Welcome to the newsletter for The Global Democracy Project. This newsletter will be our way of sharing with you news and activities of The GDP once formed. Meanwhile, we will be glad to publish your articles, stories, ideas. We only advise that it be non-partisan, and trained toward Democracy and its enhancement. For crimes and human rights abuses you wish to report, we refer you to the relevant agencies such as Amnesty International and other law enforcement agency. We hope our association here will prove valuable to you and us and we welcome any suggestions and ideas for improvement you may come across. Please share your ideas and suggestions to haruna@thegdp.org
Thank you.
¤¤¤
——————————————————-
The Judiciary’s Role in Enhancing a Legal System that Guarantees True Justice for all.
Sept. 19th, 2009.
By: Hon. Lamin J. Darbo Esq.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, its attributed author, argued thus:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
Without question, The Federalist, popularly known as The Federalist Papers, presents a compelling case for US federalism, and it remains a vital tool for appreciating the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution that brought such magic to the land called America. Federalist No. 78 remains a masterful presentation of the timeless attributes of a meaningful judiciary. Premised as it is on a true separation of powers – a doctrine rejected in Professorland – our Judiciary is in no position to protect what “political rights are guaranteed” in The 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution).
In so far as it effectively collapsed both Legislative, and Judicial authority in the Executive, the Constitution allocates public power in a rather disturbing manner. When the mechanism of government is perversely designed, what government produces cannot but be perverse. For example, the Constitution permits His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr Yahya Jammeh (the Professor) to fire every single elected APRC member of the National Assembly (NA) if he so wishes. He is only required to expel the elected member from the APRC. The power is actual, not merely theoretical (see section 91(1)(d)), and the President will use it if he felt sufficiently threatened by his party’s parliamentarians. Any such action may trigger a constitutional crisis, and a possible political struggle, but with national power so heavily centralised, the bet should be on the Professor emerging victorious.
On a straight application of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Professor can have no authority to fire a member of the NA. However, we are dealing with explicit Constitutional text, and the authorisation is therefore beyond legal reproach in that it overrides mere arguments on political doctrine. With section 91(1)(d)) as backdrop, it is unlikely that any National Assembly Member would actively pursue a course of action likely to attract the displeasure of the Professor. This reduces the NA to a rubber stamp, making the passage of laws at odds with fundamental Constitutional dictates a mere formality. What is likely to happen to those laws when they lie at the heart of sensitive political disputes for judicial resolution remains the paramount concern of Gambians committed to the rule of law.
Although the landscape is mixed, judicial decisions in political disputes, either at the level of the magistracy, or the higher courts, heavily tilt toward unjust outcomes, a differential application of justice wholly attributable to the enervating political control of the Judiciary. Even where major miscarriages of justice routinely emanate in judicial decisions, there were, and will always be, decisions worthy of a place in the global annals of the finest instances of courage in politically controversial cases. The resolve to terminate the High Court trial of Ousainou Darboe on murder allegations, and at the prosecution phase of the case, was a brave and brilliant decision by the Judge concerned. At the other extreme were the travesties that sent the likes of Lamin Waa Juwara, and Baba Jobe, to prison for an unproven seditious allegation on the one hand, and an essentially civil dispute on the other. More recently, the imprisonment of the GPU Six on alleged sedition, and criminal defamation, underscores the disturbing political control of the Judiciary.
To properly appreciate the institutional impotence of the Judiciary, readers may be interested to know that this supposedly fully one third of our constitutional edifice generates enough funds to pay for its entire operation. The incomprehensible aspect of its destitution, and the Judiciary is destitute, lies in the fact that it has absolutely no meaningful control over either the funds it generate, or its constitutional allocation through the national budgetary process. Every butut it generates must be paid to the Accountant General’s Department, and its payment request for even a packet of duplicating paper must be routed through that unaccountable cashier. Considering the Professor’s staple challenge for his detractors to show him a jurisdiction anywhere in the world with an independent judiciary, there are hardly any surprises in the way our Judiciary continues to be managed.
On the significance of an independent judiciary, I refer again to Hamilton’s perspective in Federalist No. 78:
… though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments …
In Gainako’s locus of temporal operations, and regardless whether a dispute is private, or public, the Judiciary, especially at the federal level, may generally be regarded as a guarantor of “justice for each and every” American. As in Professor land, the nature of public power, especially of the Executive type, lies at the intersection of law and politics, and the balancing act, in some instances, can be quite fine. If, as in The Gambia, there was no rule of law in the United States, the matter of Terri Schiavo (Schiavo), a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, would have been decided differently in light of the manifest inclination of political authority.
Schiavo’s husband went to the Florida State courts to have her feeding tube removed on grounds she would not have liked to live the undignified life called a ‘persistent vegetative state’. Against the strong protestation of Schiavo’s parents that she could recover, a view not supported by prevailing medical opinion, the courts agreed with the husband and ordered the removal of her feeding tube. In defiance, and for the purpose of legislatively staying a Florida State District Judge’s order, and have the feeding tube reinserted, Governor Bush of Florida engineered, and shepherded, what came to be known as “Terri’s Law”, through the Florida Legislature. On a legal challenge, the Florida Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional and had it vacated. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Florida, and Governor Bush, was decisively defeated.
As if the legal position was not adequately amplified at the State level, the monumental machinery of federal political power sprung into action at both legislative and executive levels. Against the backdrop of his right wing social values, then President Bush – the Governor’s elder brother – signed a Congressional bill transferring jurisdiction from the Florida courts, to the federal judiciary, i.e., to a US District Court in Florida. Accepting the thinking of the State courts, the Federal court ruled against reinserting Schiavo’s feeding tube, and on appeal, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Without comment, and for the second time, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the matter, the feeding tube was removed, and Schiavo died within weeks.
In light of the fact that the United States is a secular society, the religious aspects of the matter must be disregarded in favour of principle of the rule of law, and its integral doctrine of the separation of powers. As a justiciable dispute, the Schiavo matter fell within the competence of the courts to hear and decide. In the performance of its constitutionally assigned function, the judiciary, at both levels of the US federal system, withstood the overbearing pressure from state and federal politicians and upheld the law.
As these seminal decisions originated in single judges, the Schiavo case stands as a brilliant confirmation of the proper limitations of accountable public power. Even more poignantly, state and federal politicians graciously accepted defeat and moved on. They fought an intense fight, but when all was over, they embraced the result and implemented the judicial order. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton was prescient when he said that for the system to work, the judiciary “… must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments”.
It is precisely because a Schiavo-type decision is not possible in the Professor’s Gambia that our Judiciary can be in no position to perform its requisite role as a buffer between an over-powerful state, and the feeble citizen. Encouraging as it may be that increasing numbers of Gambians are ascending the higher bench, the fact of ever tighter political control over the Judiciary remains. In an exhaustive 2006 in-country study of conditions in The Gambia, the Human Rights Institute of the London-based the International Bar Association (IBA) paints a gloomy picture of our entire political system. Without prevarication, the IBA was upfront in articulating that its Gambia “mission was prompted by concerns regarding the status of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the ability of the legal profession to exercise its professional duties freely …”
In Under Pressure: a report on the rule of law in the Gambia, the IBA dealt with an issue at the heart of true justice, especially in disputes where the state has a direct political interest. In pertinent part, the IBA highlighted the shortcomings in our judicial system:
Principle 11 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the judiciary provides that the term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and the age of retirement must be specified by law. Principle 12 further specifies that judges, whether appointed or elected, must have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists. Tenure is important as it enables judges to decide cases free from concerns or government influence related to job security. Short term periods of tenure or contract which are subject to renewal, seriously undermine the ability of a judge to decide cases freely by exposing them to the possibility of improper influence from the executive branch. Unless judges have some kind of long-term security of tenure guarantee, there is a serious and real risk that they may be vulnerable to inappropriate influence in their decision-making. This is of particular importance to judges when adjudicating on constitutional or politically sensitive cases. Proper security of tenure is also essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
I merely list some of the other findings of the IBA:
- … in practice many of the government’s actions undermined judicial independence and the rule of law, and its overall attitude to the judiciary was of great concern to the delegation
- there are grave concerns that the appointment of contract judges operates outside the constitutional appointment procedure, and that the role of the Judicial Service Commission in this regard is unclear and limited
- the failure of the government to follow the proper constitutional procedures in relation to the removal of judges … created an atmosphere in which judges are unable to operate freely for fear of having their contracts terminated, or not renewed, if they deliver politically unpopular judgments
- the delegation was concerned at the frequent disregard or delay in compliance with court orders by members of the executive, particularly those which are politically unpopular. It is apparent that the executive has on such occasions considered itself above the rule of law
- the government exhibits hostility and suspicion in its dealings with the legal profession and it was clear to the delegation that the government perceives the profession as an opposition force
- the delegation was concerned to hear reports of mistreatment of detainees, including floggings and prolonged solitary confinement
- the delegation was deeply concerned about the government practice of detaining individuals for long periods of time with charge, without access to family or legal counsel, or without bringing them before a court in order to ensure adequate judicial oversight
- the delegation was also concerned to hear reported comments by the president at the appointment ceremony of Justice Roche and Justice Agim of the High Court and Court of Appeal at which he said: “As long as you maintain the integrity and neutrality of the legal system and apply the laws to the letter, we have no business with you … Where you ruling is not based on any law, you are asking for trouble and I am not threatening anybody, I am talking to the judicial system as a whole”
In the IBA’s findings lies the rationale for activist Gambia’s colourful, if justified language of describing some jurists as mercenary judge. A jurist on short term contract is unlikely to be a positive agent for justice, and virtually all foreign judges are on short contracts of less than three years. As most foreign judges are reluctant to leave The Gambia, the constant potential of that materializing on no notice exercises a ‘sobering’ influence in their judicial deliberations.
Clearly, 2009 conditions are no better that what obtained in the Professor’s Gambia of 2006, and a lack of fidelity to the proper principles of the rule of law remains at the core of reasons informing our national stagnation. As criminal conduct may not be legally punishable absent the requisite criminal mind, I contend that enduring development is different from its material manifestations. Consequently, I accept that the University of The Gambia represents a material manifestation of development. Similarly, I embrace the view that the Kombo Coastal Road network manifests a material element of development. Ditto the Banjul International Airport terminal, and other projects that, in the estimation of the Professor’s ardent fans, makes him the most eminent of builder statesmen in Africa.
Our problem, and it is quite serious, lies in the appalling human rights situation and its attendant “human capital flight”, ‘staples’ of our public life sufficient to place The Gambia light years away from development under any proper appreciation of that term. The argument that our prevailing political and economic circumstances expel critical human capital in great numbers is quite compelling. As the exclusive allocator of national resources, a government hostile to legal transparency and accountability must necessarily foster corruption and concomitantly persecute the non-conforming political activist. It is not obvious that many a principled person would readily embrace a self-cannibalising socio-political system. Without institutions to nurture and underpin professionalism in public life, no enduring development is possible as unavoidable macro-level failure negatively and directly affects micro-level activity.
In the absence of independent public institutions, there is little opportunity for civil society organisations to play any meaningful and positively enduring role in public life. I simply highlight the gruesome death of Finance Minister Ousman Koro Ceesay, of the April 10-11 student killings, and of the shooting death of Deyda Hydara. In none of these cases was an acceptable investigation conducted. How about the firebombing and extra-judicial closure of the Independent newspaper, of the disappearance of Chief Manneh, the unlawful incarceration of the GPU Six, and the generally hazardous climate for political opponents, real or perceived? These, and numerous other tragedies, exemplified the height of impunity in our public landscape. The unmistakable message is that Gambians should concern themselves only with the Professor’s “essential human rights”, or pursue the enjoyment of real fundamental freedoms and pay a heavy personal price, a message that exercises a decidedly chilling effect on civil society, including the legal profession, the media, trade unions, and other non-governmental organisations.
On current realities, our ‘judicial system’ is in no position to “enhance an independent justice system that guarantees true justice for each and every Gambian”. Ours is fundamentally a political struggle, and until we can institute a government for all Gambians, we remain within striking distance of state collapse and civil chaos. As recognised by the United Nations in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, … human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. Words for the Professor to ponder!
As for those who counsel that we pursue the perpetrators of atrocities instead of the Professor, I suggest they work extra hard to gain a proper handle on the locus of our national tragedy. No Gambian security officer will come near the editorial team of GON without “orders from above”!
I recommend Federalist No. 78 for all of political Gambia.
¤¤¤
—————————————————–
SEDITION: The Magistrates Courts and the unlawful assault on protected expression in The Gambia.
25 Jun 2009
———————————————————————————————————————
By Lamin J Darbo
As if to argue that His Excellency, Sheikh Professor Alhaji Dr Yahya Jammeh (the Professor) is entitled to some leeway in governmental lawlessness, they interpose the physical symbols of development -2 coastal roads, GRTS, Airport, the University – to excuse the persistent human rights violations long a fixture on the Gambian public landscape. Ordinary Gambians travel this road, and so do non-Gambians who frequent the online community to irritate the advocates of public accountability under the rule of law. In the latter cases, we are dealing more with indifference to suffering rooted in ignorance on the one hand, and fantasy on the other. As irritating as this category of ostensible supporter, they are thankfully in no position to do actual harm to the Professor’s political critics.
The same cannot be said of the judicial arbiters of baseless political prosecutions fast becoming the key fare in the country’s Magistrates Courts. With the focus on controlling speech unflattering of the Professor and his government, no area in a politicised landscape of criminal litigation is more critical than the newly discovered, all-encompassing offence of sedition. Over the past two years, Gambian citizens, residents, and tourists were prosecuted and convicted for alleged sedition offences, even though, in light of the controlling law, none of the allegations were proved to the requisite criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is sedition, and what conduct is legitimately considered seditious, and therefore properly liable to criminal prosecution and sanctions?
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th edn., Oxford University Press, 2006), sedition is:
The speaking or writing of words that are likely to incite ordinary people to public disorder or insurrection. Sedition is a common law offence (known as seditious libel if the words are written) if it is committed with the intention of (1) arousing hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the sovereign or her successors (but not the monarchy as such), the government of the UK, or either House of Parliament or the administration of justice; (2) encouraging any change of the law by unlawful means; or (3) raising discontent among Her Majesty’s subjects or promoting ill-will and hostility between different classes of subjects. There must be an intention to achieve these consequences by violence and disorder (emphasis added)
Although the foregoing is a UK-focused definition, the crux of any sedition offence in jurisdictions faithful to democratic accountability and the rule of law must remain utterances advocating the forceful overthrow of government. And there must be immediate danger of this outcome occurring. Sedition law in New Zealand mirrors the UK standard, and so does the law and jurisprudence in Canada, where a requisite element of pertinent legislation centres on the employment of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change.
For a more incisive understanding of the jurisprudence of sedition as a dispute between government and its opponents, the preeminent common law jurisdiction offering the greatest enlightenment is the federal judiciary of the United States of America. In this jurisdiction, Government is up against the formidable barrier of the First Amendment to the effect that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Notwithstanding a command couched in the imperative, there was never a serious suggestion that constitutional literalism is conclusive on a plausible interpretation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Accepting that speech may be proscribed under appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court (the Court) held in Schenck v. United States that “The question in every case is whether the words esp0used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Elaborating on his understanding of the clear and present danger test, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (Justice Holmes), author of the Schenck decision, but a dissenter from the majority application of that opinion in Abrams v. United States, argued for the leg itimate proscription of speech only where it is productive of, or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that will bring about certain substantive evils that the United States may seek to prevent”. In other words, speech may only be excluded from protection where it threatened immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law”.
In the Court’s voluminous First Amendment jurisprudence touching on sedition, the clear and present danger test went through different formulations since its initial articulation by Justice Holmes in 1919. With its decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court appears to have embraced the immediacy test first enunciated in Abrams when it held that no state may “forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force except where such advocacy is directed to producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
For our purposes, it suffices that the common law world’s most prestigious jurisdictions underscores the need for advocating a violent overthrow of government before speech may be proscribed on seditious grounds. With that legal principle as backdrop and central element of sedition-related offences, is it even remotely arguable that the leadership of the Gambia Press Union (GPU) were engaged in seditious activity when it issued a press release disputing the Professor’s version of Deyda Hydara’s murder? Was Halifa Sallah properly accused of sedition when he embarked on a fact finding mission to challenge, in the words of the amended charges against him, the government policy of screening witches? Were the Fultons, and Fatou Jaw Manneh, properly charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced of seditious allegations? In all of these instances, the answer must be an emphatic no.
Under the common law, sedition is only provable where there is an intention to achieve a change of government through violence and disorder, and this strongly suggests that a mere allegation of seditious intent by the State is not dispositive of the substantive allegation of sedition. Even if the alleged expressions at issue in all the cases are conceded as having occurred, the question for a presiding Magistrate must be the character that takes speech out of the realm of legitimate public debate into the arena of agitation for an immediate, violent overthrow of the Professor’s government? On the foregoing definition, and jurisprudential discussion – and they must be seen as underscoring the proper doctrinal understanding of sedition even in The Gambia – the an swer has to be negative. It is vital to note that the inferior nature of the Criminal Code makes it a clearly subordinate law to the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution). Let us examine what the Constitution, with all its tragic flaws regarding the allocation of national power to the constituent branches of our Government, says about the type of speech at issue in all the sedition cases so far alleged, and, or, prosecuted, before magistrates in The Gambia.
Chapter IV of the Constitution deals with the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, with Section 17 stating thus:
(1) The fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected and upheld by all organs of the Executive and its agencies, the Legislature and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in The Gambia, and shall be enforceable by the Courts in accordance with the Constitution.
(2) Every person in The Gambia, whatever his or her race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, shall be entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual contained in this Chapter, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest (emphasis added).
According to Section 25(1)(a) of the Constitution, every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media. I merely note that Section 25(4), quoted in italics below, attempts to claw back the rights explicitly granted in 25(1) and (2):
The freedoms referred to in subsections (1) and (2) shall be exercised subject to the law of The Gambia in so far as that law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms thereby conferred, which are necessary in a democratic society and are required in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of The Gambia, natio nal security, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court.
Suffice to say that “the fundamental freedoms, even if theoretically, are entrenched, and are therefore derogable only in an emergency, and expressly via an Act of the National Assembly (NA) (see Section 35(1) of the Constitution). If such a power is invoked by the NA, Section 35(2) appears to authorise the reasonable, if temporary, suspension of Chapter IV rights:
Nothing contained in or done under the authority of such an Act shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of sections 19, 23, 24 (other than subsections (5) to (8) thereof) or 25 of the Constitution to the extent that it is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances arising or existing during a period of public emergency for the purpose of dealing with the situation
On the facts of all sedition allegations, and, or prosecutions that came before Magistrates in the Gambia, the highlighted portion of Section 17 (2) of the Constitution is not engaged. Neither are sections 25(4), and 35 (1) and (2), as quoted above. Even though the Fultons were engaged in harmless gossip not deserving of serious attention from the ultimate custodian of executive power, Fatou Jaw Manneh’s alleged newspaper interview, and views therein expressed, must be regarded as mere opinion, clearly in the public interest in furtherance of democratic conversation, and unquestionably protected by the Constitution. The interview was not widely disseminated as no mass media distributed its content to the wider Gambian population, but even if it were, no reasonable person could construe its purpose as agitating for immediate violence and disorder against the Professor’s government. Of more practical significance, it provoked no acts of public disorder, and exhibited no discernible intention to achieve any outcome through violence and disorder.
As to the staple allegation of causing fear and alarm in public, the prosecution evidence consistently falls below the requisite standard for sustaining that particular charge in all so-called sedition prosecutions. It is, for example, laughable that a tourist complaining about high transport fares, and allegedly sourcing that responsibility in the Professor, should be regarded as causing fear and alarm in public. In this string of cases, all convictions, and sentences, were unsafe, unlawful even, as no law was violated in the absence of any situation, actual or potential, remotely approximating a public emergency in the country. These sedition prosecutions represented unreasonable and unlawful restrictions on 25(1) in so far as the Constitution, even if in theory only, remains the supreme law of the country.
As for the allegation that Halifa’s fact finding mission challenging the government policy of screening witches constituted seditious activity, the simple retort is that he was merely respondin g to an issue placed in the streams of public life and discourse by the Professor. Ditto the GPU’s response to the version of events advanced by the Professor on the gratuitous murder of Deyda. Leaving aside the substantive issues underlying these very public disputes, what was said, and, or done on either occasion could not, in law, possibly amount to sedition, or seditious conspiracy.
The magistrates who suffered the misfortune of presiding over the concluded sedition cases demonstrated serious deficiencies in their grasp of the broad doctrinal principles of public expression in a democratic society, not to mention the intricate, if compromised architecture of protected speech under Gambian law. This conclusion is unavoidable when magistrates, in renderi ng convictions, openly advanced, as justification for their unlawful decisions, misconceived contentions that the Professor has brought a lot of development, and that those who hold contrary views are properly accused of sedition. I am willing to concede that the coastal roads, GRTS, the new Airport building, the University, and other infrastructural projects, represent external manifestations of development, but they may not be interposed as justifications for placing the Professor and his government beyond criticism, and as a basis for convicting defendants, unlawfully before them, on manufactured sedition allegations.
Clearly, freedom of speech and expression must be seen as entrenched Constitutional clauses, even if theoretically, and as such, may not be capable of control by inferior legislation in the Criminal Code. There is no question that the current utilisation of sedition law strikes at the heart of constitutional protection of expression, and it is impermissible to decide that conflict in favour of inferior legislation. This is not to argue that even in the high threshold realm of public life and affairs, speech and expression should always be completely unfettered in The Gambia. Under appropriate circumstances, it is not inconceivable for the claw back provisions to be legitimately invoked, but none of the seditious allegations, prospective prosecutions, and, or, convictions over the past two years are defensible in law.
As the jurisprudence on sedition emanating from the magistrates courts is completely unedifying, it is about time the insidious legislation at the heart of such consistent judicial chicanery is fully tested for constitutional compatibility at the High Court, and beyond, if necessary. I take the view that the higher judiciary must not remain largely untested on issues pertaining expression if only because we must have a proper perspective on the judi cial philosophy of current judges vis-Ã -vis socio-political questions touching on human rights. As expression is likely to remain a contentious area of public life even in a post-Professor Gambia, the need to develop our jurisprudence in this area cannot be overemphasised.
With Halifa, and the GPU in the frame over the government policy of screening witches, and the rejoinder on Deyda respectively, a High Court date on sedition is looking ever more likely. Then again, the cases may never fully come to court as the decision to proceed resides in the exclusive domain of the prosecuting authority, and for such high profile defendants, we are talking the Professor himself. With intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic and other pressure likely to provide an escape route in these cases of d angerous overreach by the Professor, a court date is looking ever more unlikely, official bluff notwithstanding. In the event the appellate system is ultimately engaged in these pending sedition matters, I encourage the Gambia Bar Association, and individual lawyers who feel able, to consider filing amicus briefs for the appellants after securing the requisite High Court permission.
For what it is worth, the Professor is advised that The Gambia under his stewardship is getting progressively heavier for its foundations, and the uncertainty attendant to this state of affairs should alarm any right thinking person.
Africans in the Diaspora: Development Partnerships
By: Dr. Chinua Akukwe
May 26, 2009 Source: http://www.worldpress.org
In an earlier article, I indicated that President Barack Obama has an opportunity to make Africans in the Diaspora a lynchpin of United States policy in Africa. This scenario is applicable to other Western countries with Africa Diaspora populations as well. Africans in the Diaspora continue to have deep interest in Africa’s development and have directed their time, resources and expertise toward development priorities in Africa. A hallmark of this support and interest, however, is that the impact of assistance is often small-scale, incapable of reaching the vast majority of target populations in need. In this article, I discuss how best to scale up the participation of Africans in the Diaspora in Africa’s development in four key areas: targeted technical assistance, financial investments in worthy business ventures, use of existing bilateral development structures and the potential role for Africans in the Diaspora to help address the extensive infrastructure woes in Africa.
Impact of Africans in the Diaspora on Africa’s Development
Africans in the Diaspora are important stakeholders in Africa’s development. According to the World Bank, in 2008 they sent remittances of about $20 billion to Sub-Sahara Africa. Despite the current economic downturn, a recent analysis by World Bank experts estimates that remittance flows to Africa will dip only slightly to $19 billion in 2009. The African Development Bank, combining remittances sent back to North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, estimates that Africa receives $32 billion a year from Africans in the Diaspora. These estimates represent official channel figures. It does not account for the vast flow of remittances sent back to Africa through unofficial channels. For example, the Central Bank of Nigeria, taking into consideration official and unofficial remittances, estimated that between January and June 2007, Nigerians in the Diaspora sent to Nigeria a sum of $8 billion.
The World Bank estimates that the so-called “voluntary” African Immigrant Diaspora that left Africa after the end of World War II numbers at least 4 million in the West. The population of “voluntary” African Diaspora in the United States is nearly 1.4 million, according to latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. In the United States and Canada, significant proportions of this community have college degrees, own their own homes and hold down professional jobs.
The “involuntary” members of the Diaspora, who live in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, Brazil and other Latin American countries, represent those whose ancestors left Africa against their will more than three centuries ago. The United States Census Bureau estimated in 2008 that 41.1 million individuals identified themselves as Blacks. Of that Black population, at least 39 million identified themselves as African Americans. African Americans represent about 13 percent of U.S. population and are projected to have a combined “purchasing power” of more than $1 trillion by 2012. Thousands of African Americans practice as physicians, lawyers, pharmacists, psychologists, nurses, journalists, engineers, public officials and accountants, and many own businesses and investment firms.
African American politicians and advocacy organizations have played important roles in galvanizing the U.S. government to address specific policy issues in Africa. The Congressional Black Caucus (C.B.C.), African American churches and civil society organizations played immeasurable roles in U.S. governmental decisions to support majority rule in South Africa. They played significant roles in the passage of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (A.G.O.A.) to improve access to U.S. markets for textile and other goods produced by African-based partners. The C.B.C. made important contributions in the U.S. government response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, the Darfur crisis and the Congo Kinshasa conflict. Today, the C.B.C. continues to help shape U.S. policy towards Africa. This scenario applies to Africa Diaspora members of parliament in the United Kingdom and Canada.
Africa Diaspora members from the Caribbean remain proud of their African heritage and are stalwart members of South-South meetings and collaboration. Their governments work closely with African governments in the United Nations and other multilateral agencies. Brazil, the economic powerhouse of Latin America, has a sizeable African Diaspora population (more than 90 million, the largest concentration of Africans in the Diaspora in one country) and recognizes political and economic relationships with Africa as a cornerstone of its foreign policy. Africa Diaspora immigrant groups, through remittances, support relatives and communities in their native countries to pay for school fees, health care and small-scale community-based infrastructure initiatives. The African Development Bank estimates that official remittances represent between 9 and 14 percent of the G.D.P. of receiving countries. In some countries, official remittances represent between 80 and 750 percent of Official Development Assistance. Africans in the Diaspora send money to support entrepreneurial activities of relatives and friends in Africa. They also help address governance issues in their native countries and help push for political and economic reforms.
How to Scale Up the Participation of Africans in the Diaspora
The effort to scale up the participation of Africans in the Diaspora in Africa’s development requires strategic implementation to have an impact on the ground in Africa. In addition to scaling up the impact of individual Africa Diaspora assistance to relatives and personal projects in Africa, it is necessary to create platforms and implementation vehicles for large-scale intervention in Africa’s development. This can be facilitated with the following objectives:
A) Strengthening technical assistance to Africa by Africans in the Diaspora;
B) Creating structured, transparent platforms to invest financially in viable business ventures in Africa;
C) Utilizing existing bilateral operational frameworks between Africa Diaspora countries and African countries to jumpstart active participation;
D) Establishing credible infrastructure joint venture projects between Africans in the Diaspora and African partners to help address the monumental infrastructure woes in Africa.
To undertake these first two objectives, I propose the creation of the Africa Diaspora Technical and Investment Fund (A.D.T.I.) to organize, mobilize, structure and implement a combined technical assistance and investment program by Africans in the Diaspora in Africa. The A.D.T.I. would have the major task of linking technical expertise amongst Africans in the Diaspora to technical need in specific geographical locations. In addition, A.D.T.I. would link Africans with verifiable investment interests and resources to investment opportunities in African Diaspora countries and institutions.
The A.D.T.I. would operate two separate continental initiatives, namely The Africa Diaspora Technical Assistance Initiative and the Africa Diaspora Africa Investment Initiative.
The Africa Diaspora Technical Assistance Initiative (A.D.T.A.) would have an emphasis on major development needs in the continent, focusing on mobilizing Africa Diaspora expertise to work in Africa. This mobilization would assist African countries as they attempt to meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (M.D.G.). The eight MDG include the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a global partnership for development. A recent report by the African Development Bank indicates that none of the Sub-Saharan African countries is on track to meet all the MDGs by 2015. To make progress on the MDGs, multi-sectoral teams of African Diaspora experts will be needed on a regular basis to work in Africa, singly or in teams. For Africans in the Diaspora thinking of moving permanently to Africa, the A.D.T.A. should be positioned to provide assistance. It should also assist Diaspora experts wishing to contribute through “virtual” technical assistance by using Internet, video conferencing and other information technology media. A.D.T.A. can organize for experts to train African based professionals that can in turn serve as trainers to hundreds and thousands of other Africa-based professionals.
In addition to the M.D.G., A.D.T.A. can link expertise to conflict resolution initiatives, agricultural green revolution projects, public administration reforms, expansion of micro credit facilities and can assist the African Union and African countries to meet their technical obligations regarding the implementation of the Africa Health Strategy 2007-2015. Whatever African partners identify as priorities, the A.D.T.A. should be in a position to respond.
The Africa Diaspora Africa Investment Initiative (A.D.A.I.), the second prong of the A.D.T.I., would focus on individual and group investment in Africa. Remittances, already a powerful source of capital in many African countries, can become even more pivotal through the potential catalytic role of A.D.A.I., which would convert individual remittances into powerful instruments of development. It would address the following issues related to remittances:
1) Reducing the cost of individual remittances to Africa. World Bank and African Development Bank experts estimate that reducing the cost of sending money back to Africa can make available an additional $1-3 billion a year to relatives in the continent;
2) Creating an environment through regulatory and banking reforms in Africa to channel more of individual remittances toward investment and self-sustaining purposes;
3) Working with African governments and institutions to issue Africa Diaspora Investment Bonds. World Bank experts estimate that African countries can raise $5-10 billion through this process. Similar programs in Latin America provide instruction.
4) Exploring and implementing transparent, verifiable ways of leveraging and securitizing anticipated future remittances to finance private sector investments. Experts prior to the global meltdown in October 2008 predicted that African countries could have access to $17 billion a year through this process. With the part that derivatives played in the current global meltdown, this strategy will attract close scrutiny.
To spur significant financial investments by Africans in the Diaspora in viable business ventures in Africa, the A.D.A.I. would additionally focus on implementation of Information, Education and Communication (I.E.C.) programs, which should be a serious effort to inform Africans in the Diaspora on available investment portfolios and attendant risks. In this way the I.E.C. would showcase investment opportunities in Diaspora countries, promoting viable business networks on both sides of the Atlantic and in Europe. Significant levels of coordinated activities would be needed on banking, credit and lending frameworks. Additional work would be needed to expand opportunities for African producers of raw and semi-processed goods to have enhanced access to Diaspora country markets. The U.S. Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (A.G.O.A.) is a case in point. As noted by Jonnie Carson, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa during his recent Senate confirmation hearing, the reform of A.G.O.A. is necessary to permit the importation of high-value agricultural goods into the United States from Africa.
Operational and Implementation Issues
To become a reality, the proposed A.D.T.I. would need to obtain credible, action-oriented political support at the executive and legislative branches of government in Diaspora countries and in Africa. Support from the African Union, G-8 nations, G-20 nations and multilateral agencies would also be essential to the Fund becoming operational. The African Union and G-8 nations would have the opportunity to support the A.D.T.I. at their annual meetings in July. The 2009 meetings of the G-20 nations, the European Union, the U.N. General Assembly and the World Bank would all provide forums for stakeholders to hold meetings and consultations on A.D.T.I.
With political support in place, the next step would be to put together a small task force of experts and key stakeholders to plan the launch and operations of A.D.T.I. The small task force with commensurate financial support would bring together experts to address critical issues, including how to overcome potential legal and political obstacles; structure the Fund’s governance and operations; finance its activities; ensure transparency and oversight; and establish a timeline for commencement of operations. With necessary commitment and political support, the A.D.T.I. could become operational by the later part of 2010.
The readily available model for moving forward is the public/private/civil society process that led to the creation of the Geneva-based Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (The Global Fund). The organizational model and operations of the Global Fund provide guidance on collaborative relationships between governments, the organized private sector, multilateral agencies, professional bodies, civil society organizations and target populations.
In the forthcoming second part of this article, I will discuss how to utilize existing bilateral relationships between Africa Diaspora countries, especially in the West, and African countries to jumpstart the active participation in Africa’s development. I will also discuss how Africans in the Diaspora in partnership with African policymakers can play a significant role in addressing, in the short and long term, the extensive infrastructure woes of African countries.
Dr. Akukwe is an adjunct professor of Global Health as well as an adjunct professor of Preventive and Community Health at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Healthcare Sciences, Washington, DC. He is also the Chairman of the Technical Advisory Board of the Africa Center for Health and Human Security, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC. In September 2008, Dr. Akukwe was appointed the Executive Chairman of the Africa Union Africa Diaspora Health Initiative, a continent-wide program focusing on linking Africa Diaspora health experts with specific health needs and in specific geographical locations in Africa.
Going green at SOS Children’s Village Nairobi
SOS Children’s Village Nairobi was constructed 35 years ago on bush land donated by the Kenyan government. Since then, a whole suburb has sprung up around the village and little recreational space remains. The village is now doing its bit to keep its compound green.
SOS Children’s Village Nairobi was constructed 35 years ago on bush land donated by the Kenyan government. Since then, a whole suburb has sprung up around the village and little recreational space remains. The village is now doing its bit to keep its compound green. |
 |
| Landscaping the SOS Children’s Village Nairobi compound |
In SOS Children’s Village Nairobi, the waste water does not necessarily go to waste. Instead, it is treated and recycled in a water treatment plant and is then used to irrigate the vegetable plots and the landscape of the village compound. This helps to keep the compound green, especially in the dry season when rain is rare. It has also attracted income for the village because the lush gardens are sometimes used for formal wedding photographs. Green landscapes are rare in Buru Buru, where the village is located, and young couples visit the village gardens after the formal ceremony in order to use the backdrop in photographs that will be kept for generations.
 |
| The first stage of water treatment |
Interesting to know is the fact that no purification agents are added to the water throughout the treatment process, but the plant that is grown on the surface of the water, known as “Water Cabbage” serves two very important roles: as a purifying plant and a mosquito repellent.
Spinach grows well in SOS Children's Village Nairobi
Although SOS Children’s Village Nairobi has always had a small area where vegetables are grown, this project took on a new lease of life in March 2007, when the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock held its agriculture field day in the village. Throughout the day, different organisations had the opportunity to display their products and as a result, a seed company donated some of its seeds to the village. This had the effect of teaching the young people from the village about different seed varieties, about soil content and seed suitability and helped to significantly improve the farm produce. Since the project is meant to generate some income, the produce is sold to family houses and members of staff.
Vegetable income buys a pig
From the income produced from the
- A young man from the Village tends to the rabbits
vegetables, the village was able to purchase a pig, known to all as “Korogocho Queen”, and a kind farmer from Ruai (just outside Nairobi) donated another, known as “Ruai Queen”. The pig project has been a real success and there are currently five adult pigs and 26 piglets. When a pig is slaughtered the meat is served to the whole village, while any remaining is sold to staff and, after that, to the neighbouring community.
In addition to the pig project are two more successful breeding projects: chickens and rabbits, both of which are used as meat for the village. While the poultry project started with 300 chicks, the rabbit project started with just two rabbits that had been donated, which true to their reputation, have significantly increased in numbers. Looked after by Patrick Mungai, the rabbits, chickens and pigs are not only sources of meat and income but are learning tools for the village children and young people who show an interest in farming.
Replacing trees and collecting water
- A young man from the Village tends to the rabbits
vegetables, the village was able to purchase a pig, known to all as “Korogocho Queen”, and a kind farmer from Ruai (just outside Nairobi) donated another, known as “Ruai Queen”. The pig project has been a real success and there are currently five adult pigs and 26 piglets. When a pig is slaughtered the meat is served to the whole village, while any remaining is sold to staff and, after that, to the neighbouring community.
 |
| Lush gardens |
Finally, in a country whose forests are being depleted at an alarming rate, SOS Children’s Village Nairobi has partnered with the Kenya Forest Service and planted 700 seedlings of different varieties in the village compound near the football pitch and next to the neighbouring Nairobi River. Five varieties were planted, three of which are indigenous. The other two – cypress and eucalyptus – will be cut and used for timber and charcoal when fully grown, and more will be replanted. The indigenous trees will not be cut down and will multiply through seed dispersal, acting as a water catchment area, and preventing erosion and the build-up of silt in the Nairobi River. Meanwhile the village children will enjoy the shade that the trees provide, especially when they have picnics.
In a world where climate change, urbanisation and population explosions are having serious detrimental effects, SOS Children’s Village Nairobi is doing its bit to halt this decline. At the same time, the eco-system that uses ‘grey’ water from the village to grow vegetables, feed animals, create pond life and keep the village green is also benefiting the children, mothers and co-workers and surrounding community, allowing them, in an overcrowded environment, to experience a better quality of life.
A tried and tested approach to
Sustainable Development. The way it is supposed to be done.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/FP2P/FP2P_Ethiopia_ABCD_project_CS_ENGLISH.pdf
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/FP2P/FP2P_Ethiopia_ABCD_project_CS_FRENCH.pdf
Speech to the Third Congress of Kombo Sillah Association,
City of Bristol, the United Kingdom
June 21st, 2008.
Hon. Lamin J. Darbo
Former Magistrate of Gambia
Member of the UK Bar – Lincoln’s Inn
Topic: Education, Development, and Public Life in The Gambia
Mr President, the Executive Committee, the general membership of Kombo Sillah Association–United Kingdom (“KSA-UK”), distinguished guests. Even as I confess some bewilderment at the factors underlying my invitation to Congress 2008 as chief guest of honour, I am nevertheless thrilled to be in Bristol with Dabananians and their friends from far and near. Many a compatriot not physically able to attend this gathering may nevertheless be present with us in spirit. In any case, I convey my profound thanks to KSA-UK. I also wish to welcome, and thank the international attendees in the persons of Mr Alhaji Ebrahim Mbowe, a retired Gambian educationist, Mr Buba Barrow from Germany, and our man in Helsinki, Mr Bob Touray.
Aware that those present in this hall are from diverse backgrounds, my fundamental challenge as keynote speaker is to identify an overarching theme that touch on issues of common concern to Gambians wherever they may be. When I consulted my friend and confidant out of Atlanta for suitable ideas to include in today’s discourse, he suggested that ‘education’ and its relationship to ‘development’ recommend itself as a good sub-thesis. As a man of great intellect and strong convictions, Lamin O offered intriguing suggestions that arguably went beyond the narrow construct of ‘education’, and touched on its critical linkage to ‘development’. With educationists in this KSA-UK convocation, I am glad not to have overreached my competence by discussing full-scale educational reform in The Gambia, as suggested by our able Dabananian in Atlanta.
Other topical issues, as gleaned from Gambian online outlets, relate to matters of discrimination in public life, the boundaries of appropriate participation in a national economy inextricably linked to political affiliation, and the requisite role of our fellow nationals who literally inhabit the eye of the storm by virtue of their residence within the sovereign territory of The Gambia. What I propose for today is to investigate the intersection of these issues with the so far elusive pursuit of enduring development in our national context.
Before foraying into the issues outlined above, I digress to remind ourselves of key first principles as guests in different European countries. With few exceptions, virtually all adults present in this hall are Diaspora Gambians, that is, Gambians living in countries different from their nation of birth. We are constantly reminded of this in the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom (UK). Except for those with settled status, even children born to us in the UK are legally considered as having exclusive Gambian nationality. Whatever view is taken of the propriety of such a nationality regime, it is the current state of the law. Its implications suggest that we must do our utmost to operate within the confines of UK law, as even a minor infringement of a criminal statute may trigger catastrophic consequences. For anyone with a status short of citizenship, the overriding challenge is to restrain potentially self-destructive conduct, especially in our dealings with others.
And for KSA-UK as a group, an obligation to promote social cohesion is essential if the organisation is to successfully tap into public funds and maintain charitable status once finally granted by the Charity Commissioners.
I now return to matters outlined above.
On the issue of ‘education’, Lamin O argued that “economists theorized that it is the human resources of a nation, not its capital or material resources that ultimately determine the character and pace of (economic & social) development”. He went on to support his summation with the postulation of the “the late Professor Frederick Harbison of Princeton University” that:
A tried and tested approach to
Sustainable Development. The way it is supposed to be done.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/FP2P/FP2P_Ethiopia_ABCD_project_CS_ENGLISH.pdf
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/FP2P/FP2P_Ethiopia_ABCD_project_CS_FRENCH.pdf
Speech to the Third Congress of Kombo Sillah Association,
City of Bristol, the United Kingdom
June 21st, 2008.
Hon. Lamin J. Darbo
Former Magistrate of Gambia
Member of the UK Bar – Lincoln’s Inn
Topic: Education, Development, and Public Life in The Gambia
Mr President, the Executive Committee, the general membership of Kombo Sillah Association–United Kingdom (“KSA-UK”), distinguished guests. Even as I confess some bewilderment at the factors underlying my invitation to Congress 2008 as chief guest of honour, I am nevertheless thrilled to be in Bristol with Dabananians and their friends from far and near. Many a compatriot not physically able to attend this gathering may nevertheless be present with us in spirit. In any case, I convey my profound thanks to KSA-UK. I also wish to welcome, and thank the international attendees in the persons of Mr Alhaji Ebrahim Mbowe, a retired Gambian educationist, Mr Buba Barrow from Germany, and our man in Helsinki, Mr Bob Touray.
Aware that those present in this hall are from diverse backgrounds, my fundamental challenge as keynote speaker is to identify an overarching theme that touch on issues of common concern to Gambians wherever they may be. When I consulted my friend and confidant out of Atlanta for suitable ideas to include in today’s discourse, he suggested that ‘education’ and its relationship to ‘development’ recommend itself as a good sub-thesis. As a man of great intellect and strong convictions, Lamin O offered intriguing suggestions that arguably went beyond the narrow construct of ‘education’, and touched on its critical linkage to ‘development’. With educationists in this KSA-UK convocation, I am glad not to have overreached my competence by discussing full-scale educational reform in The Gambia, as suggested by our able Dabananian in Atlanta.
Other topical issues, as gleaned from Gambian online outlets, relate to matters of discrimination in public life, the boundaries of appropriate participation in a national economy inextricably linked to political affiliation, and the requisite role of our fellow nationals who literally inhabit the eye of the storm by virtue of their residence within the sovereign territory of The Gambia. What I propose for today is to investigate the intersection of these issues with the so far elusive pursuit of enduring development in our national context.
Before foraying into the issues outlined above, I digress to remind ourselves of key first principles as guests in different European countries. With few exceptions, virtually all adults present in this hall are Diaspora Gambians, that is, Gambians living in countries different from their nation of birth. We are constantly reminded of this in the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom (UK). Except for those with settled status, even children born to us in the UK are legally considered as having exclusive Gambian nationality. Whatever view is taken of the propriety of such a nationality regime, it is the current state of the law. Its implications suggest that we must do our utmost to operate within the confines of UK law, as even a minor infringement of a criminal statute may trigger catastrophic consequences. For anyone with a status short of citizenship, the overriding challenge is to restrain potentially self-destructive conduct, especially in our dealings with others.
And for KSA-UK as a group, an obligation to promote social cohesion is essential if the organisation is to successfully tap into public funds and maintain charitable status once finally granted by the Charity Commissioners.
I now return to matters outlined above.
On the issue of ‘education’, Lamin O argued that “economists theorized that it is the human resources of a nation, not its capital or material resources that ultimately determine the character and pace of (economic & social) development”. He went on to support his summation with the postulation of the “the late Professor Frederick Harbison of Princeton University” that:
Human resources…constitute the ultimate basis for wealth of nations. Capital and natural resources are passive factors of production; human beings are the active agents who accumulate capital, exploit natural resources, build social, economic and political organizations, and carry forward national development. Clearly, a country which is unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its people and to utilize them effectively in the national economy will be unable to develop anything else.
Accepting the above as valid, Lamin O went on to suggest that “it is not nearly enough to come to Europe and North America and get complacent with dead end jobs…living on the fringes of high societies”. Having myself advanced the fundamental thrust of the twin angles in the Lamin O/Harbison contention in previous presentations before KSA-UK, I must agree entirely with their thesis.
I am pleased to note that various levels of certified higher education are represented in this gathering today. For those among us who are yet to embark on any educational project, I encourage you to give it serious thought. If you consider some level of organised higher education to be for you – and I readily concede it may not be for everyone – please refrain from deferring it indefinitely. But if further, or higher ‘education’, is not for you, I urge you to plan for an independent and dignified current and future existence in some other way. There is no meaningful alternative to knowing that you are dependent on your own resources for a living. Our compatriots who returned with some level of higher education are all suitably absorbed in public, or private sector jobs in The Gambia. Organised and certified education offered them options. I used organised and certified advisedly, considering that there are people even in this room who are finely educated without having a certificate to show for it, a clear disadvantage in career development terms.
I shall return to the second prong and central element of Harbison’s quotation above.
Another topical issue is the matter of public discrimination, and how ordinary and otherwise good people routinely participate in hurtful conduct in the name of misconstrued public morality. I take the view that private conduct that neither impinge on national security, nor transgress any legitimate law, should remain outside the competence of the state to regulate and punish. Under the principle of the equal protection of law, discrimination rooted in such irrelevant considerations as religion, and sexuality, should offer no justification for the pernicious application of the police power of the state. In similar vein, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is, under the doctrine of equal protection, illegal per se, and must be rejected for its “mindless” potential for community destruction.
I merely note that our religious and cultural orientation militate against a positive appreciation of homosexuality, especially for the literalist interpreter of doctrinal texts. However, theological dogma notwithstanding, the critical consideration for a citizen of a secular polity like the Gambia should not be homosexual conduct. For me, the fundamental yardstick centres on the question of the legitimacy of using the public space to adversely regulate private conduct that impinge no value legitimately capable of triggering a punitive state response. We should always remind ourselves that even where it is a predominantly Muslim country, The Gambia is a secular state, and Islam is by no defensible stretch of reasoning the state religion. In this regard, any discrimination against homosexuals can have no legal basis, and is therefore devoid of meaningful and legitimate purpose. Gambians must reject any, and all, illegal proscription of homosexuality as both diversionary and unduly punitive. If the mere visualisation of homosexual conduct causes enragement, I counsel restraint in thinking about it, but one thing we must do is reject travelling the slippery slope of criminalising groups one after the other. In our current public climate, there can be only one beneficiary of potentially violent prejudice, and that is not the Gambian state.
Another irrelevant matter that fits squarely into the overall strategy of divide, overwhelm, and control, is the issue of tribalism. The supposition of tribal affinity and solidarity is an intriguing, if wholly erroneous concept in the sense that a homogeneous society would still be susceptible to destructive conflict if there are no legally acceptable rules to properly referee public interaction. In this respect, so-called ethnic affinity must be treated as “mindless” and rejected when utilised as grounds for discriminating against fellow citizens. Even if it is conceded that tribe is central to cultural identity, tribalism is irrational and incapable of promoting peaceful co-existence in any polity, especially one with inbuilt diversity as The Gambia. It cannot be right that similarly situated citizens are favoured or disfavoured on the mere basis of their ethnicity.
Private identity should have no bearing on public space, and for all our sakes, the only Gambia capable of protecting our individual and collective dignity is one that celebrates diversity even as it adamantly strives to ameliorate the potentially destructive excesses of tribalism. I counsel that we reject parochialism in favour of the inescapable reality that Gambia’s constituent tribal communities are condemned to a common fate of happiness or tragedy. Sink or swim, we must experience our plight as a collective, an absolute condition that allows for no variation considering our shared and indivisible public space. We are condemned to survive or collapse as a national community, not as communities within a nation. We must therefore reject tribalism in all its manifestations, whether as communities in the Diaspora, or as fundamental stakeholders in Gambian national security and survivability.
Even where the requisite levels of ‘education’ are present in our socio-political system, the remaining question must be whether the critical component of an enabling environment exists for durable development to take off. This brings me to the second prong of Harbison’s contention that “a country which is unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its people and to utilize them effectively in the national economy will be unable to develop anything else”. Overriding all other factors, the critical and operative condition for ‘development’ depends on whether public authority effectively utilises the acquired “skills and knowledge of its people … in the national economy”.
Mr President, distinguished guests. As criminal conduct may not be legally punishable absent the requisite criminal mind, I contend that enduring development is different from its material manifestations. As a result, I have no trouble accepting that the University of The Gambia represents a material manifestation of development. In similar vein, I embrace the view that the Kombo Coastal Road network manifests a material element of development. Ditto the new Banjul International Airport terminal. But with the appalling human rights situation and its attendant “human capital flight”, the Gambia is light years away from development under any proper appreciation of that term.
A phenomenon known popularly as ‘brain drain’, migration and its attendant ‘human capital flight’ is generally considered as curbing “the supply of professionals within developing countries”. A factor here may be the attractions offered by the host society, and the extent to which those attractions are absent in the emigrating country. By no means a new phenomenon, there is nevertheless a compelling argument that prevailing political and economic circumstances in The Gambia expels critical human capital in great numbers. As the exclusive allocator of national resources, a government hostile to legal transparency and accountability must necessarily foster corruption and concomitantly persecute the non-conforming political activist. It is not obvious that many would readily embrace a self-cannibalising socio-political system. Without institutions to nurture and underpin professionalism in public life, no enduring development is possible as unavoidable macro-level failure negatively and directly affects micro-level activity.
For those Gambians who readily ignore the hopelessness and misery of the majority of fellow nationals in the interest of temporal access to the current arbiters of public largesse, I urge that you investigate and familiarise yourselves with the devastating consequences of state collapse as exemplified by the eleven-year civil conflict in Sierra Leone. In the chaos of the Sierra Leonean war, anywhere between fifty, and seventy five thousand people were slaughtered, more than 600,000 fled the country as refugees, and close to two-thirds of the population became internally displaced. I used Sierra Leone as illustrative because under Siaka Stevens, lawlessness decimated every “institution of state. Parliament was gutted of significance; judges were intimidated or bribed; the university was starved of funds … Those who opposed the imposition of the one-party state in 1977 were either executed, forced into exile, or reduced to a condition of penury….”. If this sounds familiar, it is your tapestry for probable state collapse and civil chaos, a fact recognised by the United Nations when it cautioned in the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that
“if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, … human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
How would any here like to be told that your family fled to Cassamance, or moved to a part of the country where contact is lost, even if temporarily, and pursuant to civil conflict. Public lawlessness breeds all-consuming violence. Many a Gambian in the Diaspora may profess a convenient disavowal of politics, but in the estimation of Cicero, the eminent politician of classical Rome, this is the same as claiming a lack of interest in “life itself”. We love the UK, and other western countries because of their enviable regime of a free and ordered public life, their ‘politics’, in plain words. Even as I accept that Gambians at home must make a living under a difficult and hostile public terrain, I cannot sympathise with any person who actively and consciously participate in the plunder of national resources.
As we reflect on KSA-UK 2008, I exhort one and all to pursue ‘organised’ education for personal development, if nothing else. More importantly, I encourage a rejection of unlawful discrimination in public life, especially on religious, sexual, and ethnic grounds. Whilst I refrain from encouraging anyone to needlessly endanger personal security, I urge all Gambians to take interest in national affairs.
As always, I accept full responsibility for this speech, and wish to expressly state that views herein espoused make no claim to representing those of KSA-UK.
God bless KSA-UK, and thank you for your esteemed invitation.
Lamin J Darbo.
Maternal mortality in the rural Gambia, a qualitative study on access to emergency obstetric care
By: Mr. Mamadi Cham
http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/2/1/3
Editorial
Is Democracy of Universal Application?
Kofi Abrefa Busia – Former Prime Minister of Ghana – 1978
I recall that during the early years of the Second World War when the rest of Europe was made aware of the atrocities that had been suffered by minorities under the tyranny of Hitler, general interest was aroused in the question of Human Rights. The question which excited much discussion and controversy concerned the definition of Human Rights which would apply to all countries, and which all countries should endeavour to secure and protect for their citizens. It was considered an essential foundation for world peace and international relations that there should be a declaration of such rights. Learned articles were written on this issue. There were some who took the line that there were such differences in culture and political systems that it was impossible to define rights which would be applicable to all societies. How could rights which would apply to ‘civilized’ and advanced industrial societies apply also to small ‘backward’ pre-industrial societies? What would be regarded as a right in one society would not even be recognized as such in another.
I remember at the time, in the summer of 1941, attending a conference at New-College, Oxford, where this matter was discussed. The participants at the conference included professors of Philosophy, Law, International Relations, the Classics, Anthropology and Sociology, as well as experts in African, Asian, North American and European studies. One particular day stands out in my mind. In the morning we listened to an address by an eminent Classical scholar on the subject of Human Rights. In broad sweeps he reviewed the philosophies of Human Rights from the Ancient Greeks to the contemporary European writers and thinkers, attempting to show how the rights they discussed applied to all men as men, wherever they lived and in whatever age. He was followed in the afternoon by an eminent professor of International Relations who based himself on laws and practices in different contemporary states and societies showing how diverse were the rights which their laws and practices sought to secure and therefore how futile and even unrealistic seemed the task of trying to list rights which would apply to all of them.
The question of Human Rights is still a burning issue because it is linked with concepts of democracy. There are certain Human Rights which are held to be an integral part of any truly democratic system. Since the Second World War there have been many publications, notably by the United Nations and UNESCO, dealing with the different concepts of democracy offered by the variety of governments, parties and ideologies which parade under the banner of democracy. What is proposed here is an examination of those principles which Western democracies have come to regard as essential elements of their systems of democracy and to ask whether they can be of universal application.
An essential problem of all governments is that concerning the exercise of power. Who is to exercise power? What is the extent of that power and what are the restraints to be put on it? One of the principles on which Western democracies are agreed is that power shall be exercised by elected governments. Those who rule shall be persons elected to do so by members of the state who are qualified to exercise this right of election. Positions of power in any community are prestigious and scarce and many aspire to them. In Western democracies those who aspire to them must reach them according to the rules. The rules do not allow, for example, that power should be seized by coup d’état, ballot rigging, bribery and corruption, blackmail, or the unorthodox elimination of opponents. Thus power in a democracy must be legitimized by the choice of all qualified people. Can all societies adopt this principle of choosing their rulers by election?
Experience has shown that there should be procedures and institutions which enable the voters to give free and fair expression to their will and that there should be genuine choice. The principles of free and fair elections and genuine choice are significant and noteworthy. Since the end of World War II there has been the establishment of one-party states in Eastern Europe, China, and certain parts of the Third World. This has raised a debate as to the importance of choice as an integral part of democracy. In some one-party states, for example in Africa, there has been a development whereby more than one candidate contests elections in a constituency even though they are members of the one party. It has been argued that this allows choice and therefore such states are democratic.
In the Western democracies we are considering, choice involves a dialogue which has found institutional expression in bi-party or multi-party systems. These offer choice between philosophies, personalities, policies and programmes. The choice offered in a one-party system concerns only the choice between personalities. Is this enough? It is further argued that the one-party systems provide for stability and the elimination of the divisions and rancour which have marked the bi-party and multi-party systems. It has often been demonstrated that stability can be achieved, for short and even long periods, through repression and force. Democracies seek to achieve stability on the basis of consent, hence the dialogue and the wider choice offered by the Western democracies. They do provide avenues for the expression of dissent, disapproval, or discontent, but it is obvious that the voters are free to choose not only between personalities, but, as has been said, between philosophies, policies and programmes.
The question is whether stability should be valued above freedom. The preeminent principle of democracy is freedom. The dialogue which is an essential part of democracy allows free speech and free discussion of the issues that the parties present. This means that every issue by whomsoever presented is open to debate; to acceptance or rejection. Fundamentally, it implies the acceptance of the fact that no individual or group of persons can hold themselves out as knowing what is best for all the people. The assumption that there is a group of persons who know what is best for the rest is not in Western terms a democratic idea. Where such an assumption is allowed implicitly or explicitly the basic freedoms of democracy are in peril. Limitations can be placed on such freedoms as the freedom of religion, of speech and of association. In such states one must be in conformity with the dictates of the party and its leaders.
In the early 1960’s when the one-party systems emerged in Africa there were those who sought to justify them on the grounds that they were best suited to the conditions of the countries which adopted them. The protagonists fall into two classes. There are leaders in Africa who would say that given the social conditions of different tribes and languages, the high rate of illiteracy and the inexperience of self-government, and the recent authoritarian past of colonialism, it would be unstable, inefficient and impractical to attempt straight away to operate a multi-party system. They see the one-party system as a more suitable training ground. They would recognize the fact that the wider scope and larger freedoms which are offered by the multi-party system; are the ideal, but that it is more pragmatic to proceed through the one-part) system. They freely accept its limitations. The case as put by such leaders and the practical results of their policies is an understandable justification of what they are doing. Their case is not to say that what they are doing is necessarily the best, but that it is the best in their prevailing circumstances.
This is different from other protagonists outside Africa and living in the Western democracies who justify what they see by saying that nothing better can come out of Africa and that it cannot be assumed that the principles of Western democracy are applicable to all peoples; the implication being that one-party systems are for Africa the acme of democratic government. Yet the principle of equality based on the recognition of the dignity of the individual is an important tenet of Western democracy. Following this principle such rights as the right to life, liberty, and security of person; equality before the law; security from arbitrary arrest and detention, and so on, are regarded as the entitlement of all, without distinction.
During the twentieth century the concepts of socialism and the welfare state have raised expectations. The rights which governments are expected to honour include the right to work, the right to social security, the right to education, and other social and economic rights. These expectations have led to the evolutionary extension of the functions and powers of governments; duties which extend to all spheres of individual and group life within the state. Government legislation or aid or subsidy encompass all life from birth to death. With this extension of the activities and powers of governments, the scope for tyranny has also correspondingly widened, therefore in a democracy the need to evolve institutions which restrain governments from being tyrannical and oppressive has also increased.
Through the principle of representation given expression in parliamentary systems the people have sought to impose restraints on those who have been elected to rule. Besides the parliamentary opposition, other institutions such as trade unions, employers’ associations, the independent judiciary, and voluntary bodies exercise pressures and powers which in a democracy are organs of restraint on the government. They have to be heeded. This gives meaning to the principle of accountability. Those who rule are held to be accountable not only to parliament but to the other institutions of society. Through the principle of periodic elections this accountability is re-enforced, for the people retain the right to change their rulers. The exercise of this right can lead to periodic changes of government. The bi-party or multi-party system ensures that this is done without revolution. There are some who argue that the possibility of frequent changes of government makes for instability, but the retention by the people of the power to change their rulers is a bulwark of democracy, without it the structures of democracy are insecure and it is apt to be eroded by the floods of tyranny.
Western democracies consist of more than forms and institutions. They constitute a way of life which rests on principles of morality. The principle of justice for example underlies many of the rights to which they adhere or aspire. All men should be equal before the law because this is just; there should be no discrimination against persons on the grounds of race, class, sex or religion; there should be equal pay for equal work and all citizens have a right to participate in the government of their country directly or through freely chosen representatives. Also based on moral principles are such liberties as the right of exit and asylum, the right to marry without restrictions on grounds of race or nationality, freedom of religion and of conscience, and freedom of opinion and of speech which are advocated as necessary elements of the way of life for Western democracies. Hence morality is the breath which animates the body politic of democracy.
It is not irrelevant to refer to the obvious fact that Western democracies do not provide for the realisation of their common principles through the same institutions, nor, even where the institutions are the same or bear the same name do they have the same powers, functions or influence in the different countries. For example the role of parties in the British parliamentary system, because of the strict party discipline, has a more stringent effect on the legislature and the executive than the role of parties in the American Congress where party discipline is loose. Yet American Constitution and practice provides for restraint on the executive in the more formal, written constitution.
The increasing power and influence of British trade unions on government, especially when the Labour party is in power, is not matched by the influence of labour unions in the United States of America, although the latter exercise power as pressure groups. The federal system of the U.S.A. relies more on pressure groups in influencing Congress. Further restraints on the executive are more formally defined in the constitution by the existence of state powers, and through the division of functions between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In the federal system of Switzerland, which is a much smaller country, there is greater direct influence of the body of citizens on major policies and legislation through referenda, than say, in Britain, where parliament claims to be a touchstone for the peoples’ views. For this reason parliament insists that frequent referenda would only undermine its functions and powers and therefore weaken its authority and diminish the representative principle.
The powerful judiciary of the American system has constitutional powers which Congress has to defer to, whereas recent events in Britain show that parliament does not consider that the independence of the judiciary in Britain can carry authority over parliament, which is still the last court of appeal. In spite of adherence to the principle of representation through elections, Britain has a House of Lords where the hereditary principle is still accepted. The system of local governments in Britain which with their powers and functions are a part of the democratic system have nevertheless not the same rights and powers as have, for example, the state governments in the U.S.A. or West Germany. In the presidential system of France the parliament has considerably less power than the parliament of the United Kingdom under the constitutional monarch.
The important institution of the opposition which all the Western democracies would regard as essential for democracy has not the same scope for effective action in the different countries. The leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Britain for example and the role which the opposition plays in parliament is different from the opposition party in Congress or the coalition of opposition in West Germany. Examples could be multiplied to make the obvious point that the institutions through which a democratic country seeks to give expression to the principle of democracy it avows vary according to the history, social conditions and experience of each country. The institutions are understandably not the same. Nevertheless, something is found to enable all the different countries to be called democratic. What is it that is common to them to enable them all to be so regarded?
In a recent visit of the British Prime Minister to India there was much stress laid on the fact that the two countries have close relationships because they are both democratic. India has just come through the traumatic experience of rule under emergency provisions where there was no freedom of the press, where the independence of the judiciary was attacked, where opposition leaders were flung into prison and there was virtual dictatorship. At the present time the government in power is supported by a coalition of parties only loosely bound by their common opposition to the previous government, and the present opposition of the Congress Party that had ruled India since independence is itself divided. Despite all this, India has shown that where a country has the will, it can make the principles of Western democracy thrive in a soil, culture and institutions different from those of Europe. It is generally accepted that India is the largest democracy in the world.
The judgement as to whether a country is democratic or not in terms of the Western democracies we have been considering, would appear not to be based on their having the same institutions. There are, however, certain principles which would be regarded as essential criteria. Among these are some of those that we have pointed out above. We may repeat:
-
the recognition of the essential dignity of the individual and the equality of all men;
-
the acceptance of the principle of free and fair elections with the offer of genuine choice;
-
the derival of the just powers of government from the consent of the governed;
-
the accountability of these governments to their electorate and the acceptance of the right of genuine opposition;
-
the principle of justice and equity before the law,
-
and the cherished freedoms of speech, association, movement, conscience and religion.
the recognition of the essential dignity of the individual and the equality of all men;
the acceptance of the principle of free and fair elections with the offer of genuine choice;
the derival of the just powers of government from the consent of the governed;
the accountability of these governments to their electorate and the acceptance of the right of genuine opposition;
the principle of justice and equity before the law,
and the cherished freedoms of speech, association, movement, conscience and religion.
To these we may add tolerance. For the success of democratic government, both rulers and ruled must learn and exercise tolerance. The importance of dialogue has been emphasized. Those who hold opposed views must be allowed to express them. The example given above of the opposite views expressed by the professor of Classics and the professor of International Relations on Human Rights, demonstrates how even experts from the different viewpoints of their disciplines see but facets of truth. It has been regarded as an important right in Western democracies that toleration shall be given to the expression of differing views.
It is the commonly shared principles rather than identity with the set of institutions of any one country that are the criteria of Western democracies. There are some who, when considering whether new governments in the third world are democratic or not, appear to be saying that the institutions of Westminster, Washington or Paris, as the case may be, cannot thrive on foreign soil, they therefore go on to conclude that if in one country no opposition is allowed or no criticism of the government is tolerated and those who would oppose are locked up, it may well be democratic for that country. In this view, Western democracy cannot be universalised. This judgement, based on institutions, may appear to be liberal, but in fact when some of the cases are examined, the arguments are either pusillanimous or racist. Pusillanimous because they do not dare stand up for what they know to be the essentials of democracy, regardless of institutions, or racist because they seem to be saying that ‘our democracies can only be run by us and not by a lesser breed of men’.
Some leaders of the Third World have therefore turned to Eastern bloc countries which with faith, confidence and even aggressiveness propagate their brand of democracy as applicable to all. The principles of Western democracy which we have stated above posit values and ideals. The battle cry of ‘Liberty, Fraternity and Equality’ of the French Revolution, the opening of the American Declaration of Independence:
‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter and abolish it’
As well as Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
‘that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,’
have all had universal appeal and have inspired many leaders in the Third World in their aspiration to establish democratic governments. The question whether Western democracy is of universal application or not should be answered in terms of its values and ideals. It is true that by the standards of these ideals every democratic state in the west has its shortcomings. Every succeeding generation compelled by a desire for the realisation of those ideals has to strive through legislation or action to improve contemporary conditions. Democracy will make its universal appeal if those who believe in it have the confidence to uphold it. President Carter, in one year of office, has, by his faith and courage and his determined stand, done much to advance the cause of Western democracy. We may quote two short sentences from a speech given in Indiana, U.S.A., in May 1977 to show the force of his views:
‘We can no longer separate the traditional issues of war and peace from the new, global issues of justice, equity and human rights’
And
‘Because we know democracy works we can reject the arguments of those rulers who deny human rights to their people. We are confident that democracy’s example will be compelling… We are confident that democratic methods are the most effective, and so we are not tempted to employ improper methods at home – or abroad.’
The expression of such confidence and conviction in Western democracy and in the universal applicability of its principles and values is remarkable. It has aroused faith in Western democracy not only in the U.S.A. and Britain, but also in other parts of the world where hopes for democracy have been flagging.
The volume of essays for which this is a contribution is in honour of a man who has shown a lifelong interest and given active service in the cause of federalism, human rights and democracy. These interests have this in common: their success demands responsible citizenship based on civic morality and humanity. Those who share his confidence and conviction in the principles and values of Western democracy can, in participating for their realisation, contribute to international cooperation and world peace.
The climate of opinion established by these early discussions and debates must have influenced the delegates of the fifty nations who met at San Francisco in 1945. Some of the delegates urged the inclusion of provisions for the protection of Human Rights in the Charter. The preamble to the declaration which was eventually adopted expresses the recognition of ‘the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’. Today, the many countries of the United Nations which have accepted and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would indicate that such rights are desirable and applicable to all societies. However, the controversy is not yet over, there are those who would dispute this universal applicability on racial grounds, and, as is well known, there are countries, notably South Africa, whose policies conceive of different Human Rights for different races. In different countries there are discriminatory practices based on differences of race, class and caste, religion, sex, or prejudice and privilege which challenge the concepts of rights which are applicable to all. We must make a distinction between the countries which accept that there are Human Rights which could apply to all but which nonetheless have practices which fall short of the ideal and those countries whose philosophies maintain or justify these discriminatory practices as the true expression of reality.
This essay, published in 1979, is taken from Menshenrechted Föderalismus Demokratie, Festchrift zum 70. Geburstag von Werner Kaägi (pp. 55-63) – a special volume of essays on democracy on the occasion of Werner Kaägi’s 70th birthday. It is one of the last published works by Kofi Abrefa Busia, former Prime Minister of Ghana and was written in exile only months before his death.
View World Bank’s Millenium Development Goals Report 2008.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTGLOBALMONITOR/EXTGLOMONREP2008/0,,menuPK:4738069~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:4738057,00.htm
Editorial
The Genesis of Democratic Decay
By Alagi Yorro Jallow
Mason Fellow: Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
Nieman Fellow: Harvard University
Winner: Hellman/Hammet Award (twice), Intl Press Freedom Award.
and Haruna Darbo
It is generally believed that only one African nation delivered anything of value to her citizens within the first fifteen years of independence, Botswana; whereas in other countries, the only beneficiaries were the president and his ‘people’. Perhaps the landscape can be more appropriately summed up as “We had been in the rain together until yesterday. Then a handful of us – the smart, the lucky, and hardly ever the best – had to scramble for the one shelter our former rulers left, and had taken it over and barricaded ourselves in,” (Achebe-1966).
For example, in Gambia, this was as true of the Sir Dawda administration from 1965 to 1994 as it is for the Yahya Jammeh administration from 1994 to present. In addition to groping in the dark just after structural independence, Gambia’s leaders have been pre-occupied with consolidation of power from the residual instruments of colonial government which inherently are counterpoised against democratic life. Colonisation cannot be propagated with democratic considerations and to the extent democracy discouraged violence and despondency, colonisers synthesised the benign values of democracy to cement empire. Left with existing conditions after independence, the new African governments enhanced the mechanisms of suppression with the false sense of impunity innured by their belonging to one or more of the composite ethnicities.
Civil society was severely weakened. There was no desire, nor incentive to organise because there was inherently no vision for possibilities and nirvanna of the status-quo-ante was consolidated by suspicion of newer paradigms in governance and administration. There was no common interest to galvanize around. Merely disparate and unique interests. Civilians were pre-occupied with survival and common development was a distant consideration.
This condition is more palpably demonstrated in one of the cardinal precepts of democratic life; Freedom of speech, expression, and association for religion and industry to which a free press is nourishment. In its purest form, the press enables disparate interests to identify issues for common prosperity and development and provides an outlet for competing stakeholders to guide their governance beginning with their common interests. This possibility was frustrated by the executive governments usurping the other powers; Legislative, judiciary, police, and the military to mine every avenue of the press’ journey. The system of checks and balances transmogrified into domains of ethnic and economic interests. Chaos in the form of civil wars and coups festered.
The primary blueprint for good governance, the constitutions, only existed as fleeting magna cartae. The fiduciary custodians of the constitutions, the legislature and judiciary became engulfed in their more valuable special interests. The private press was systematically suffocated or partisanized. Laws designed to chip away at more democratic life were easily approved and passed, partisan judges and police appointed, and cover-ups of crime, malfeasance, and financial impropriety became the order of the day.
Government’s fear and suspicion of the press manifest in its incessant overtures to corrupt the press is intended to turn the press into an unwilling accomplice. Instead of being an agent for common prosperity and development, the members of the press are intimidated, harassed, and tortured to transmogrify into agents of government interest or other special interest. The press has never gained its rightful place as the fourth rail of governance and common development. It is denied access to information which is no longer placed in the public domain. The governments recoil inward leaving the press to resort to the precarious realm of quoting “reliable sources”, which were themselves systemmatically decimated by the predatory government and agents provocateus.
The constitution of the second Republic of Gambia, which came into force in 1997, provided, at least on paper, a guarantee for the freedom of expression, association, and opinion. Under section 207, it explicitly states: “The freedom and independence of the Press and other information media, are hereby guaranteed…. the Press and other information media shall at all times be free to uphold the principles, provisions, and objectives of this constitution and the responsibility and accountability of government to the people of The Gambia.”
It further states under section 208: “All state-owned newspapers, journals, radio, and television shall afford fair opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinion.”
The antidote to this constitutional guarantee is that the persons responsible for keeping the promises; the legislature, judiciary, and police, have all been malignantly corrupted. The public media sanitised. So the proverbial decks were stacked prior to promulgation of the facade of honourable and democratic law. The National Assembly of the second Republic was a special-interest group of actors and the judiciary has been emasculated. Six ammendments of the constitution have been completed, and 150 Secretaries of state have been replaced, and almost a dozen “coups” “foiled”. The Assembly passed the Media Commission Act, which was forwarded to them by the executive cabinet which was represented by the Secretary of State for Communication, Information, and Technology. The Act was ammended in the Assembly and after three days of posturing debate, it was passed on party lines. The ruling APRC party comprised more than 70% of the Assembly. The same Act, which was almost unanimously passed by the Assembly, was reviewed and ammended as the Newspaper Ammendment Act which was again unanimously passed into law by the same Assembly votes. Similarly, the Criminal Code Bill was enacted which outlined prison terms for journalists and media practitioners of not less than six months without the option of a fine and disregarding the 72-hour detention without charge rule. The media were exempted from participating in the administration of their own lives and that of their profession.
This fear and disdain for the media by African governments is demonstrated in Senegal, Mali, Guineas Conakry and Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ghana among others. (Kasoma: 537). The result is that the professional growth and development of press agents and establishments is severely truncated.
The entire government machinery can be traced back to concentration of power in one individual, the President. There has been hope in Mali, Ghana, Senegal, and latterly SierraLeone, which must be encouraged and further nurtured. In Gambia, this suffocating impasse between the press and the executive, has been the bane of contention between those who aspire to democratic life and participatory governance and those who reject and will muzzle the processes of openness, accountability, responsibility, and probity. Because the President can attract foreign aid which is the sole source of survival for Gambia as a nation-state, the media effort in investigating corruption and malfeasance is therefore regarded as unpatriotic and its agents as allies of the opposition who train on dismantling the status-quo and its ante. “The politician often thinks of the journalist as his sidekick, or his enemy’s sidekick,” (Ngw’eno:173). The constitution remains at the mercy of special interest legislators, judges, police, and the military who are beholden to the President.
Basic human rights are ignored as fancy, the marginalised are further detached, the judiciary maimed, government unaccountable, irresponsible, and unapologetic, and the spiral of raw power-grab continues unabated. Wanton torture, arson, disappearances, maimings, and killings of dissenters continue, seemingly without end.
On December 16th, 2004, Deyda Hydara, co-founder and publisher of The Point Newspaper, was gunned down. Just like the arsonists, the assassins roam freely among the people. Hydara was a critic of the excesses of government and had filed suit against the APRC government over the constitutionality of the National Media Commission Act in early 2004. The president never expressed outrage over Deyda’s murder and the posturing from the executive and police trained toward tacit approval of his assassination. Token investigations were conducted more to cover the tracks of evidence and witnesses. The public has lost all confidence in the government and the president to prosecute Deyda’s murder and that of Koro Ceesay before him.
The Gambia now experiences a systemmatic detachement of the majority of the people from everyday issues of their wellbeing; poverty, health, the economy, and education, with a total withdrawal from responsibility for their lives and leaving it to the President to decide as he sees fit. This however is very dangerous; many scholars believe it to be a ‘formula for regime de-legitimization, political crisis and decay’ (Kathiri:6), breeding further enmity and suspicion training on despondency and hopelessness. Underground movements thrive in such environs gnawing away at the very fabric of nationhood. A total breakdown of the national contract. The constitution cannot salvage such a state of affairs. The President has emerged as the state, and the state as the President. As Yahya goes, so does Gambia. The improbable nation will become the moldy loaf, a dis-eased Sengal and a pest to Mali, Guineas Conakry and Bissau and therefore a state, non-grata.
Editorial
What’s in a name?
The nation of Gambia is called The Gambia because of the River Gambia.
The nation of Gambia however, forms a 350-mile floodplain of this river whose other 350-mile floodplain and major tributaries lie in Senegal and Guinea Conakry.
Further inquiry into why The Gambia therefore is not the entire 700-mile basin of the River Gambia reveals that the nation of Gambia was only created to protect the trade of slaves to the extent ocean-going ships from Europe and South and North Americas can advance into the hinterland in addition to just enough land to protect the forts where the slaves were to be loaded on those ships.
Generally, nations are formed by a unique people and culture. We recall that the people of Gambia are drawn from Senegal, Mali, and Guinea Conakry and historically as far away as Mauritania, Sudan, the Niger basin, and the songhai of south central Africa.
This establishes that The Gambia is a nation formed only to serve the interests of the slave traders and not for other sovereign reasons as marked the formation of her neighbours. The only other nation to innure this infamous history may be Guinea Bissau whose river, also only navigable to the extent of the nation’s boundaries, rises from the western face of the same highlands.
The river rises from the Fouta Djallon Highlands in northeast Guinea conakry. It meanders through the latticed gneiss and granite for approximately 100 miles in Guinea before gracing the sandstones of Senegal where it receives the koulountou river, which also rises from the same highland ranges, and the Nierico river which hails from the leeward side of the niokolokoba forest range. It travels for approximately 250 miles in Senegal before entering Gambia around Koina for the remaining 350 or so miles of its journey to finally empty into the atlantic ocean at the cape.
