Hamjatta,
Apparently you have betrayed your ignorance of the facts on the ground. You keep mentioning that PDOIS was
invited by the UDP to a rally.This is ofcause a fabrication. You have misread the comment made that
opposition parties were invited to UDP rally.
I have always avoided being petty. This is why there was no need to go into PDOIS's experience with other
parties. This is left to PDOIS to explain. Am sure they will not waste time with a personality like you,
others will handle all your fabrications in a mature way.
The important point to note is that, there is absolutely no need for the pointing of fingers. A coalition is
a voluntary process. PDOIS was the first party to suggest that coalition can come in the second round. This
advice was not heeded to. Secondly, PDOIS provided an agenda for a transition programme of one year
characterised by civic education to enlighten the Gambian people so that inducement and intimidation will be
things of the past; the opening of the national media to all political parties to put their programme before
the people for a period of one year; the ratification of what the APRC had removed or included in the
constitution and other laws; to be followed by presidential election after one year so that the people can
make their choice of parties. PDOIS was waiting for other political parties to come up with an agenda before
an inter party meeting could be set up.. The developments which followed leading to the 13th. August fiasco
has nothing to do with PDOIS. PDOIS acted in good faith throughout. Foroyaa simply exposed what was happening
on the ground. The fact that to you the Gambian people are horses and the political party traders can engage
in political horse trading underground reflects the height of your political decadence.
Sincere Gambians recognise that a blunder has been made by the opposition. If each political party stated its
political agenda for a coalition in order to at least give the image of a united front, the political parties
could have selected a coalition candidate in the first round or tell the press that they have agreed to think
of a coalition in the second round. This is a simple truth that a person like you fails to digest.
I mentioned that the UDP declared that it was going to launch its presidential campaign on the 18th. August.
I also indicated that only the PPP has endorse Darboe's candidature so far. You confused this and claimed
that Mr. Darboe was not exclusively selected by the UDP to lead the coalition. These are two different
things: The UDP announcement came before the announcement of the coalition. You claimed that this is gross
misrepresentation of the fact .However, you did not present any fact to refute what I have said, instead you
continued to speak for the NRP leader, even though I have transmitted a press release signed by the chairman
of the inter party meeting which made no mention of PDOIS, NRP or GDP. I am sure you must have known by now
that Assan Musa Camara has informed the nation that he will not register the GPP for the coming Presidential
and National Assembly elections. Which then is the other party ? I rely on facts to inform people what is
happening on the ground and you rely on second hand information to mislead the people in the L. Deception is
no longer possible! Your loyalties are very clear.
The only unfortunate thing is that you are neither a liberal nor a democrat. Everyone must toe your line
otherwise they are assisting the APRC. So all other opposition parties are assisting the APRC unless they
endorse the candidate you support. These are the types of democrats we have today. The people however, are
not asleep the truth shall set them free of deceptors one fine day.
Adama
The struggle to uplift human dignity continues!
Hamjatta Kanteh wrote:
> Mr Bah,
>
> I will judiciously ignore your scurrilous and snide remarks. Suffice to say
> that they are baseless and irrelevant.
>
> As per your comment how informed i am about the situation on the ground, i
> can assure you that i'm very informed about the general political situation
> back home. Matter of fact when the scheduled Opposition meeting was going on
> today, i was duly informed of the players and constituents involved and the
> circumstances. In this age of the internet and wireless communications, you
> would be surprised the extent to which people are informed about things in
> far off places and remote corners of the globe. Never assume that just
> because we happen to be temporarily residing outside the Gambia means we are
> totally in the dark about what goes on in the country - generally.
>
> Some of the comments in your previous correspondence are plainly a distortion
> of how things chanced. For instance you commented:
>
> "Are you aware that the UDP had made an announcement endorsing Darboe as its
> presidential candidate and are to
> launch their campaign on the 18th. of August? Are you aware that only the PPP
> endorsed Darboe's candidature
> at a meeting which was suppose to be an all opposition party meeting without
> any invitation to PDOIS or NRP?"
>
> This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. For starters, all parties -
> registered and non-registered - were duly invited to attend this meeting.
> Certainly, it was the case that the PDOIS was formally informed of this
> meeting as was case with the NRP. As it happened, the NRP leader was out of
> town and the meeting had to be re-scheduled twice in lieu of this. Only this
> because of time constraints, was the meeting allowed to progress ahead
> without the NRP leader partaking in the political horsetrading. So it was
> grossly misinforming - to say the very least - your assertion that both NRP
> and PDOIS weren't invited to the talks. I repeat ALL parties were invited to
> take in the said talks. As i understand it, the NRP leader has conveyed
> through third parties its endorsement - in principle - of how these talks
> were generated and progressed. One shouldn't be surprised to see Hamat Bah
> endorsing the current Alliance plans upon his return.
>
> Contrary to what you said, it was not the UDP that exclusively selected Mr
> Darbo to lead the coalition; rather, it was OJ who put forward Mr Darbo's
> name as a leader of the Alliance and this was seconded by the majority of the
> delegates. It was only after this nomination that Mr Dibba felt that he
> couldn't be part of the current scheme of things because he felt he had to
> lead the coalition. That is a regrettable and regressible development. But it
> is not true that it was the PPP and the UDP that exclusively conspired and
> colluded by nominating and seconding Mr Darbo's ascension to the leadership
> of the Alliance. It is, therefore, a fabrication of how things materialised
> to suggest that PDOIS or any other party was stitched out of partaking in the
> negotiations. Or to say there was a PPP-UDP conspiracy that treacherously
> plotted against the other parties - as your correspondence seemed to me to
> suggest. Furthermore, it ought to be claified here again that it was not the
> UDP which announced Mr Darbo as their presidential candidate and that they
> will begin their campaign on the 18th of August. Rather, this was an Alliance
> position and not a unilaterally imposed UDP one.
>
> PDOIS' lack of engagement in the current scheme of things and its desire to
> start sullking again about being left out is no one's fault but its own
> making. By their own admission, PDOIS acknowledged through it's political
> organ, Foroyaa, that the UDP had invited ALL parties to join it on its
> campaign trail but it [PDOIS] failed to seize the initiate and engage the UDP
> and the other parties on issues that are common to all parties. Instead, it
> is now descending to its old pastime of phobic PPP and Jawara caricatures and
> unwittingly doing Jammeh's dirty work for him. If PDOIS is serious about an
> Alliance it would have proactively reached out to the others with open-minded
> altruism, generate their trust that ultimately will act as a repository of
> mutual cooperation without which an Alliance will ultimately flounder.
> Despite the hisses and sulks that emanated from the PDOIS, it has never
> publicly initiated mechanism that can help finesse any obstacles that might
> later hinder an Alliance progrss. PDOIS also whined and sulked about a lack
> of agenda and a framework for possible cooperation with the other parties.
> Did PDOIS take the initiative by coming up with an agenda and a framework
> that can be used as basis for mutual cooperation with the other parties?
> Rather, PDOIS, through its political organ, Foroyaa, whined and sulked about
> how they are being left out the scheme of things. Oh, and reducing the paper
> into a recycling plant of APRC rumours and disinformations. Is this the way a
> party interested in cooperation handles itself? Does sniping maliciously
> about your would-be Alliance partners in your paper the way to win their
> confidence and trust? Gauging by the manner in which it has goofed on the
> Alliance progress, i want to suspect that PDOIS has misgivings - that it has
> never bothered spelling out to the public - that was left with no choice but
> to sulk and whine incessantly about what have done or might have done. PDOIS
> has no one to blame for its predicament but itself.
>
> Take for instance PDOIS' lack of attendance of yesterday's talks. Having
> weighed the evidence, it seems to me PDOIS exploited the procedural
> discrepancies of not receiving an official letter from the convenor of the
> said talks and decided not to attend the talks on such flimsy grounds. This
> is lamentable. For none of the other parties that attended the talks received
> no official letters from the convenor of the said talks. Yet, that never
> stopped them from attending the talks. This is not the first PDOIS has used
> such dissembling arguments to masquerade their unwillingness to be part of
> the collective effort. With the London Briefing Sessions, it used similar
> subterfuges an excuse not to attend that as well. The fact of the matter is
> that of all the good things that can be said of the PDOIS, cooperation with
> the mainstream parties ain't amongst them. PDOIS has simply shown that it has
> a deep seated ambivalence towards the Alliance from the moment it was mooted.
> PDOIS was never honest enough to publicly state this deep seated ambivalence.
>
> Ultimately, i respect PDOIS' right to do as they deem fit or as their
> consciences dictate to them. Similar respects are extended to Mr Dibba and
> the NCP. I hope, before it is too late, Mr Dibba can be persuaded that his
> party's interest is best served by joining the Alliance and working with them
> to defeat the dictatorship. What, however, would be unbecoming of the PDOIS
> is to start working unwittingly for the APRC by doing its dirty for it; i.e.,
> whipping up anti- PPP sentiments and caricatures to the extent that it
> serves as an allure to the dictatorship. That, in my opinion, would do PDOIS
> no favours. For it is such retrogressive acts that strengthen the hand of the
> devil that continues to wreak havoc on Gambian lives and the Gambia. I
> sincerely hope that PDOIS this time around heeds the writings on the wall.
>
> Hamjatta Kanteh
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
> if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
