Hi!
    I must first of all register dismay at the statement by Mr. Joof that
there is the possibility that Mr. Darboe might not be allowed to run for the
Office of President of The Gambia. This registration of dismay stems from
the fact that I foresee untold calamities for our dear country if this ban
becomes actual. This is due to the fact that I cannot fathom UDP and the
other parties and their supporters silently accepting this ban especially on
the grounds upon which the ban is premised. The sections of the Constitution
on which Mr. Joof is relying read:

"62. (3) A person who, while holding public office in The Gambia has been -
    (a) compulsorily retired, terminated or dismissed from such office; or
    (b) has been found guilty of any criminal offence by any court or
tribunal established by law; or
    (c) or has been found liable for misconduct, negligence, corruption or
improper behaviour by any     commission or committee of enquiry established
by law

shall not be qualified for election as President."

It is clear that Mr. Joof is relying on subsection 3 (c) of  section 62 to
disqualify Mr. Darboe. The question that arises is whether this subsection
disqualifies Mr. Darboe. I have to state here that I am completely  ignorant
of the outcome of the proceedings of the Grant Commission in relation to Mr.
Darboe but according to the forwarded article, "SoS Joof disclosed that
under section 62(3), Darboe was ordered by a commission of inquiry into the
activities of the Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation to pay
back money to the SSHFCand that he appeared before Hon
Justice Grant to challenge that order. He said the court dismissed that
order on a preliminary objection, "so that order is still valid," ". If I
understand what is being said here, Mr. Darboe challenged an order against
him and the court dismissed the order on the basis of a preliminary
objection. The order was therefore dismissed which if interpreted in
everyday English means that Mr. Darboe was not actually found guilty because
the case was never finalised. As things stand, I don't think the onus is on
Mr. Darboe to prove anything. What happened when the order was thrown out?
Was that the end of the case? Did both parties just let things die down? If
so, what is Mr. Joof relying on to say that "the order is still valid"? If
you are found guilty of something and sentenced and you appeal and the
sentence is nullified on the basis of an objection, you are deemed not to be
bound by the sentence. If the State had appealed against the throwing out of
that order on the basis of the preliminary objection and the order was
reissued, then we can say that Mr. Darboe had been found guilty. Going by
what Mr. Joof stated, it can be safely deduced that the State did not
challenge the dismissal of the order and that the Commission did not have
the order reinstated. How can the order be therefore "valid"?
    On Mr. Darboe's disqualification with regard to the National Assembly,
Mr. Joof is relying on section 90 (e) which disqualifies a person from
inclusion in an electoral list if the person:

"has been found guilty by the report of a commission or committee of inquiry
(the proceedings of which have been held and published in accordance with
the relevant law) to be incompetent to hold public office by reason of
having acquired assets unlawfully or defrauded the State or misused or
abused his or her office, or wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the State, and the findings have not been set aside on appeal
or judicial review;".

    The emphais here is on "THE FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SET ASIDE ON APPEAL
OR JUDICIAL REVIEW". Where is the basis for disqualification here? Mr.
Darboe might have been found guilty and ordered to pay but the order was
dismissed or SET ASIDE when he appealed. Mr. Darboe is therefore not
disqualified according to this section.
    Unless the case was finalised and the order reinstated and Mr. Joof
failed to mention that, I don't think the Constitution disqualifies Mr.
Darboe from standing as a presidential candidate or a National Assembly
member. It would therefore be a grave mistake on the part of the State to
disqualify Mr. Darboe on such a basis especially at this present moment in
Gambian politics. I would therefore advise or even appeal to Mr. Joof to
reconsider the basis of this disqualification and urge the IEC to really
ponder the legal basis upon which this disqualification will rest should the
State pursue it and be absolutely sure that whatever it decides is based on
sound legal reasoning. The basis of my appeal is premised upon the fact that
this is an election year in a tense country in an unstable region and the
public servants upon whom this decision rests have a responsibility and
moral and all other obligations to do their best to keep the country away
from civil strife. I just have a feeling that if Mr. Darboe is disqualified
on this basis, the country is going to witness civil strife because any
action in relation to trying to ban Mr. Darboe will be interpreted in this
election year as an attempt by the State to rig the elections. This will in
turn have repercussions that might not augur well for our country. I
therefore appeal again to all concerned to really look into the basis for
disqualifying Mr. Darboe and do something that one would happily stake one's
honour on. Thanks.

Buharry.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dampha Kebba" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Joseph Joof and APRC Pulls another one


> Joke of the millennium. Just like Pap Cheyassin Secka mishandled the
Report
> of the Commission of Inquiry looking into the Massacre of our children on
> April 10 and 11, 2000, Joseph Joof is also digging his own grave. The
moron
> is going to plunge the country into civil war. That this man calls himself
a
> lawyer and then make such ludicrous statements is just beyond me. Instead
of
> the IEC, now it is Yaya and Joseph Joof that determines who is running and
> who is not. This is what always angers me about the moralizers in this
forum
> and elsewhere. People see this blatant injustice and provocation and they
> say nothing until the Opposition retaliates to stand its ground. If I were
> Darboe and the Alliance, we would NOT even react to the vermin (Joseph
> Joof). That would just make the nonentity feel important. Is this not the
> vermin that came to the United States and ran away when people started
> asking him questions?
>
> Now, the vermin has the courage to stand up and say that our Alliance
leader
> will NOT run in the elections. The mental midget does NOT even have the
> wherewithal to rationalize why Darboe should be banned.  What we are
> witnessing here is sheer panic. The vermin know that the momentum is with
> the Opposition. They have heard about the crowds and the intensity in
> Brikama. They have heard about the determination of the Gambian people NOT
> to let Yaya steal these elections. They know that everyone hates them in
the
> country. PPP supporters they intimidated in the past are now supporting
the
> Alliance. Yaya does NOT have any plans for the future of the country. His
> record sucks. It is one of murder, mayhem, destitution (for ordinary
> Gambians) and rampant corruption (for Yaya and his cohorts).
>
> Yaya and his gang know that 'repealing' Decree 89 spelt their final
demise.
> They are now engaged in damage control. Seeking other means to ban people.
I
> knew Joseph Joof was a moron, but I would have thought that the
knucklehead
> would at least come up with a better 'legal' means to BAN Darboe. This
> citation of the SSHFC Commission and the Constitution is laughable. If
> Joseph Joof thinks that he and his boss (Yaya) can prevent Darboe from
> running, he must be the biggest moron in the country. They tried
preventing
> us from getting an Alliance. Needless to say, they failed. Now, all they
are
> doing is testing the waters to see how else they can rig the elections. I
> say: ignore the morons. Let the Alliance just take their papers to the IEC
> and see whether Gabriel Roberts will have the guts to reject the papers.
If
> the papers are rejected and Darboe is prevented from running, anything
that
> happens will be on Yaya's head. If I were Joseph Joof, he should be
> preoccupied about regularizing Yaya's papers. Whereas every Gambian knows
> that Ousainou Darboe is a Gambian and people know Darboe's ancestors,
there
> are doubts about Yaya's citizenship. How many Gambians know Yaya's parents
> and where they came from? The callous way the vermin has treated the
Gambian
> people (especially our children that were slaughtered April 10 and 11,
> 2000), only goes to show that the low-life is NOT a Gambian. If the IEC
> accept his papers, the Alliance should sue the APRC and the IEC for
fielding
> an ALIEN as a candidate in elections meant for Gambians. How about that?
The
> knucklehead (Joseph Joof) deserves a knuckle sandwich for uttering such
> preposterous words. DARBOE WILL BE BANNED. This is hilarious.
> KB
>
>
>
> >From: Malamin Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
> ><[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Joseph Joof and APRC Pulls another one
> >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:17:48 +0000
> >
> >From the Daily Observer
> >
> >CAN DARBOE RUN FOR PRESIDENT?
> >
> >by Augustus Mendy Political Desk
> >
> >As activities for the presidential election reaches its climax, the
> >Attorney
> >General and Secretary of State for Justice, Joseph Joof, has disclosed
that
> >Ousainou Darboe, coalition presidential candidate has to prove to the
> >Independent Electoral Commission that he is eligible to contest the
> >forthcoming elections. Speaking to the Daily Observer yesterday, SoS Joof
> >disclosed that under section 62(3), Darboe was ordered by a commission of
> >inquiry into the activities of the Social Security and Housing Finance
> >Corporation to pay back money to the SSHFCand that he appeared before Hon
> >Justice Grant to challenge that order. He said the court dismissed that
> >order on a preliminary objection, "so that order is still valid," he
> >outlined. SoS Joof challenged Ousainou Darboe to satisfy the IEC
> >requirements and the public regarding the order made against him by the
> >commission which is still valid does not result in him being "caught by
the
> >above section of the constitution". "Obviously, if he is disqualified
under
> >section 62, then he is not qualified under section 90 for National
> >Assembly," SoS Joof reasoned.
> >The report of the commission indicated that "it was the unanimous view of
> >the commission that the work could not be seen easy, to have been eagerly
> >pursued since the source of the D30,969 came from public funds, the
> >commission would respectfully order Mr Darboe to refund it to the
> >corporation through the office of the Accountant General within six
weeks".
> >SoS Joof outlined that nomination of candidates requires that every
> >aspiring
> >presidential candidate satisfies and fills a declaration addressed to the
> >IEC to show that they have not been liable for misconduct, negligence,
> >corruption or any improper behaviour by any commission or committee of
> >inquiry. "So it is for Darboe to prove that the order made against him by
> >the commission of inquiry into the activities of the SSFHC does not fall
> >under this section. "He has to satisfy the people and the IEC before he
can
> >be a presidential candidate even though the Brikama rally was talking
about
> >parties choosing him." Commenting on the political parties, SoS Joof
> >disclosed that they are yet to get the final list from the IEC.
> >GPP and NCP said they had registered but it has to be confirmed, PDP says
> >they have no money, but what is more important is for them to register in
> >accordance with the IEC. "Just saying we are back as political parties is
> >not enough. You actually have to register," he said. SoS Joof outlined
that
> >only APRC, PDOIS, NRP and UDP are recognised as registered parties "UDP
> >presidential candidate, Lawyer Darboe is yet to meet some requirements."
> >SoS
> >Joof also said that birth certificates were very important for anybody
> >whose
> >age might be called into question if they wanted to contest. "If they
have
> >no birth certificates, then dental test and other means could be used.
They
> >should be mindful of all these things," he concluded.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >
> >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.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------