The Executive Committee of the United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] has reviewed PDOIS’s Public Notice of 15th August 2010 and noticed that PDOIS didn’t disagree with our position that NADD was designed to be an alliance as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established it. They, in fact, implicitly agreed with us in that respect by way of repeated reference to NADD as an alliance. We therefore consider that aspect of our dispute resolved. The question that now arises is this; can an alliance be registered under our electoral laws for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections? The answer is a definite no. We have explained how Section 60 of the Constitution prohibits any such venture from taking place and therefore do not need to repeat that. We have also explained how NADD came to be registered as a political party. We do not need to repeat that too. People can refer to our Press Release of 31st July 2010 for background information.
PDOIS have stated that the symbols prescribed under article 16 of the MOU, i.e. colour, emblem and motto, are instruments of registration and therefore meant that NADD was supposed to be registered. This argument is untenable. As was previously stated, Article 16 does not stand alone and therefore cannot be interpreted in this way. It forms part of a broad instrument the context of which has been clearly defined and established by the preamble and Article 1 of the MOU as an alliance. By virtue of the restriction exhibited by Section 60 of the Constitution, and in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Hon. Halifa Sallah & Others v. The Clerk of the National Assembly [2005], alliances cannot be registered under our electoral laws for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections. That is why NADD was deemed as a political party when it registered with the Independent Electoral Commission. How Halifa Sallah was able to say ‘‘the registration was a constitutional requirement’’ is beyond imagination. This is what Section 60 states;
‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates in public elections.’’
Halifa also stated that the IEC has powers to make rules for the registration of alliances but did not cite any statutory or constitutional authority to support this. Nonetheless and even if this is the case, any such rules can only take the form of a Bye-law and would become obsolete under Section 4 to the extent of its inconsistency with Section 60 of the constitution. Therefore, this would not have given NADD any legal standing whatsoever, to sponsor candidates in public elections as an alliance. This is what Section 4 states;
‘‘This constitution is the supreme law of the Gambia and any law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.’’
We did not state that Halifa Sallah was in the Gambia when registration papers were being submitted to the IEC. Our position is that this was done by a Halifa Sallah aide with delegated authority from Halifa Sallah. It is therefore a complete gimmick that PDOIS chose to remind us about Halifa’s where about on that faithful day. We do not need to be reminded for we know exactly where he was.
If there was a working veto in NADD, Mr. Hassan Musa Camara, the then Chairman, would not have found the need to personally intervene to stop the registration from going ahead, after being briefed on the legal ramifications by a member party, only to discover that it has already been carried-out. Mr. Lamin Waa Juwara too would not have walked out of NADD after disagreement with Halifa and PDOIS over the decision to leave NADD without a leader for two years.
We Agree with PDOIS
We agree with PDOIS that the exchange of angry invectives between opposition parties and supporters is counter-productive and could lead to voters becoming apathetic. It is for this very reason that no other opposition leader has deemed it necessary or appropriate to respond to Halifa Sallah’s persistent invectives over the NADD debacle. Now that the PDOIS party recognises this as counter-productive, we hope that also means a complete end to this chapter.
UDP-UK now considers this matter close and would from henceforth, make no further comment on this issue subject to the condition that PDOIS too reciprocate this by sticking to their words and never renege on them. That way, we can all turn our focus on the APRC and complement, collaborate or even coalese in the process. This is what the conventional wisdom has asked for.
We once again urge all Gambians and opposition parties in The Gambia to be united and rally behind the main opposition United Democratic Party for a peaceful democratic change in 2011, and together we will not only change a government but a political system. This is not about helping somebody to become an elite but a necessity to rescue The Gambia from her present predicament.
THE END.
Issued by: United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary-General
Monday, 30 August 2010
Friday, 6 August 2010
Justice denied for Femi Peters. The criminal Nigerian Judge
Breaking News: Gambia: FEMI PETERS’S APPEAL DISMISSED!
FEMI PETERS’S APPEAL DISMISSED
APPEAL Denied By Amadi Justice Amadi Invokes Lower Court’s Decision To Justify His Ruling
Reporter Bakary Gibba & Pa Nderry M’Bai
Email: panderrymbai@gmail.com
Tel# 0011-919-749-6319
Opposition members anticipation to have one of their leading officials Femi Peters, freed by the high court in Banjul, were dashed way on Thursday, when presiding judge Justice Emanuel Amadi, dismissed an appeal filed by the leader of the United Democratic Party, and also a veteran human rights lawyer Ousainanou Darboe. Justice Amadi’s decision to throw away the opposition’s appeal—challenging the decision of the lower court to jail its official for one year in prison, sent a shocking waves among family members, and UDP supporters here, the Freedom Newspaper can report.
The verdict marks an end to weeks of legal wrangling, in which the opposition UDP, under the leadership of Ousainanou Numou Kunda Darboe, contested magistrate Kayode’s decision to jail Femi Peters. The UDP in a court deposition contends that the trial magistrate erred in law by jailing peters without giving due regards to the constitution, which the appellants said embraces free assembly and speech. The party’s leadership also advanced numerous arguments to justice the appeal, but high court judge Justice Amadi ruled that the opposition’s grounds of appeal lacks merit. Justice Amadi invoked the decision of the lower court as a basis for his decision to dismiss the appeal. He ruled that Mr. Darboe’s arguments were untenable and consequently dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
An angry looking Lawyer Darboe, hurriedly walked out of court shortly after the verdict was handed—amid a handful of distressed party supporters who showed up in court to register solidarity with their jailed leader. Mr. Darboe uttered no word in court. He left the building with a heavy heart.
Dressed in a black suit, and a white shirt, a confident looking Femi Peters was escorted back to prison by armed paramilitary and prison wardens. Mr. Peters has so far served four months in prison. He was jailed on April 1 by the Kanifing magistrates court.
Femi Peters earlier arrived in court with the jailed former police chief Essa Badjie, and other state detainees, who were put on board a mini prison truck. There is no information yet as to whether he would appeal the decision of the high court. He has 14 days to file an appeal with The Gambia Court of Appeal. If his second appeal bid emerged unsuccessful, Peters could as well file an appeal to the Supreme Court, which his last hope on his quest for legal freedom.
FEMI PETERS’S APPEAL DISMISSED
APPEAL Denied By Amadi Justice Amadi Invokes Lower Court’s Decision To Justify His Ruling
Reporter Bakary Gibba & Pa Nderry M’Bai
Email: panderrymbai@gmail.com
Tel# 0011-919-749-6319
Opposition members anticipation to have one of their leading officials Femi Peters, freed by the high court in Banjul, were dashed way on Thursday, when presiding judge Justice Emanuel Amadi, dismissed an appeal filed by the leader of the United Democratic Party, and also a veteran human rights lawyer Ousainanou Darboe. Justice Amadi’s decision to throw away the opposition’s appeal—challenging the decision of the lower court to jail its official for one year in prison, sent a shocking waves among family members, and UDP supporters here, the Freedom Newspaper can report.
The verdict marks an end to weeks of legal wrangling, in which the opposition UDP, under the leadership of Ousainanou Numou Kunda Darboe, contested magistrate Kayode’s decision to jail Femi Peters. The UDP in a court deposition contends that the trial magistrate erred in law by jailing peters without giving due regards to the constitution, which the appellants said embraces free assembly and speech. The party’s leadership also advanced numerous arguments to justice the appeal, but high court judge Justice Amadi ruled that the opposition’s grounds of appeal lacks merit. Justice Amadi invoked the decision of the lower court as a basis for his decision to dismiss the appeal. He ruled that Mr. Darboe’s arguments were untenable and consequently dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
An angry looking Lawyer Darboe, hurriedly walked out of court shortly after the verdict was handed—amid a handful of distressed party supporters who showed up in court to register solidarity with their jailed leader. Mr. Darboe uttered no word in court. He left the building with a heavy heart.
Dressed in a black suit, and a white shirt, a confident looking Femi Peters was escorted back to prison by armed paramilitary and prison wardens. Mr. Peters has so far served four months in prison. He was jailed on April 1 by the Kanifing magistrates court.
Femi Peters earlier arrived in court with the jailed former police chief Essa Badjie, and other state detainees, who were put on board a mini prison truck. There is no information yet as to whether he would appeal the decision of the high court. He has 14 days to file an appeal with The Gambia Court of Appeal. If his second appeal bid emerged unsuccessful, Peters could as well file an appeal to the Supreme Court, which his last hope on his quest for legal freedom.
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Press Release:- UDP/U.K's Response to Halifa Sallah's Press Statements
On the 26th June 2010, the spokesperson of PDOIS and former flag bearer of the National Alliance for Democracy and
Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently concluded Jarra
Soma Congress, that the registration of NADD as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating that the
registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60 of the Constitution to back his claim. The United
Democratic Party [UK Chapter] dismisses this statement as irresponsible, deceitful and utterly lacking basis. This is a
statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to distort facts and hoodwink the Gambian public on the
subject of what actually led to the collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned into a complete farce. Here
are the facts;
In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established NADD, the signatory parties including
PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as follows;
‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who seek to establish an alliance.......’’
The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article 1 of the same MOU, the establishment of an
alliance called NADD. This is what Article 1 states;
‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development with
the acronym [NADD].’’
All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an
alliance. There is no single reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even by the provisions
which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD
as an alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’
Those of Article 16 are as follows;
‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’
It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as an alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an
incontrovertible fact.
Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then
Two conflicting statement have been advanced by Halifa as to the true status of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the
UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12 of his press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but went on to
claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger. These are contradictory and irreconcilable positions,
and it clearly shows that Halifa was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to what was actually envisaged
by the MOU that established NADD.
The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’ hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase
all together. We have therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of what was envisaged in
NADD’s MOU vis-a- vis the relevant constitutional provisions.
Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a requirement that NADD put up candidates in its
own right and under its own banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit postulation of this
under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks
about symbols. This is what Article 8 states;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be
done by consensus; provided that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary election
restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and
youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’
Article 16 states the following;
‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be determined within one month of the coming into
force of the agreement with the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’
It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form part of a broad instrument, the context of which
has been well defined by the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or can be deduced from
the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the
MOU obsolete or having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and perverse but also
inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble
and Article 1 which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor candidates in its own right and under its own
name in any given election. Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by Halifa, it would still
be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section
60 states;
‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall
sponsor candidates in public elections.’’
Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa
has been making into or purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been enforceable
without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were
promulgated in the context of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while still maintaining
the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent
Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD] could not put up candidates in its own right and
under its own name while still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If Halifa had not arrogantly
rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional
matters, he would have been better advised on this point.
Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It presented them with two options; they
could either re-negotiate the terms of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should they
desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent
parties as a vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential election. Under
Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two
options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states;
‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall be based on the principle of unanimity provided that
matters of procedure shall be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present and voting. In the
event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may agree unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’
As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek a unanimous agreement as to which path to take.
However, since PDOIS has it as an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle to the UDP and
its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to
wittingly register NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory parties, and despite strong
opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the
beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader described it as a ‘disaster’.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might not have been a significant factor in its
disintegration since there was a time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP from the
organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP
leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of
the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors
and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to
the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.
The Supreme Court Judgement
It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the
Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party.
Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned
parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent
sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now case
settled law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court,
not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear
such matters.
This is what Section 127 states;
‘‘The Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for the interpretation or enforcement of this constitution
other than any provision of sections 18-33 or Section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and freedoms.’’
Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no need to show sufficient interest- for ‘‘anybody
who alleges that an Act of the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or omission of any
person or authority is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a
court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’’ Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the
position of the law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either file an appeal at the Supreme
Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing him
arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done sooner rather than later.
Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral Commission had conceived it as such is
utterly frivolous and unintelligent. The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are certainly not the
custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just like anybody else.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are able to sponsor candidates in a public election.
Hence, the IEC could not have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates
in public elections. It follows therefore that the only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the
purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be registered as a political party and be
deemed as such by law. As a matter of a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the
establishment of an alliance, not a political party.
The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful of certain opposition elements who are
hell bent on stoking controversy and division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s politics.
As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to be united and rally behind the main opposition
United Democratic Party under the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011 presidential
election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of duty to our beloved country, the Gambia.
THE END.
Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General
Development [NADD], Mr. Halifa Sallah, in a response to the UDP leader’s statement to the recently concluded Jarra
Soma Congress, that the registration of NADD as a political party was a disaster, issued a press release stating that the
registration was a constitutional requirement. He cited section 60 of the Constitution to back his claim. The United
Democratic Party [UK Chapter] dismisses this statement as irresponsible, deceitful and utterly lacking basis. This is a
statement that hitherto formed part of a desperate attempt to distort facts and hoodwink the Gambian public on the
subject of what actually led to the collapse of NADD the alliance but which has now turned into a complete farce. Here
are the facts;
In the preamble of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] that established NADD, the signatory parties including
PDOIS indicated a clear and expressed will to establish an alliance. The opening words of the preamble are as follows;
‘‘We, the undersigned representatives of opposition political parties who seek to establish an alliance.......’’
The signatory parties further went on to explicitly declare, under Article 1 of the same MOU, the establishment of an
alliance called NADD. This is what Article 1 states;
‘‘An alliance is hereby established. The name of the alliance is National Alliance for Democracy and Development with
the acronym [NADD].’’
All other subsequent provisions of the MOU also went on to either describe or made reference to NADD, explicitly, as an
alliance. There is no single reference to it as a political party or a merger in the entire MOU, not even by the provisions
which Halifa sought to rely on i.e. Articles 8 and 16. In fact, both Articles 8 and 16 have made explicit reference to NADD
as an alliance. The opening words of Article 8 are as follows;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance.........’’
Those of Article 16 are as follows;
‘‘The alliance shall have.......’’
It is therefore explicitly and crystal clear that NADD was established as an alliance. This is beyond questioning as it is an
incontrovertible fact.
Why was NADD Registered as Political Party then
Two conflicting statement have been advanced by Halifa as to the true status of NADD prior to the withdrawals of the
UDP and NRP. In paragraph 12 of his press release, he stated that NADD was established as a party but went on to
claim in paragraph 13 of the same release that NADD is a merger. These are contradictory and irreconcilable positions,
and it clearly shows that Halifa was either being disingenuous or he is totally confused as to what was actually envisaged
by the MOU that established NADD.
The constitution does not speak in the language of an ‘‘umbrella party’’ hence, our decision to avoid using that phrase
all together. We have therefore chosen to focus on setting the records straight in the light of what was envisaged in
NADD’s MOU vis-a- vis the relevant constitutional provisions.
Halifa has posited that by virtue of Articles 8 and 16 of the MOU, it is a requirement that NADD put up candidates in its
own right and under its own banner. However and without prejudice to this claim, there is no explicit postulation of this
under either Article. Article 8 is more concerned with selection process rather than anything else, while Article 16 talks
about symbols. This is what Article 8 states;
‘‘The selection of the candidate of the alliance for the presidential, National Assembly and Council elections shall be
done by consensus; provided that in the event of an impasse section shall be done by holding a primary election
restricted to party delegates on the basis of equal number of delegates, comprising the chairman, chairwoman and
youth leader of each party from each village/ward in a constituency.’’
Article 16 states the following;
‘‘The alliance shall have an emblem, colour, motto and symbol to be determined within one month of the coming into
force of the agreement with the full participation of supporters and sympathizers.’’
It is to be noted that both Articles 8 and 16 do not stand alone but form part of a broad instrument, the context of which
has been well defined by the preamble. It therefore follows that whatever inference is made into or can be deduced from
the wordings of Articles 8 and 16 combined, it cannot be deemed to have somehow rendered the explicit terms of the
MOU obsolete or having taken precedence over them, - that would not only be outlandish and perverse but also
inconceivable- but must be construed in the light of the expressions and explicit declarations made under the preamble
and Article 1 which provide the cornerstones of the MOU that established NADD.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only a political party can sponsor candidates in its own right and under its own
name in any given election. Therefore, even if the status of NADD is that of a merger as posited by Halifa, it would still
be impossible, constitutionally, for it to put up candidates under its own name in any given election. This is what Section
60 states;
‘‘No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant of an Act of the National Assembly, shall
sponsor candidates in public elections.’’
Given that NADD was established, explicitly, as an alliance, the effect of Section 60 also meant that the inference Halifa
has been making into or purportedly deducing from Articles 8 and 16 combined could not have been enforceable
without having to re-write the MOU all together. In other words and given that Articles 8 and 16 provisions were
promulgated in the context of an alliance, NADD could not sponsor candidates under its own name while still maintaining
the status of an alliance. It is therefore not a constitutional requirement that NADD be registered with the Independent
Electoral Commission but rather a constitutional inhibition that it [NADD] could not put up candidates in its own right and
under its own name while still operating within the frame work of the MOU that established it. If Halifa had not arrogantly
rejected UDP’s advice that NADD appoints an independent lawyer to guide and advice the alliance on constitutional
matters, he would have been better advised on this point.
Section 60 of the constitution had undoubtedly posed a challenge to NADD. It presented them with two options; they
could either re-negotiate the terms of the MOU and transform the alliance into a registered political party should they
desire to contest and put up candidates under NADD ticket; or they can leave it as it is and choose one of its constituent
parties as a vanguard under whose name the alliance would sponsor a candidate in the presidential election. Under
Article 10 of the MOU, it would have required the unanimous agreement of all constituent parties for any of the two
options to be adopted. This is what Article 10 states;
‘‘Decision making at all levels of the committees of the alliance shall be based on the principle of unanimity provided that
matters of procedure shall be determined on the basis of simple majority of the delegates present and voting. In the
event of the need to break an impasse the delegates may agree unanimously to make a decision by consensus.’’
As the coordinator of the alliance, it was Halifa’s responsibility to seek a unanimous agreement as to which path to take.
However, since PDOIS has it as an entrenched position right from the onset, not to play a second fiddle to the UDP and
its leader, Halifa decided it was best for him to blatantly circumvent the MOU, and instructed one of his flunkies to
wittingly register NADD as a political party without the unanimous agreement of the signatory parties, and despite strong
opposition from the UDP. This is how NADD was turned into a political party, and it is the turning point that marked the
beginning of the collapse of NADD the alliance. That is why the UDP leader described it as a ‘disaster’.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the registration of NADD might not have been a significant factor in its
disintegration since there was a time lapse between the registration and the withdrawal of the UDP and NRP from the
organisation. This is ludicrous. Shortly after it became clear that NADD was registered as a political party, the UDP
leader informed its executive [NADD’s executive] that he would consider his position within the organisation in the light of
the new development. The decision to withdraw required a process that had to be exhausted with all relevant factors
and issues including subsequent ones, examined before a final decision could be made. Thus, what was of essence to
the UDP was making the right decision, and indeed they have done that and at the right time.
The Supreme Court Judgement
It has long been an established fact that NADD lose parliamentary seats as a result of its registration with the
Independent Electoral Commission which the Supreme Court deemed as amounting to registering a political party.
Hence the Supreme Court’s determination that by virtue of section 91 of the Constitution, the concerned
parliamentarians could not remain members of the National Assembly while belonging to two distinct and independent
sovereign political parties at the same time; their original parties on one hand and NADD the other. This is now case
settled law. However, if Halifa has issues with this, then the best forum for addressing such issues is the Supreme Court,
not the media. Under Section 127 of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court has the jurisdictional competency to hear
such matters.
This is what Section 127 states;
‘‘The Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction for the interpretation or enforcement of this constitution
other than any provision of sections 18-33 or Section 36[5] which relate to fundamental rights and freedoms.’’
Under Section 5 of the Constitution, there is an unrestricted standing-no need to show sufficient interest- for ‘‘anybody
who alleges that an Act of the National Assembly or anything done under its authority, or any act or omission of any
person or authority is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the constitution to bring an action in a
court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration to that effect.’’ Therefore, if Halifa is really interested in clarifying the
position of the law on this issue rather than mere political posturing, he should either file an appeal at the Supreme
Court on behalf of NADD or make a fresh application in his own right and prove his point. We look forward to seeing him
arguing his case in the Supreme Court, and we hope this will be done sooner rather than later.
Halifa’s assertion that NADD is a merger because the Independent Electoral Commission had conceived it as such is
utterly frivolous and unintelligent. The IEC may be entitled to form an opinion of their own but they are certainly not the
custodian of the law. They too are subject to the law just like anybody else.
Under Section 60 of the Constitution, only registered political parties are able to sponsor candidates in a public election.
Hence, the IEC could not have registered NADD as a merger for the purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates
in public elections. It follows therefore that the only way NADD could have made a valid registration with the IEC for the
purpose of contesting and sponsoring candidates in public elections is to be registered as a political party and be
deemed as such by law. As a matter of a point worth reiterating, the MOU that established NADD had envisaged the
establishment of an alliance, not a political party.
The United Democratic Party [UK Chapter] urges every Gambian to be mindful of certain opposition elements who are
hell bent on stoking controversy and division among opposition supporters thereby aiding President Jammeh’s politics.
As the 2011/12 election cycle approaches, we urge all Gambians to be united and rally behind the main opposition
United Democratic Party under the resolute leadership of Alhagi Ousainou Darboe, and face the 2011 presidential
election with determination, unity of purpose and a sense of duty to our beloved country, the Gambia.
THE END.
Issued by: The Executive Committee, United Democratic Party [UK Chapter]
Signed and Delivered by: SS Daffeh, Secretary- General
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
