look at Serrekunda, I am supporting many teams. Some are very young boys while others are 17 year olds. We provide them with jerseys and encourage them by helping them to develop their behaviour. I told them what sports does to the body (i.e. the health dimension). And also discouraged them from consuming what destroys health to see that there must be consistency in building up their body and also not consuming other things that harm them. It means you are helping the person to develop a positive attitude towards life. May be such a person will not think of smoking cigarette or taking drugs or so on," he remarked.

Mr. Sallah noted that the council and the government, were not provided any space being left for young people to engage in recreation. He asserted that most of the young people, especially those in Serrekunda go to the school fields to practice; that these fields are not standard and there are no facilities for modern sports.

Dilating on the way forward for sports in The Gambia, Halifa Sallah mentioned that a relationship should be developed between players and the Gambian population. He also emphasized the need for coordinating whole activity so that it can be a national initiative. He said the essence of the national television and radio is to feature what is happening but prior to it, there should be people discussing and talking to people, developing personality using the football players as role models in terms of discipline, in terms of encouragement and showing other young people that they can develop in this way. He however emphasized that the issue of patriotism should be discussed.





UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF OMAR SOWE

By Bubacarr Sowe

Omar Sowe, a NADD militant from Sare Danfo in the Wuli West Constituency, who was arrested by unknown security officers two days before the by-election is still under custody. Up till my departure from Wuli on Saturday (that is four days since his arrest) Omar was still in custody, contrary to the requirement of the constitution, which demands that he be released within 72 hours after his arrested.

Reports have it Omar is held at Sare Ngai Police Post but the police deny having anything to do with his arrest and detention. According to Mr Suwaibou Touray, "Omar was arrested on Tuesday at about 3.30 p.m. at the Yorobawol Health Centre. The police told us that they are not responsible for his arrest, the NIA are responsible."

Mr Touray also said that they had written to the IEC regional office in Basse to complain about the arrest and detention of Omar.

Omar’s brother, Mohamed has informed this paper that Omar was attacked by a police officer "who beat and tortured him severely."

Mr Touray indicated that Omar is an effective organiser and mobiliser and within his community. He is of the view that the security forces are doing this in support of the ruling party in order to undermine the support base of NADD. He further opined that the intimidation tactic of the ruling party has not worked. The supporters of NADD that I spoke to have urged NADD to do something about this.





POLICE CLASH WITH JUBILANT CROWD

By Sana Saidykhan

Members of the Police Intervention Unit clashed with victorious jubilant NADD supporters in Soma on Thursday just 30 minutes after the announcement of results. The insistence of police to disperse the crowd and failure to disperse apparently led to the clash. The divisional commissioner, Landing Manneh the officer commanding the police at Mansakonko and the head of the NIA at LRD Lamin Saidykhan were present. All of them insisted that the crowd must disperse.

The situation died down after sporadic shooting by the police. However, over ten used shells and unused cartridges were presented to the IEC by NADD militants.

Meanwhile, Masaneh Fofana, Ebou Fofana and Khula Cham were arrested upon their arrival in Jarra West. Their transport was grounded on their in the Fonis on their journey from the Kombos to vote in Jarra West. According Ebou Fofana, he was explaining their ordeal in the hands of the police in the Fonis when the Alkalo interrupted and accused them of backbiting and later reported them to the Mansakonko police. Up till my departure they were still in custody. This means that they have been held for more than 72 hours contrary to the requirements of the constitution.





ARE YOU AWARE?

THE DILEMMA OF GAMBIAN YOUTHS

By Baboucarr Ceesay

The Gambia has a youthful population and youth are the life blood of development. Therefore, one should wonder why a President who boasts of being with the youth should stereotype young people of his country as lazy.

A Gambian poet says "youth is a flower that blossoms." This poet is trying to make a poetic depiction of the importance of youth.

Thinking about how most young people in the Gambia live today and the factors giving rise to such life can boil the blood of anyone whose heart beat in unison with the youth population. We should be aware that the Gambia has a leadership that is trying to earn itself a rapscallion title and dares to sacrifice the only oasis in a desert of progress for self aggrandisement.

In this time of reflection, the youths have a very delicate responsibility to know who represents them. The July 22nd coup d’etat of 1994 gave birth to mass support of youths for a junta of sham revolution.

The 22nd July Movement was formed and some young people were sent to Libya for a training they said to have something to do with revolution. I have no right to speculate because I am all the time, guided by the digtum of "No investigation, No right to speak".

I talked to a youth who was part of the contingent to Libya. He boasted of having a training which is purely military in nature. This shows that the young people are used and cajoled by the President just to perpetuate him in power and finally use them as scape goats of his government’s fault calling them lazy people as if they are the nonconformists of development.

Here is a story of two young Gambians who struggled with main and might to complete their Senior Secondary School education with high expectation to find a job to relieve their parents from their long suffering. The one met his untimely death and the other nowhere to be found or heard.

Modou and Suntu were friends who met in the Kombos. They used to travel to Banjul to attend School. Modou comes from the Kombo coastal area and Suntu comes from the central part of the country. After completion of their Senior Secondary School they were filled with disbelief and excitement. With all expectations to find a job to become dignified and responsible citizens. These two ambitious youths have been job hunters for two consecutive years without finding one. Modou went to the beaches of the hotel industry as a ‘bumster’ (tourist chanter) while Suntu went back to the provinces to farm.

Six months later Modou met a tourist couple who were very friendly to him and helped him meet his domestic needs. He was able to make a little savings out of that.

One day he thought about his best friend Suntu and decided to visit him in the provinces. When Suntu was met by Modou in the village they discussed and formulated a travelling action plan. Suntu managed to sell the only two cows of his family because as a lone child of his parents. The boys came back to the Kombos and met a travel agent who knows the African route to Europe. Modou and Suntu went to Morocco with the agent who connected them with another agent to cross to Spain by boat. "Life is seriously unfair and difficult. There is need for economic emancipation. But we have to take the bull by the horn or by the tail which are all pretty the same thing," remarked Suntu.

Unfortunately, Suntu cannot afford the cost of a life jacket at the time of boarding the boat and Modou who could help him has spent all he had. When they reached close to the border the boat started leaking. Those with life jackets managed to cross the distance left, with the help of life jackets, but Suntu and his likes drowned and lost their precious youthful lives. Modou who went as far as the Canary Islands is not yet heard of until now. Suntu’s ambition was to read Law and Philosophy and Modou wanted to study Civil Engineering and Chemistry when they reach Europe. What an adventure? Is this is how the system is making us lose the young great minds of our land?

A leader who blames ambitions youth who are victims of a system and provided with nothing to keep themselves in their country is an ungrateful exploiter. Believe me, The Gambia is a country with great minds. How many young Gambians have made inventions in this world of modern technology? There are many inventors or would-be-scientists who invented TV Sets, radio stations, aeroplanes, cars so no and so forth. Some of these young people went to the media for exposure so that they can get assistance to broaden their horizons in their various areas but to no avail. How many students of academic excellence are diverting to other fields against their wills or became frustrated because of the system. Many young people are becoming survival technicians instead of pursuing their fields of choice because they have no other option.

The government could have built a laboratory for young inventors and would-be-scientists where they can work with experienced people with good academic background in the sciences such as physics, chemistry etc, halls, community centres and libraries across the country for young people in their various areas of interest. Among our youths are talented artists such as painters, musicians, sculptors, writers, actors and so on.

In the area of sports, it seems that people who make noises about the President’s effort or interest in the development of the sports in the country are not in touch with the happenings of the time. Football is not partisan politics. When Brazil was defeated by The Gambia’s Baby Scorpion the whole country jubilated the victory with joy. The same thing applied to their victory over Qatar. When our boys were defeated by Netherlands none of us was happy.

To gauge whether the president is virtually interested in football for the development of the game in the country, one should now ask: Is it not the same President who tried to ban NAWETTAN tournament in the provinces?

Youths deserve not to be stereotyped but only to be encouraged and provided with avenues to develop their fullest potential, intellectually, physically, spiritually, morally etc.

If Jammeh wants the progress of the youths he would not have introduced the Indemnity Bill on April 10 and 11 incidents, attaching a certificate of urgency to it. Gambia youths are not lazy. They are suppressed, exploited and neglected by the Jammeh government. Gambians youths are worth their salt and if empowered they will marvel the world.

There are young Gambians all over the world for intellectual armament and in search of greener pastures.

The system we have in place can earn Gambian youths nothing but retrogress, unemployment and frustration. It is time to know what is responsible for a system that makes our youths to succumb to crimes, drug abuse and alcoholism. Tyrants avoid everything that helps the youths to wise up because they fear them to rise up. But surely the battle against ignorance will be won for the youths to rise up for and in their own rights. There cannot be change unless and until the people who are the agents of change accept to respond to time’s demand.

The End





WHAT IS THE SITUATION OF GIRLS’ EDUCATION?

By Sekou B. Nyassi

As schools resume for classes from the long summer holidays many parents whose children sat to the Grade 9 exams for secondary schools are holding their heads as to what to do to enable their children secure a place in Grade 10 of the senior secondary school of their choice.

Education in any country is the key to development and a continuous process. The children who are supposed to be the future beneficiaries of development must be educated.

The reality is that there is nothing like free education for girls in the country. What is happening is that many parents of female students are being fed with wrong information about free education for the girl-child. Many parents have now realised that the information is mere propaganda. The female students who gained entry to senior secondary schools and are feeling the pinch, of the high cost of books and other educational expenses is a clear indication to all that there is no free education for the girl-child in the country.

Other disturbing moments affecting many female students who in the previous years were with sponsorship programme from people outside the country have their sponsorship cut off because the information received by sponsors about girl-child education in The Gambia is misleading.

Leadership is a responsibility to serve the people and not to mislead them. How can leadership be just to travel out of one’s country to give wrong information about girls’ education across the board when in actual fact no such thing exists? Tuition for education in this country is on the increase and no female or male is spared. As it is often said the country’s poverty level is increasing every year, as a result of which 69 % of the Gambian people are living in poverty. How can poor people educate their children, whose sponsorship has been terminated due to wrong information? Many people and students who are victims of this conspiracy spoke to this reporter expressing their disappointment about the spread of the wrong information in this regard in the country and abroad.

Should there be discrimination in education between female and male children in The Gambia? The 1997 constitution on the right to education does not show or indicate any discrimination in this regard. Section 30 of the supreme law of the land states very clearly that all persons shall have the right to equal educational opportunities and facilities and with a view to achieving the full realisation of that it further stated that basic education shall be free, compulsory and available to all. And secondary education, including technical and vocational education shall be made generally available and accessible to all through the progressive introduction of free education. One may ask as to what has happened since the coming into force of this constitution in 1997, what efforts are being made for the implementation of the real free education to all our children (poor or rich)?

The development of The Gambia can only be real if education is free to all without gender discrimination, as spelt out in the constitution of the second republic.





NADD VS IEC

RULING ON WHO CAN VOTE IN THE BY ELECTIONS

By Surakata Danso

This is a ruling in respect of an application by the applicants, praying the court for the following

(1) A declaration that the decision of the IEC Chairman, Mr. Ndondi Njie that his institution, the IEC will allow all persons whose names are not in the list of voters or register of voters to vote at the by-elections slated for 29th September 2005 in the constituencies of Serrekunda Central, Upper Saloum, Jarra West and Wuli West in the aforementioned administrative areas is a violation of section 26 of the 1997 constitution which Justice Yamoa said guarantees their rights as applicants to stand a genuine election.

(2) An order directing the IEC to comply fully with the provisions of section 66 of the Elections Decree so as to give effect to section 26 of the 1997 constitution.

(3) Such other orders as the court may deem fit.

The application is supported by a twelve page affidavit sworn to by the four applicants on 16th September 2005 and further affidavit sworn by the second applicant on the 22nd September 2005.

In the prior affidavit, the deponents who identified themselves as candidates for the bye-elections to the National Assembly for the constituencies aforesaid on the platform of the first applicant, alleged that on Friday 2/9/05, a meeting was held at the office of the first respondent, the organisation charged with the conduct and supervision of elections in The Gambia. They alleged that at that meeting, the second respondent who is the Chairman of the first respondent communicated the first respondent’s decision on the conduct of the impending bye-elections to representatives of political parties thereat assembled, in the following terms: that any person in possession of a voter’s card would be allowed to vote even though his or her name did not appear on the list or register of voters.

The second respondent is also alleged to have stated his personal opinion on the matter of who should be allowed to vote; he is alleged to have declared that the possession of a voter’s card was more important than having a persons name on the register of voters. These statements were allegedly made in response to sentiments expressed by the second applicant herein that only persons whose names appeared on the register of voters ought to be allowed to vote.

The applicants averred that if the first respondent carried out the said decision as communicated, it would be in violation of S.66 of the Elections Decree of 1996 and thereby infringe their right to stand at genuine elections in this country, a right guaranteed to them by S. 26 of the Constitution.

In the Further Affidavit in support of the application, the second respondent, exhibiting a newspaper item in "The Point" newspaper of 19/9/05, deposed to the fact that one Kittim Gibba, a constituency Chairman of one political party the APRC, made a statement at a political rally, warning the respondent not to prevent persons whose names did not appear on the register from voting.

These matters, he deposed, had raised fears and apprehensions in the applicants who felt that if the first respondent indeed carried out its decision as communicated, the applicants would be unfairly prejudiced and that it would taint the elections.

Arguing in support of the orders sought on the application, Antouman Gaye, lead counsel for the applicants, relied on the said depositions and contended that when the second respondent made that statement on behalf of the first respondent which is a creature of the Constitution and is an independent body charged with the conduct of fair elections, he brought into focus the intention of the first respondent to turn the entire election from a genuine one to a sham one. This is because in his view, the first respondent, if it did what was communicated, would have failed to comply with the regulations on the proper conduct of elections contained in Ss. 12, 13, and 66 of the Elections Decree of 1996 No. 78. Such an act, he feared, would be contrary to proper administrative procedures that ought to be undertaken by the first respondent in the fulfilment of its mandate of conducting and supervising registration and voting in accordance with the electoral law, and by it, would have
 circumvented the provisions of S. 39 of the Constitution which entitles only registered voters to vote at periodic elections.

The circumstance of allowing persons who carried voter cards but did not have their names on the register to vote, he said, would permit persons otherwise disqualified by citizenship, age or mental capability to vote, if only they could produce voter cards. This situation, he said was dangerous, could be subject to abuse, and permit over-voting. Where that circumstance obtained, it would, he maintained, transform the entire voting process from a genuine one into a sham one, in contravention of S. 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the applicants as citizens subject to the Constitution of their right to stand at genuine periodic elections.

It was counsel’s contention, that if a person’s name did not appear on the register of voters, then he/she was not registered, for according to him, registration, meant having one’s name on the register.

Learned Counsel maintained that the first respondent is a body charged to perform its functions in a certain manner prescribed in the Electoral Decree and the Constitution, in order to ensure the ends of achieving "genuine" elections guaranteed under the Constitution.

The pronouncement of the second respondent of the intention of the first respondent to allow unregistered voters to vote, counsel contended, would be tantamount to the first respondent exercising arbitrary power and assuming a discretion it did not have, a matter that learned counsel urged the court not to permit or sanction.

In an argument that was not easy to follow, counsel insisted that the impending act of the first respondent would also be discriminatory in that some candidates would by that act be given preferential treatment.

He submitted that the first respondent be made to confine itself within the ambit of the provisions regulating the performance of its functions and discharge of its duties, contained in Ss. 12, 13, and 66 of the Elections Decree and S. 39(1) and (2) of the Constitution. He asserted that to do anything contrary to those provisions, would be to go contrary to S.26 of the Constitution and therefore infringe the right of the applicants to stand at genuine elections.

On the matters the court should advert its mind to when considering duties of the first respondent in ensuring genuine elections, counsel cited for the court’s persuasion, the dictum of Bamford-Addo JSC (as she then was) in Apaloo v. the Electoral Commission of Ghana 2001.2002 SCGLR 1 at 10, 18, 20, and 21. Learned counsel urged the court to grant the applicant’s prayers which he said had arisen out of pre-election matters.

The application was vehemently opposed.

In a ten-paragraph affidavit sworn to in opposition to the affidavits of the applicants, and a six-paragraph Further Affidavit in Opposition, one Kawsu Ceesay, Chief Electoral Officer of the first respondent, deposed to the following on behalf of the first respondent: that in the discharge of its duties, the first respondent registers all eligible voters on forms containing counterfoils and that it is information from these that a voter’s register is compiled and voter cards are made. He alleged that when the first respondent declared that it would permit holders of voter cards whose names did not .appear on the head register to vote, it was referring to persons whose names appeared on the counterfoil - a sure sign that they had been registered - but whose names, as a result of the first respondents’ own inadvertencies and clerical errors, did not appear on the Head Register.

He deposed that the first respondent was empowered by statute to correct its errors which it does by regularly updating its records.

He said that given that background, the first respondent took the decision which is the subject of this complaint, in order to ensure that such persons would not be disenfranchised by reason of the errors of the first respondent. That decision he said, was indeed communicated by him to representatives of political parties at a meeting of 2/9/05.

The decision he communicated, he said, was not that unregistered persons would be allowed to vote, but that persons who held voter cards and whose names were on the counterfoil but were inadvertently omitted, would be permitted to vote.

The first respondent exhibited copies of the counterfoil which the deponent said contained a photograph similar to that appearing on the voter card, and the voter’s register of two constituencies where clerical omissions were apparent, for the data contained in the counterfoil was missing from those registers.

In reply, to the arguments of opposing counsel, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the said depositions and pointed out that as the organisation charged with the conduct of elections in accordance with S. 26 and 39 of the Constitution, the first respondent, assumed the powers conferred on it by S. 43(1) of the Constitution.

The said provision made the first respondent responsible for the conduct and supervision of the registration of voters and the conduct of elections.

The said powers were to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Decree of 1996 No. 78.

By S. 8(3) of that Decree, the first respondent was empowered to make rules or otherwise regulate its own procedure.

S. 127(1) of the same Decree empowered the first respondent to resolve issues relating to elections in keeping with the standard and rules of natural justice.

S. 33(4) empowered the first respondent to make the final decisions with regard to voting and the mode thereof.

S. 3 permitted the first respondent to make necessary adaptations for the conduct of elections.

According to counsel, these several provisions contained in the regulatory statute were what had given the first respondent the administrative powers regarding the conduct of elections.

Counsel argued, that it was in line with its administrative duties which included the preparation, compilation and maintenance of the voter’s register and, in respect of which it had administrative powers conferred thereon, that the first respondent having regard to its power conferred on it by Ss. 12 and 21 of the Decree as amended which requires the first respondent to prepare voter’s card with counterfoils, had decided, that all those whose names appeared in the counterfoil but was for some reason omitted from the register, be allowed to vote.

In doing this, counsel maintained that the first respondent was operating within the ambit of S. 66 of the Elections Decree for according to him, the said provision enjoined electoral officers to compare voter’s cards with counterfoils in order to permit voting.

Counsel drew the court’s attention to the fact that it was from the counterfoils that registers of the various centres, wards and constituencies were compiled and that these were in turn compiled into the Head Register, it was also from these counterfoils that voter cards were made.

Alleging the counterfoils to be evidence of the fact of registration, counsel contended that in permitting persons whose names appeared on the counterfoil and who held voter’s cards, to vote, the first respondent was endeavoring to ensure that no person was disenfranchised by reason of its own clerical errors if his/her name did not appear on the abstract from which the Head register was ultimately compiled.

This position of the first respondent, counsel urged, was in line with S. 131 (2) of the Elections Decree which directed that a person was not to be prevented from voting by reason of a misnomer or inaccuracy of description in the register if in the register or other document he would be identifiable, and also, the spirit and the letter of Ss. 26 and 39 of the Constitution.

According to learned counsel, the decision of the first respondent (the subject of the present complaint), was not influenced by anybody; and the newspaper clipping exhibited as HS1 that contained a statement attributed to one Kittim Gibba had no relevance at all, as the pronouncement of the second respondent with regard to the first respondent’s intentions (which he said had been inaccurately reproduced anyway), had been made on 2/9/05, long before the _expression of Kittim Gibba’s sentiments on 19/9/05. In any case, he said, Mr. Gibba had not been shown to have any connection whatsoever to the first respondent.

Counsel contended that the prayers of the present applicants were aimed not at protecting any right, but at disenfranchising persons, in contravention of Ss 26 and 39 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel furthermore added that if the applicants were aggrieved, they had room for redress contained in S. 24 of the Decree which provided for the setting up of a revising court chaired by a magistrate.

Counsel lastly urged the court to give the relevant provisions of the Constitution a liberal and purposive interpretation bearing in mind the peculiar needs and circumstance of the Gambian citizenry as a people who do not have the advantages of more developed economies or educational background. For many persons in this country, he urged, the possession of the voter card spelt registration. Any attempt to prevent the holder of such from voting because his name was not in the register may lead to unfortunate consequences.

He relied on the dictum of Diplock LJ approved in UDP No.1 v. THE AttorneyGenera/1997-2001 GR at 800 He also cited the following cases for the persuasion of the court: Tuffour v. Attorney-Genera/1980 GLR 647, and Rep. v. Tommy

Thompson Books 1996-97 SCGLR 484 at 502.

I must say that I have found the arguments for and against the present application enlightening and interesting indeed.

But for the purposes of remaining on track, I will place the arguments in two nutshells.

What are the parties saying?

To my mind, the applicants are saying that by the Constitution, the prescription for valid voting is that a person must be validly registered and that such registration meant that the person’s name was actually on the register of voters. If anyone but such a person were permitted to vote, it might open the gates to abuse, with people otherwise ineligible to be registered for voting, being given a roundabout route to vote. That would make nonsense of the whole raison d’etre of the requirement of registration. The result they allege, will be that the elections conducted thereby would not be genuine, although as citizens of the land subject to the Constitution, they had been guaranteed the right to stand at genuine periodic elections in S. 26 (b) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia.

Thus have they sought redress in this court; and they have done so for the first respondent, which is responsible for the conduct and supervision of the voting has allegedly said that it will permit unregistered persons to vote provided they hold voter cards. That act, they say will infringe their right under S. 26 (b) of the Constitution.

The second, third, fourth and fifth respondents have said through counsel that they have nothing to do with the compilation of the register of voters or the conduct of voting and so ought not to have been brought before the court at all.

I noted that they did not deign to answer the allegations at all by affidavit or otherwise as they felt they had been wrongfully joined.

The first respondent is saying that it is acting responsibly in a bid to ensure that no one is disenfranchised by its own inadequacies, and that it has a right to do so in exercise of its discretion conferred on it by Ss. 43 (1) of the Constitution, 3, 33(4) and127(1) of the Elections Decree. The first respondent has explained that the process of compiling the register starts from the record of names in a document in respect of which a counterfoil is retained by them. The information of the counterfoil is placed in a register which ultimately is recorded in a Head Register.

The first respondent has said that sometimes errors have been made by its servants; that they have statutory power to correct them, and that they do so by regular updating of records. Nevertheless, they have said, the reality is that errors exist.

For this reason, the fact then that a person’s name does not appear on the register does not mean that that process of registration has not commenced. According to the first respondent, if one holds a voter’s card which is matched by a counterfoil, that is evidence that the person’s name appears somewhere on its books but that through inadvertence, it was left out of the register. It would then be right and proper for such a person to be permitted to exercise his right of franchise which would otherwise be denied him through a fault not his own.

In doing this, says the first respondent, it will not be doing any untoward act that would detract from the election process. Indeed, it would rather be acting responsibly to ensure that all rights of franchise were exercised in accordance with S. 26 of the Constitution.

So what is my view of these two positions?

In order to resolve this issue, one has to determine the meaning of the word: "genuine", for the right guaranteed the applicants under the Constitution which they say is about to be infringed is the right to stand at genuine elections.

Because of the arguments of the respondents, the said words must also be defined in terms of the import assigned to them in the Constitution and the Electoral Decree: "registration" or "registered".

Lastly, these questions must be answered: In the performance of its constitutional duty of conducting and supervising registration and voting, is the first respondent imbued with the exercise of discretion?

Is the decision to allow persons as described before now to vote, be within the proper exercise of such discretion?

The word "genuine" is defined in the Oxford Mini reference Dictionary as: "really what is said to be"

So will the impending bye-election really be the election it is said to be if the said persons afore described are permitted to vote?

I do not think so.

I applaud, and appreciate the first defendant’s desire as the organisation charged with the conduct of elections, to make sure that all persons who are qualified and are willing, are allowed to exercise their right of franchise, particularly as its position is based on the acceptance of the fact that errors have sometimes occurred through the acts or omissions of its own servants.

It is commendable that the first respondent acknowledges its fallibility and does not wish to have its sins visited on the unsuspecting earnest citizen of the land.

But should the first respondent, in trying to cure an ill put the whole system of election in disarray?

Although S. 26 guarantees the political rights of the citizen by the use of such words as "universal and equal suffrage" those words do not stand alone.

S. 39 (1) and (2) prescribe that every citizen of The Gambia who is eighteen years of age may vote. The combined effect of those provisions created the entitlement of every such person, (for the assurance of the exercise of franchise guaranteed under S. 26(1) and (2) of the Constitution), to be registered as a voter. S. 39(2) makes clear that it is the registered voter who is entitled to vote.

The Elections Decree 1996 provides copiously for the fact of registration and 8.11 specifies the fact of registration by the requirement of a voter’s register, 8.12 sets out the qualification for registration.

It is clear from the prescriptions set out in the Constitution and the said provisions of the Elections Decree then, that registration is a sine qua non for the purpose of voting.

That is why in 8. 66 of the Decree, even after a person shows up at the polling station with a voter card, the electoral officer is enjoined indeed to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of the voter’s card. But this is to be done only where that holder’s name appears on the register which is displayed before him.

That provision did not say that once the voter’s card agreed with some document in the custody of the electoral officer, it was sufficient to entitle him to vote.

The first respondent by affidavit and in arguments put forward per counsel, is saying that the voter’s card could only be produced if there was a record in a document, the counterfoil of which is in the custody of the electoral authorities, and that it is prima facie evidence that that name appears in some register even if its is omitted from the main register.

When the Constitution used the _expression "registered voter" did it refer to a process of registration begun, or the concluded fact of registration?

What register did it refer to?

There must be openness in a democracy, and that is the reason for conducting elections in the first place.

It is my view that as what is referred to by the first respondent as the Head register is that on which the name of every person who desires to vote and who goes to the electoral authorities to register must appear.

The process through which the name of Amadou Jallow of Basse must travel once he has presented himself and provided the relevant data to the registering authorities, must surely be of no concern to anyone besides the proper officers. The reason for his so doing is to get his name not on just any interim document, but on what is called the register of voters.

That is the responsibility of the first respondent which is conferred on it by S.11 of the Elections Decree: to compile and keep a register of voters.

Is the first respondent now saying that it is unequal to the task it has been charged with which is to prepare, compile and maintain a register of voters for each constituency and therefore are saying that where there is some evidence of sorts that a man at some point saw the electoral authorities, the requirement of registration as intended by the framers of the Constitution and the drafters of the Decree must be dispensed with or circumvented in order that the non-or-ill performance of its duty may not affect that person’s rights?

I appreciate the arguments of counsel for the respondents as supported by the various cases cited, both binding and of persuasive authority, that the Constitution must be given a liberal approach.

Nevertheless, it is my view, that a far worse situation than that of a few people being denied their franchise by reason of clerical errors may result if persons whose names are not patent on what is recognized by all as the register and which by statute the first respondent is bound to prepare, compile and maintain, are allowed to vote.

Surely, in every human institution, lapses of morality surface from time to time. If persons charged to perform a duty now permit people to recognize a state of less than performance, could it not be the road to empowering persons of not so high moral calibre (even if they are officials) to bend the rules somewhat if they can find room to do so?

It is my view, that what the first respondent has proposed to do, is not simply a liberal and thoughtful way of ensuring the exercise of franchise, which it may be entitled to do in exercise of administrative discretion.

In my judgment, such a situation may create a situation far more chaotic than foreseen.

If persons who may otherwise be disqualified from voting can produce voter’s cards somehow (a feat which in my view may be easier to do, than getting their names on the register in unexplainable circumstances); and if electoral officers are given the power to say in those circumstances that they are genuine, and the said persons are then allowed to vote, it may taint the character and integrity of the voting process.

Where that occurs will the ordinary man walking on the streets of Banjul be able to say with confidence that the elections were as they should have been?

I think not.

If by the act of the first respondent brought on by its own errors (however compassionate the motivation), doubts are raised about the election process, I’m afraid it will miss the mark of "genuineness" as defined before now.

In that circumstance, I find that although the first respondent is vested with power to make regulations involving the conduct of its affairs and mandate, the said power is conferred on it in order that it might more efficiently and effectively perform its constitutional duty of ensuring "genuine elections" as guaranteed under S. 26(2) of the constitution and not to detract whatsoever from that sole, exalted task.

I hold that the decision of the first respondent communicated by the second respondent that the first respondent will permit holders of voter cards to vote even if

their names do not appear on the register of voters, will not ensure a genuine election and will therefore be an infringement of the right of the applicants herein to stand at genuine elections as guaranteed by S. 26 (b) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia.

In consequence, I grant the application in term of the prayers sought on the face of the summons.

MABEL YAMOA (MRS)

HIGH COURT JUDGE





SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY:

THE BAKOTEH DUMPSITE

FOROYAA: We are made to understand that GAMWORKS is in charge of addressing the environmental threat and the persistent menace at the Bakoteh Dumpsite. Can you give us a brief overview of the project and how it was conceived?

Gamworks: As you rightly said, the Bakoteh dump site has become a major environmental and health hazard to the inhabitants of Bakoteh, Manjaikunda and the passers-by around this area. It is in this regard that, the Government of the Gambia in collaboration with the World Bank/International Development Association through the Poverty Alleviation and Capacity Building Project, launched the Solid

Waste Management Study for the Greater Banjul Metropolitan Area (Banjul, KMC and Brikama). The study has been completed, but due to financial constraints all the recommendations cannot be met under the original PACABP funds. The Gambia Government therefore requested for a re-allocation of the remaining funds to provide an interim solution to the persistent problems at Bakoteh. This stopgap measure is aimed at developing a sound management strategy for waste disposal at the site. The site will be upgraded for use in the next 3 to 5 years before it is transferred to a permanent location and Bakoteh closed thereafter. A study for this stopgap measure aimed at preparing the site into a controlled landfill and permanent closure thereafter has been done and the bidding documents for the works advertised, tenders received and currently under the evaluation process.

FOROYAA: You mentioned that the engineering of the Bakoteh Dumpsite is a stopgap measure earmarked under this project, can you briefly give us the activities involved and how these works will be carried out?

Gamworks: The activities under this project shall involve the clearing of the site of all the littered garbage, preparation of a land filling area in the quarry by excavation in mainly soft materials, grading and compaction of the quarry, construction of gravel access roads, embarkment and fencing. The works will be carried out by an identified contractor and supervised by a Consultant after a comprehensive evaluation of their proposals.

GAMWORKS shall be the implementing Agency responsible for the monitoring and supervision of the entire project.

FOROYAA: What are the recommendations for the use of the Bakoteh Dumpsite after its closure? Are there plans to allocate the site for residential purposes?

Gamworks: The study was firstly able to prove that Bakoteh was not a dumpsite by design, but the site of an old quarry with craters left behind that might have possibly encouraged the dumping of solid waste. This in essence means there was no control over the disposal of waste, which has brought about the present harzard. The area according to the study is about 18 hectares that is surrounded by a heavily populated settlement. The study took all these into consideration and recommended that some possible uses for the closed landfill would be a park, a recreational area, a nature preserve or a botanical garden.

FOROYAA: I believe this is an important issue. Are you carrying out the project together with government or is the government involved in it?

Gamworks: PACABP is a project that was negotiated by government on behalf of the local government authorities, and delegated to GAMWORKS for implementation. It is therefore a government owned project and GAMWORKS as an Agency is implementing the project on behalf of the government. In this regard, the Agency is by virtue of the agreement accountable to inform government (through the specified channel of communication) of all issues emanating from these studies. In a nutshell, we are working hand in hand with government under the project.

FOROYAA: When do you intend to commence works at the site and what is the cost involved?

Gamworks: As I said earlier, we are currently evaluating the proposal received for both the supervision and works. This is an International Competitive Bidding and involves various stages of approval by the donors. On the issue of the cost involved, I believe it is premature to discuss it at this stage. All I can say is that it will be in millions of Dalasis. However, as soon as the contract is awarded and the works proper commences, we will elaborate on more specific details.

FOROYAA: What is the estimated time for completion, and where will the new dumpsite be located after the closure of Bakoteh?

Gamworks: The estimated completion time for the works at Bakoteh is 12 months. By then it is envisaged that the present problem at Bakoteh will be addressed and an environmentally sound management strategy for waste disposal developed into a controlled landfill for the next 3 - 5 years after which Tambana (near Brikama) will be prepared and designed for used as the new dumpsite.



---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

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