Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue Issue No. 59/2004, 26-28 July, 2004 EDITORIAL 45 Million + 260 Million Out of Social Security Funds for a Hotel The President Justifies the Expenditure The Private and Public Sector have capacity to invest. There is no objection for the Public Sector to invest where maximum gain can be made. Infact, if Public Corporations can make huge gains they should be able to pay more dividends to government for public services. The experience of the government with Senegambia Beach Hotel is the failure to earn dividends. How long will it take to recover 305 Million Dalasis investment? What is government’s priority? The groundnut industry has been a problem all these years. Suffice it to sa y 305 Million Dalasis could have enabled the federation of cooperative societies to purchase all the nuts, sell them at one go and recover the sum invested with interest for Social Security. In our view, the government has misplaced its priorities. There are no skeptics as the President claims. There are objective critics whose views the President refuses to acknowledge because of the misplacement of its priorities. Public Corporations should be linked to the goals of food self sufficiency, input substitution and general welfare. Financing the groundnut crop is a greater priority. We are therefore right to accuse the government of not managing the country on the basis of mature policy making which has to speak the language of priorities. Gambians do not even have to wait to see whether the Ocean Bay Hotel will yield profit for Social Security or not. We are hundred percent sure that it will not repay the 305 Millio n Dalasis investment in a year while the buying and selling of groundnuts can yield such huge sums of money in a year. If the government disagrees with this it can write to FOROYAA to explain its position and we will publish it. If they fail to do so then one should know that the President is simply calling genuine critics, detractors because of the lack of sincerity to acknowledge truth when he sees it. Halifa Still on the July 22nd Commemoration FOROYAA: The President’s speech during the celebration at the Stadium did not have any castigation of the opposition but during his address to the Women, he indicated that the Opposition never mentions the good things that the government is doing, What do you have to say to this? Halifa: Of course he vacillates between maturity and mediocrity. A head of state who is cultured in democratic values would constantly bear in mind that he/sh e is a caretaker, a public trustee. He/she would see the office of President to be a public property. One would realise that he/she is just one of those who may be selected by the people to occupy the seat. He/she would accept that any person with the qualification has equal right and duty to seek the mandate of the people if they so desire. Such a person would simply do his/her best and would be ready to engage in a debate with those who claim that his/her best is not good enough for the people. A mature leader would not castigate such people as jealous, envious or as detractors. Hence when the President says that everyone, irrespective of their political view, have a duty to contribute to the development of the country he could be considered to be displaying political maturity. If he accuses those who scrutinize, criticize and restrain his government as detractor and jealous people he should be seen to b e displaying political immaturity. I continue to emphasize that people should not be angered by what the President says. They should rely on it to judge whether he is fit to occupy the highest position of public trust on the land. I am more concerned about the maturity of those who seek to be alternatives to the government. I am confident that if an alternative emerges that displays the highest level of political maturity the President would be isolated if he displays any political immaturity. This is the way forward for the country. FOROYAA: He claims that he can provide better husbands to women who are divorced by the husbands for their support of the APRC? Halifa: This was a meeting organized by women. The President should have been telling them what empowerment of women means; that they had citizenship power and an equal voice to say who will be President, National Assembly Member, Councillor; that they should not accept dictation from any one but should exercise their freedom of choice with maturity. He should have told them to have the maturity that would enable them to inspire their husbands, children and peers to serve the interest of the Nation and elevate the status of women to occupy their rightful places as equal partners in sovereign existence and development with men. Of course, the President is simply interested in transforming women into his political tools rather than liberate them. This is why he would focus on such irrelevant issues on such an important occasion, which took so much money and energy to put together. I am sure all the women had a healthy laugh. In actual fact the words should make them to ask themselves whether the time, money and energy they mustered to the occasion was meant to promote the interest of women or the image of the President. In my view the marriage did not have any io ta of the type of information that could help women to understand themselves, their country and the world so that that can earn the type of confidence that they need to be equal partners in nation building. It is still the political patronage all the way. FOROYAA: How do you see the participation of the people? Halifa: Information is still being received regarding the expenditure and the method of mobilization. I still comment on this to pass judgment on whether there was more popular involvement than inducement and intimidation in the whole exercise of mobilizing the masses. The facts being gathered are interesting. JUDGEMENT ON DUMO SAHO & CO TREASON TRIAL Reports reaching this paper have it that Justice Ahmed Belgore will deliver judgment on the treason trial involving Ebrima Barrow, Modou Dumo Saho and Ebrima Yarbo of GAMTEL, this week. The Trio who where charged alongside Lt. Oma r Darboe, Lt. Lalo Jaiteh and Momodou Marenah have been languishing at the Remand Wing of the Mile II Central Prison since June 2000. They were charge of six counts of treason and arraigned before Justice Wallace Grante, and subsequently arraigned before Justice Ahmed Belgore. Lawyer Ousman Sillah was counsel for Lt. Darboe, Lt. Jaiteh and Ebrima Yarbo. Momodou Marenah was represented by Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, whilst Ba Tambedou and Darboe represented Dumo Saho. Lawyer Mai Fatty later represented Ebrima Barrow who was earlier on represented by Ousman Sillah. The Two Lieutenants were acquitted and discharged by the court after the defence made its address. Momodou Marenah was acquitted and discharged after the defence made a No Case Submission. The court ruled that a prima facie case was established by the prosecution and the accused persons were ordered to put up their defence. The defence later thought it prudent to look at the totality of the evidence before the court. Judgment was scheduled for February 2004. However it was later adjourned indefinitely. AT THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY pThe Debate on the Amendment of the Local Government Act The following is Halifa Sallah’s contribution to the debate on the amendment of the Local Government Act during the last meeting of the National Assembly in March this year which was not published. The hourly and daily occurrences in local government areas and the attitude of central government echoes the relevance of the contribution. In his contribution, Halifa argued that the amendment was intended to give absolute power to the secretary of state for local government to muzzle the councils. Read on. Halifa, in his contribution noted that the confusion of role that the secretary of state referred to is the refusal of government to acknowledge that the Chairp ersons of local government authorities are the political heads of the local government areas, pointing out that the attempt to nullify it in practice is what has led to the total confusion. He argued that instead of handling the problem administratively, they are now using the legal instrument to legitimize the illegitimate, that is, to give the impression that these Mayors and Chairpersons are civil servants under the Secretary of State and the President, who can be toyed with and thrown about at anytime. At this point, Halifa Sallah stated that the Local Government Act, irrespective of its inadequacy, created a clear line of demarcation between the powers of the Councils as local government authorities and the powers of central government. That is why section 20 of the original Act is fundamentally different from section 151. The intentions were different, he emphasised. He argued that the objective of this amendment is to integrate the two and give the Secretary of State absolute power to muzzle the Councils. “That’s the objective!” he stressed. “And the experiment was very clear with Brikama Area Council. The very thing we criticized here is what is being put in an Act now, that is, the Secretary of State having power to close offices, to suspend Chairpersons and then these people have to bow their heads and put their hands around their backs to go to a president to appeal within 30 days. That is the intention! It was established in practice illegally and now it is being legitimized.” At this stage, Halifa now dealt with the section 20 of the original Act. He noted that section 20 subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the original Act creates a mechanism of internal self-control of Councils. He stated that where specifically, members of the Council accuse the Chairperson of any misdeed , they have to stipulate it in a notice and if two-thirds of them accept, they would also have to provide the evidence. He then indicated that this is how a Council should act; that an autonomous Council, seeing that their Chairperson is corrupt or whatever, will take this specific action. He cited subsection (2) of section 20 of the original Act which states that for the purpose of removing the Chairperson for abuse of office, corruption, misconduct or such mental or physical incapacity as would render him or her incapable of discharging the duties of the office, a notice in writing shall be signed by not less than two-thirds of all members of the Council and shall be submitted to the Deputy Chairperson. The notice shall state that they intend to pass a resolution to remove the Chairperson on any of the grounds set out above e.g., corruption, misconduct, etc. It shall also set out, except in the ca se of physical and mental incapacity, the particulars of the charge, supported by necessary documents, where applicable, on which it is claimed that the conduct of the Chairperson be investigated for the purpose of removal. Halifa Sallah now proceeded to the next step stipulated under subsection (3) which was part of the amendment. He quoted this subsection as saying that “the Deputy Chairperson shall within twenty-four hours after receipt of the notice referred to him / her under subsection (2), cause a copy to be submitted to the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and Secretary of State.” He emphasized that it is very clear that the notice will be communicated to the Chairperson, the Chief Justice and the Secretary of State. He now went on to the next step, as provided by subsection (4). It states that, “the Chief Justice shall, within seven days after receipt of the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~