By Lamin Darboe (Leicester U.K)
Numerous articles emerged since the appointment of Fatoumata Tambajang as Vice president and I observe majority of them missed a key ingredient of the constitution, that if natural justice and fairness, non-discriminatory function of a constitution. Some exposition dishonest and other seem to bother on spite not only for sobriety and fitness of the candidate for the purpose and the huge human capital she could bring on deck to aid the success of the coalition. Others even challenge the resourcefulness of a coalition all together, however these instigations were not unexpected.
The defeated APRC will try a lot of tricks, insinuations and some charlatan derisions to disparage and throw aspersion on the effort of the coalition to present a coherent and progressive government.
As the mandinka saying goes “a dethroned alkalo never love the success of the village”.
Folks, if Mrs Tambanjang is disqualified to take up the positional vice president because of her age then the present Gambian constitution is not only incongruous with international human right laws and regulations but it is inherently unconstitutional.
Before I dilate on the above insinuation, let me fervently state that the constitutional section most people quote refers to the age of president of the state not the vice president.
Even though it was apparent that the 1997 constitution which was JUNTA constitution, was subtly yet advertently knitted to disqualify Laywer Darboe. No doubt it was also discriminatory and disharmonious with international human rights regulations.
The constitution should not discriminate people on the basis of AGE, TRIBE. LANGUAGE, GENDER ETC. if it does then it is does, then that section should be challenged in court. I cannot find any constitution in the world where there is an age ceiling. Such a constitution will be reactionary and retrogressive because it will fail to tap a great resource of people with so much experience and wisdom who have actually accomplish so much in life and are only looking for self actualisation-leaving a legacy.
I for one is satisfied there is no constitutional infringement in her appointment and if need be this discriminatory constitution must be put in the dock as it does not serve a democratic purpose which we all yearned for in the last 22 years. A constitutional should not be designed to serve an individual’s political whims but in must be guiding framework to support justice for all, a reference point for a proper democratic institutions , foster an equal opportunity for all irrespective of age, tribe and gender to participate in our democratic process.
since any law that discriminate on the basis of age, gender, tribe will unconstitutional, then it is logical that any constitution that diminish the democratic participation of citizenry base on age is itself unconstitutional and disharmonious.