President Barrow Has Nothing to Explain

To uphold the notion that because Mama Kandeh made allegations that he failed to substantiate is deserving of an explanation from the President is ignorant.

The Gambia; and indeed any other state for that matter should not mimic frat house filled with she said he said allegations and counter allegations. In a serious institution, evidence and facts are what matter, not innuendos and fanciful rhetoric.

If Mama Kandeh in fact has evidence of graft of such magnitude why not present it to the public and let the talk start from there? Mere conjecture deserves no response from serious minded people. What is his goal; try to catch those in the administration in a lie?

GDC has members in the National Assembly, what is to stop Mama Kandeh from giving his evidence to those members to present on the House floor and demand the House oversight committee for government finances look into it? Why not call a press conference and declare his prove? So many avenues are open to him but he chose to sit at a political function and make conjecture with full knowledge that it is not true and for some to come out and demand an explanation from the President is preposterous. Why not demand that Mama Kandeh give his proof first and then we can go after the President for an explanation? Give explanation against what, Mama Kandeh’s words? Then it becomes a case of his words against the President’s words and the nation divided into camps of believers for either narrative so that the spin masters can get to work and blow the whole thing out of proportions?

The logical and right thing to do is to present the facts and then the President can come refute his allegations based on those facts or explain the credibility of the evidence, not to engage in word play with someone so low on morals as to lie to a vulnerable base for his political gain.

Secondly, ever since their ascension to power, every single loan/aid agreement has been signed in full glare of the media with the donor stated, and present; the amount stated for the record; what the money has been earmarked for and when that project is due to kick off. What more evidence is needed than to look and see if in fact the said projects have been sponsored in full or not? The pathetic thing is when some advocates of that notion come out to say; “we need to hold our leaders accountable.” So Mama Kandeh as an aspiring candidate is not one of those leaders to be held to account? He made a claim, clearly it has to be based off of some facts he gathered, why not demand he present those facts as a means to holding him accountable for his utterances?

When government officials engage in corruption in the manner alleged by Mama Kandeh, the public pays the price dearly. The fiduciary relationship that exists between the public and elected officials if breached by any official is a prosecutable offence. Accusing public officials of theft at such a magnitude is not a political statement, it is irresponsible and a trigger for public outrage, rightly so if true. So to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations, Mama has to give answers, and who better to give answers to than those charged with upholding the law.

The police did their job and with it prove to us that our democracy is burgeoning for two reasons.

Firstly, after questioning him and finding out that he lied, Mama Kandeh was let go and no charges of “lying to the public” were filed against him; or for merely lying. That would be a problem if he were to be prosecuted on those grounds. Because then it will amount to persecution of a political opponent.

Secondly, we can safely assume that if in fact Mama Kandeh presented evidence of misappropriation to the police, the culprits would have been called in to answer for their crimes. The culprits in this case being state officials; which tells us that the police are willing to turn things around and hold all citizens subject to the law.

But instead of lauding the efforts of the police in their attempts at upholding the law; or holding Mama Kandeh to the high standards of political decency, some want to cuddle him and his misleading ways as mere politics. If that is the case then let us wait for the President to respond to his allegations at a political function of his choosing as well. As a citizen, I also demand that the President not use public time to give credence to Mama Kandeh’s insinuations as they stand.

The onus here lies squarely and entirely on Mama Kandeh to prove to the public that in fact his claims were true by producing evidence to that effect. Then, and only then should we ask for the President to come and clarify based on the evidence presented.

Take It With A Pinch Of Salt

Akin to the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually shows, help would’ve long gone. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, we get hit with another bombshell of speculations and blatant untruths. One is left wondering; are we so determined to see our country fail just so we can turn around and say we told you so and feel good about it?

Our self-appointed journalists and commentators for the most part take to speculative reporting and over sensationalizing of issues so much so that their lack of logic in argument escapes them. With time, people stop listening to you and when you finally have something productive to say there will be no one to hear it because you have misled them enough.

Take for example the article in www.gambia.smbcgo.com on the allegation that “Gambian Minister Spends D1M to send four people on Hajj”. The article is full of aspersions on the person of the minister (Hamat Bah) and insinuations that he is dipping into public coffers. One thing that the article failed to do, deliberately it seems, is to reach out to the minister and ask for clarifications. How many times do we read a paper and see a statement at the end to the effect; “so and so could not be reached for comments.” Or “Mr. X declined to comment on such and such.”? Nowhere in that article was made mention of the attempts made to reach the minister or his representatives to shed light on the allegation, but rather the editors saw it fit to run to press with it, for what? Your guess is as good as mine.

Then there is the case of Mama Kandeh and the allegations of misappropriated public funds. All his defenders (who would claim they are defending his rights and democracy) claim that he made a political statement and that the police have no business getting involved. Some wrote that the accused persons (no names mentioned) should use their platform and denounce his statements or attack him in similar fashion (jungle law anyone, no?)

Here is a man, who is seeking public office, and is brazenly, willing to lie his way to it and we see no problem with it? Calling out a political opponent and smearing his name, as despicable as that may be, is not the same as broad brushing a gov’t and accusing them of the serious crime of embezzlement of public funds. Such claims should be backed by evidence, which he did not share. The police did their job by inviting him to substantiate those allegations; a standard procedure in order for them to be able to open an investigation and bring those culpable to book. How did that turn into a witch hunt or intimidation? Should our public officers not be held accountable? In this case they are accused of misappropriated funds. Who has information to that effect, well Mama Kandeh made the claim with so much confidence and certainty in his delivery, so what better candidate to start the investigation with than him?

We cannot cultivate a political atmosphere of lies and deception and then turn around and treat those lies and deceptive tactics as “just politics” until the damage is done. The police did what is expected of them, PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST! In this case the supposed missing public funds need to be recovered and culprits brought to book, that’s not politics, that’s a matter of social welfare and theft of our common wealth, and like any theft it is prosecutable, any prosecution starts with a police investigation to gather facts and build a case. What we should be doing is calling Mama Kandeh out for trying to deceive the public to gain political capital. It is dishonest, it is callous, and it is inconsiderate of basic decency, yet we defend his “rights”, right to lie to us? Kudos GPF!

The same Mama Kandeh and his GDC claim they have been denied a permit because of that statement, again, here we go calling out President Barrow and his ministers for being Yaya Jammeh wannabes by trying to stifle dissent and repress dissenting voices, what an insult. We do not need to be that desperate people. Even though public sympathy would be on his side if he barred the APRC from gathering to celebrate Yaya's birthday so soon after  his departure as if rubbing it in the faces of his numerous victims, they were free to do so. Where is you praise for that move?

First off, we call for democracy, then turn around and expect the President to micro manage the operations of the police. True, the buck stops with him, but will his interference in police matters not have tantamount to a worse betrayal of our trust? Before casting blame at his feet, find out conclusively what happened from both sides to determine if the police acted within the bounds of the law or if they acted arbitrarily based on "orders from above." But that wouldn’t be sensational enough, would it?

Secondly, all of you crying out about how unfortunate it is that a registered political party should seek a permit before conducting a rally, are you really that prone to amnesia? Remember when you unlocked the floodgates of hell because the President dared to even consider a certain person as Vice President? all the noise you raised about how unconstitutional it will be to appoint a vice president whom the constitution bans because of age? That debate was not lost on anyone. The claims from the other side that we should not uphold or enforce immoral laws was brushed aside vehemently and you preached on the mountain tops that the constitution needs to be upheld until reforms are made. News flash; that same constitution requires a permit be obtained before a political rally, so what is unconstitutional here? Oh you want to talk about morality, now? Remember when you kicked and screamed that the country is not ruled by the Bible or the Qur’an? Well the constitution deals with legality and not moral codes, so save it; until changed, it is the law! See how the tables turn?

It is amazing the level of disdain held towards this government in certain quarters for no justifiable reason. Miss us with your claims of holding the government accountable and nurturing democracy. Those two are premised on reason and logic, not sensationalism and impulsive rhetoric devoid of any logic.

I’d suggest that some take a step back and familiarize themselves with what democracy truly entails and what constructive criticism looks like, but who am I to recommend that. Ego and blind hatred is the driving force behind most of the rhetoric we hear and reason has no relationship with either of those and so cannot share the same space. Defiant militancy works only where laws are deliberately disregarded, not in a democratic space, for then it falls within the realm of the outlaw.

Policy approach and strategy are different from arbitrary actions that are in conflict with stated laws. No one can defend a clear unconstitutional act. But how the government seeks to implement its policies is based on their own assessment of what is feasible and cost effective. You may disagree, but until we get the results, we can only speculate as to outcome. A constitutional breach on the other hand is a different beast all together. Know the difference!

Much Ado About Nothing

Social media is only a representation of a very minute fraction of Gambians, but nonetheless it is a significant barometer for gauging what issues Gambia’s so-called ‘educated and politically informed’ folks like to pre-occupy themselves with.

The much hyped about tribalism that is so ubiquitous on social media that you’d be forgiven for thinking there is an impending implosion of The Gambia’s body politics. Cap that off with the nation’s premier learning center coming up with the theme “Killing the Tribes for The Nation to Survive” for an upcoming organized event. Imagine those students in leadership and decision making positions years down the line. To think people gave their lives and freedoms for Africa’s self-determination only for a few decades later to have their brothers and sisters (not sons and daughters) calling for the wholesale embrace of the very system they fought against while slaughtering our very essence at the altar of indoctrinated minds.

The nation state you so want us to be loyal to is a legacy of colonialism. Millennia of our existence as inter mingling ethnic groups was cut short with the arrival of those genocidal European adventurists, they eventually carved up our territories into your much glorified nation state and taught us their consumerist politics infused with corruption and insincerity giving rise to our current predicament. Instead of focusing on the real issues of injecting morality back into politics, we are busy trying to slay a non-existent monster.

Yes, history has dealt us a bad hand with our experiences thus far, leaving us with the legacy of the nation state. That reality we do have to deal with and rise to the occasion, but at the expense of our very essence as a people? That is insulting on many levels too numerous here to mention. But in a democracy (not a colonial legacy or western concept), you advocate for what you believe in, so go ahead Law faculty and UNESCO Club, we have a counter narrative to advance and advocate for, the space is wide enough.

Using tribe to define our social groupings as they obtain in The Gambia is in itself troublesome, but that’s a topic for another time and place.

Do politicians use certain aspects of their societies to their political advantage? Of course they do, are we immune? Certainly not, but calling that tribalism is outright ignorant. 

According to Gallup, in 2008, only 1% of black voters did not vote for Obama. Yet 45% of black Americans identify as conservatives while 47% identify as liberal. Totally different political ideologies, but with Obama, he managed to get 99% of the black vote in 2008, 93% still voted for his re-election. Call that racist on the part of blacks and see what objections you’d get, how is that different from our scenario? Chances are you touted Obama’s chances for winning for similar reasons as black Americans.

In our own political history, the first signs of sectarianism in politics came with the emergence of the Gambia Muslim Congress. The Akus/Christians were favored for government appointments in the civil service. And with the franchise only limited to the colony, elected positions were highly coveted. The constituents were close to being homogenous, with religion being the main stand-out. United Party, Gambia Democratic Party were both headed by Serer/Wolof Banjul politicians; J.C Faye and P.S. Njie, both Christian. I.M Garba Jahumpa’s Gambia Muslim Congress right away appealed to the Muslim constituents as they see an affinity with him. (Read The Pen v The Tyrant for an in-depth analysis). 

Christians today are to a large extent inactive in seeking elected political office in The Gambia, I will bet their perception of religious bias playing into their chances of electability is a consideration in making that decision, do we hear sectarianism? Of course not….and please don’t start now just to prove a point. The game is as old as politics itself; is it right, no. But it certainly is not a cry for help for the survival of the nation.

Truth is, tribalism has become synonymous with “fight Mandinka dominance” albeit covertly by hiding behind that politically correct term; tribalism. Remember the hash tag I Am Mandinka? Exactly, Yaya’s dirty politics gave rise to that. On the ground, people rose up and stated out right “aling n’ga Mandinka yaa faasaa.”  

That term shouldn’t confuse or make you feel excluded or threatened. It is the people’s equivalent of a social media hash tag. If you did the tag, it was not because you were calling for Mandinka dominance or exclusion of others. It was because you felt it was wrong to target them and so you needed to rally for the cause of a targeted people; that is what that term means.

I brought it up because almost 100% of the time when the debate on tribalism heats up, without fail, the other camps runs to this phrase and claim it’s an attempt at exclusion and dominance. No fool it’s not.

For two decades plus, the opposition has been chanting, “let’s get rid of this delusional sociopath and save our dear little Gambia”; few listened. Along the line he came out in the open to prove that in fact he is a maniac with his attacks against the Mandinkas and his grandiose claims about them and their origins. A determination was made that now has come time that we sink together or perish at his hands one by one. “If you do not see the need to do it for The Gambia, do it for your Mandinka-yaa; because he has his eyes on you and it is only a matter of time before his bigoted axe is swung your way”. “If you are Mandinka, rise up and fight Yaya while we have a chance to organize”. “If Yaya stays in power beyond this election cycle, then you are in for a rough ride as a Mandinka…” all this and more is captured in that single phrase; aling n’ga Mandinka yaa faasaa. See the power of words!

So lose the misnomer, it’s not a call to dominance or exclusion, it’s a call to defending one’s birthright and send a lunatic packing. It worked and we are getting back to pre-Jammeh social harmonies, so give our social mechanisms a chance and keep you Eurocentric perceptions out of the pool, it muddies the waters.

Salaam!