In the light of the debate over the tenure of President Adama Barrow and whether he should honour the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or stick to the five years presidential term, I ask the following pertinent questions:
Why did “the guardian of the Gambians constitution” propose and sign an MOU knowing that it contains an unconstitutional clause?
He never misses an opportunity to challenge anyone who infringes on the constitution. One wonders why he ignores the supremacy of the constitution over any law, agreement or document this time around?
Did the man has something in mind at the time i.e expecting to be the vice president and becoming the president after the resignation of the President?
Regardless of whatever his Motives are I think that this issue cannot or must not be determined by the willingness or unwillingness of President Barrow to resign; rather, given the constitutional, political and financial implications of the issues it should be decided by The Gambians through their representatives.
The MOU is a political document and not a legal agreement; it is just akin to the political agreement that was reached between UN representatives and the presidents of Guinea Conakry and Mauritania over the safe exit of the former president Yahya Jammeh. That agreement is not legally binding because it doesn’t satisfy legal requirements; hence it was not honoured by the Gambians who were not part of the agreement.
Similarly, the MOU signed by political parties is not a legal agreement because the people of The Gambia were not represented or part of the agreement. It was proposed and signed by politicians. Therefore, since we have an established parliament which was democratically elected, the issue should be subject to their agreement, for it should be and cannot be decided by Barrow alone as the issue is beyond his own affairs; it is a national affair which should be decided by the people and not a few unelected politicians.
Alieu SK Manjang