But this is the precise argument Daffeh. If BB asserted his property rights, the PPP could have done the same thing. It matters not whether the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
In
part at least, Schedule 2 conflicts with Chapter IV, more specifically Section 22 of the Constitution on "Protection from deprivation of property". There was clearly an argument to be made in the event the PPP asserted its property rights as there was absolutely no attempt to even casually connect Section 22 to Schedule 2's draconian provisions.
Although Schedule 2 entrenched itself, it was not entrenched by the critical Section 226 of the Constitution that precluded any amendment to Section 22 except via a National Assembly/referendum process. Notwithstanding the purported ouster of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can indeed attempt to reconcile these apparently irreconcilable aspects of the Constitution. This avenue could be triggered by the PPP asserting its property rights over confiscated party offices in Banjul and Brikama. It is not an argument to say this would have been a futile route as we know that one party always loses in judicial disputes. Even if the action was struck out on a motion for summary judgement pursuant to Schedule 2, the proper thing to do for a party in government for upwards of three decades is to be creative in its public arguments after it was booted out.
Whilst we are on Schedule 2, what do you think about the indemnity clause inserted in the Schedule?