UDP-U.K Final Remark on the NADD Debate

UDP-UK’s Rejoinder: Let’s draw lesson from NADD and move on to address the demands for democratic change.


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 closed 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