Gov’t Freezes Jammeh’s Assets

EYEAFRICA TV: Banjul, THE GAMBIA: The government of The Gambia has announced that it has obtained a court order freezing, placing a temporary hold on the known assets in the country of former President Yahya Jammeh including companies directly associated with him.

This was confirmed on Monday by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Tambedou during a press briefing at the Ministry’s office in Banjul.

According to him, the freezing order affects 131 landed properties held in the personal name of former President Yahya Jammeh or companies directly associated with him.

“We have also 88 different bank accounts held in the personal name of former President Yahya Jammeh or held in the names of organizations directly associated with him; 14 companies purportedly belonging to or directly associated with former President Yahya Jammeh. A number of animals and livestock purportedly belonging to former President Yahya Jammeh is also obtained” he said.

He said the application for the freezing order was necessitated by the discovery of unauthorized withdrawals of millions of dalasis and foreign currencies by former President Yahya Jammeh.

“For example, preliminary investigations have revealed that between 2006 and 2017, former President Yahya Jammeh personally or under his instructions directed the unlawful withdrawal of at least 189,000,000 from funds belonging to Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation. Between 2013 and 2017, former President Yahya Jammeh personally or under his instructions directed the unlawful withdrawal of at least $50,000,000 from Special Projects Fund and International Gateway Accounts at the Central Bank of The Gambia. Again, these are only preliminary findings at this stage and all indications are that these discoveries are just a tip of the iceberg” he said.

According to Justice minister Tambedou, the freezing order is therefore meant to prevent former President Yahya Jammeh from liquidating or dissipating assets held in his personal name or his assets held in the names of his close associates or agents so as not to cause prejudice to the State should there be adverse findings made against him by a court of competent jurisdiction which may require the recovery of assets and monies from him by the State.

Courtesy of Eye TV


  1. A very welcome move, even if it came a bit too late.

  2. Modou #2

    Just the beginning, next for investigation should be the assets of his Vice President. She may have already started disposing off many of the illegally gotten assets. They are all criminals to the core.

  3. Kinteh (kemo)

    A welcome development. The court sought order provides the legal basis to go after Jammeh’s ill-gotten wealth. Those having power of attorney, conferred on them by Jammeh, cannot hide behind property law or the ” due process” clause in stalling govt efforts in recovering the ill-gotten wealth and assets. They can contest this court injunction but in the meantime bind to refrain from dispossession of Jammeh’s assets. The loophole legally working for him is now sealed- at least for now and under the auspices of compelling national interest.

  4. This is just the tip of iceberg. Yaya Jammeh’s corruption is beyond the thinking of ordinary citizens. This excludes foreign bank accounts. Jammeh worth around $2 billion dollars. It is really silly to see Mr Sallah dismissed how much jammeh stole during the impasse. In one of foroyaa publications, they talked about the protection of former president’s assets. The new government should quickly go after his foreign accounts and businesses. Anyone who have business relationship with jammeh should be investigated. Mr Amadou Samba, Muhammmed Jah and others must all be called for questioning and tell Gambian people what was their business relationship with former dictator.

    • You should do the decent thing Max and provide the link to the Foroyaa publication, or at least, quote the relevant section.

      Max, Josef Goebels was wrong: Lies do not become truth, no matter how long they are repeated; just like logs don’t become crocs, no matter how long they remain in the river.

      Hon. Sallah NEVER denied or affirmed theft of funds by Jammeh. What he stated was that state authorities DO NOT make pronunciations on the basis of unverified information and that the information he got at the time, from officials who met and spoke to dept heads, was that the situation was normal.

      He also stated that only an audit exercise can provide reliable information to establish the truth about theft of funds and that people should wait until such an exercise is carried out. So stop lying about the Hon. Gentleman. He is fully focused on the job at hand and many, many people appreciate his efforts.

      He has just delivered a brilliant speech on Foreign Policy at the Gambia University, School of Journalism and Degital Media: a testimony of his untiring engagement with the youths and future leaders of our country.

      On a separate note, I read on The Point of Thursday 18th May that a court case was filed by Hon Ousainou Darboe & co, against the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police and Director General of NIA, seeking, amongst others, a declaration that the Permit Requirement for peaceful protests, under the Public Order Act, is illegal.

      I am not faulting this actiom yet, but merely expressing my surprise that such an event, from such high profile personalities as the parties involved, is not a matter of interest to this audience.

      May I ask why this is so: Why the no show of interest in this case? Should I dare say that I can only imagine what the level of interest and reaction would have been, if the litigants were Hon. Sallah & co. at PDOIS?

      Come on my in law. They “die-hard” PDOIS supporters want to know why the defeaning silence and disinterest in a case between members of the same Cabinet, on an issue that was one of the reasons of coalition: constitutional reform.

      • Bax, Halifa Sallah’s foreign policy speech is indirect deceptive challenge to Barrow’s government foreign policy or to position himself in an area where the country is doing very well. His speech was designed for elementary school students who need to know basic information on foreign policy without given them well structured and articulated meaning of foreign policy. He talked about state to state, state to people, people to people as his understanding of foreign policy. He lacks substance to tell the audience about his personal foreign policy beliefs or position. Mr Sallah was simply seeking attention because he knew Honorable Lawyer Darboe is doing a great job for the country. In his so-called lecture, he dismissed the notion of executive power in foreign policy decisions but self-righteously empowered the National Assembly members as the leaders in foreign policy. Mr Sallah went on to state “the executive cannot act alone but must rely on the legislature to be able to conclude foreign policy”. Here he tried to indicate that foreign policy should be formulated and directed by the legislative and pass on to executive for implementation. In other words, he claimed that National Assembly should make final decision on foreign policy which is further from the truth. The executive can act alone as long as it is in line with the constitution and Supreme national interest of Gambian people but do not have to rely on legislative body for foreign policy. This is the hypocrisy he has ever been claiming. In many advanced democracies, foreign policies are directed by the government in power or the president, which is why in USA Today, Mr Trump’s foreign policy is different from former president Obama’s foreign policy doctrine. Mr Obama’s foreign policy was also different from President Bush’s. Haifa Sallah is confusing the role of executive and legislative body with regards to foreign policy. It is such silly and dishonest propaganda or behavior that I despise his political ideology or strategy to deceive people. Of course, the foreign policy of any country must be in line with the constitution with regard to national supreme interest but the legislative body is not to lead the foreign policy of any country. Halifa Sallah is simply out there to sabotage Honorable Darboe.

        President Barrow has constitutional rights to formulate his foreign policy doctrine without getting any lead from National Assembly. USA senate, you have foreign policy committee which looks​ at foreign policy of any government or president and serves as an oversight body regarding national foreign interests and adherence to constitution. Halifa Sallah should have asked the speaker and other members to set up foreign policy committee which will serve as an oversight body to look into current government policy actions or doctrine but he is very wrong to indicate that executive should rely on legislative for foreign policy decisions or actions. He stated the current government “foreign policy status of the country is yet be defined and articulated ” (foroyaa , may 22 2017) which is in fact a dishonest statement. Since Barrow took office his foreign policy is simply based on respect for human rights, mutual understanding, cooperation as well as advancement of the country’s standing among the civilized countries. This is evidenced​ by the outpouring of bilateral cooperations, messages of goodwill, financial assistance and various economic development agreements and support for human rights and democracy. Halifa Sallah needs to focus on his job and stop being an expert of an area he has no knowledge of. He should stop quoting the constitution to mislead the people. He is very good in quoting the constitution while miserably failing to understand its true meaning, implications and application in any given situation.

      • Luntango (Degaleh Wagh, Tabaa Bung Bang Yekumofo)

        Bax says: “On a separate note, I read on The Point of Thursday 18th May that a court case was filed by Hon Ousainou Darboe & co, against the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police and Director General of NIA, seeking, amongst others, a declaration that the Permit Requirement for peaceful protests, under the Public Order Act, is illegal. Come on my in law. They “die-hard” PDOIS supporters want to know why the deafening silence and disinterest in a case between members of the same Cabinet, on an issue that was one of the reasons of coalition: constitutional reform.”
        Dida says: First time I am hearing this Bax. So can’t comment except to say why “NIA” which exists no more? Could it be the case is about last year?

        • Fair enough. You aren’t aware of the case, so I understand your cautious approach to the issue. According to The Point, the case was mentioned on Monday. No date was added but I assume it is the Monday preceeding Thursday 18th, which makes it Monday 15th. The case was adjourned to May 26th.

          In my view, even if the case was filed last year, under the Jammeh regime, wouldn’t it make sense to withdraw it and spare the tax payers the costs involved, as it relates to a matter that can be easily addressed by the Constitutional Reform Agenda?

          Max, whom I will now view as a “a man with a forked tongue”, contends that Lawyer Darboe is within his rights to pursue any legal matters in the courts (and of course he is right), even against the Barrow Administration without being accused of sabotage, but is there anyone in this forum who thinks Max would have held the same view if the plaintiffs were Halifa Sallah and PDOIS ? I doubt it very much.

          • Luntango (Degaleh Wagh, Tabaa Bung Bang Yekumofo)

            Right my in-law, I think the case flows from Solo Sandeng’s killing over a PEACEFUL protest last year – and Lawyer Darboe may be continuing it a) To establish the unlawfulness of the authorities UNLAWFUL reactions to Solo’s Demo b) To verify the law so that future demonstrators may not be treated that way by the present Govt. I accept there are other ways of doing this, but the matter is legal and Lawyer Darboe is … a lawyer! But I see no reasons for criticising his actions here.

  5. Max..

    You are talking absolute gabbage. You dismissed Hon Sallah’s lecture as meant for “elementary students”, and I’m not sure if this is referring to his audience at the UTG, but if it is, then I must say that they cannot be any more elementary, in their grasp of the English language than you, as evidenced by your disgraceful attempt to “interpret” Hon Sallah’s speech on Foreign Policy.

    How incompetent can it get? I will bet my few Dollars that Bourne has no regrets for not “reaching your intellectual heights.”

    You foolishly claimed that, “In his so-called lecture, he dismissed the notion of executive power in foreign policy decisions but self-righteously empowered the National Assembly members as the leaders in foreign policy.”

    You continued, “Mr Sallah went on to state “the executive cannot act alone but must rely on the legislature to be able to conclude foreign policy”. Here he tried to indicate that foreign policy should be formulated and directed by the legislative and pass on to executive for implementation.”

    What a load of utter rubbish and nonsense!!! Here’s what Hon Sallah is reported to have said:

    @Foroyaa: “He held that the fundamental principle of a country is its Constitution,

    and under the Constitution of The Gambia, Section 79 gives the executive and the legislature roles to determine the foreign policies of the country and the powers are not absolute.”

    Here, it is clear that what Hon Sallah meant is that both the institutions of the Presidency and the National Assembly have roles to play in relation to determining The Gambia’s foreign policy objectives, and that none has absolute powers to singularly finalise foreign policy in certain areas. In short, the two institutions have complementary roles.

    He continued: “The said section, he said, gives the executive the role to conduct foreign relations, receive foreign envoys, appoint foreign representatives of the country in foreign lands, conduct negotiations of treaties and international agreements and declare war against a foreign state, among other functions; but that the powers are not absolute.”

    Here, Hon Sallah has quite clearly, and without any ambiguity, stated the role of the executive in foreign policy matters, as far as the Fundamental Principles of the land is concerned. The next segment from the excerpts of his lecture will put the final nail in your coffin of ignorance and emptiness, as it provides the demarcation line between the roles of the two institutions.

    @Foroyaa: “He added that Section 79 also gives power for the legislative arm to ratify any treaty or international agreement that is negotiated, before it is put into force.”

    Here, you can see the complementary role of the National Assembly by the powers vested on members to RATIFY any Treaty or International Agreement that is negotiated (by the executive) before it is put into force.

    Where did you get the idea that, “he tried to indicate that foreign policy should be formulated and directed by the legislative and pass on to executive for implementation.” ? Absolutely shocking, Max.

    To conclude on this point, I will say that the lecture provided a clear picture of the complementary roles of the executive and national assembly to determine Gambia’s foreign policy, according to our constitution, but equally exposed the inherent flaws that could precipitate nepotism and favouritism: hallmarks of dictatorship.

    Whilst the Constitution limits the power of the executive to only negotiating Treaties and International Agreements, and makes their ratification by the National Assembly a necessary prerequisite before they are put into force, it seems to have granted the executive unchecked powers in other areas, such as appointing foreign representatives. I would like to see appointments of foreign reps subjected to approval by the National Assembly to nullify any inclination towards nepotism, etc.

    • Bax, you are on point and Halifa has clearly delineated the role of the executive and the legislature in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

      And Max’s contention with regards to foreign policy in the US is grossly distorted. Foreign policy formulation and execution in the US is a function of both the Executive, the President, and the legislature, the Senate.

      With the advice and consent of the Senate the President makes treaties and appoint ambassadors.

      The legislature, Congress, set duties and tariffs on foreign exports and imports, regulate foreign commerce and immigration and declare war.

      And although the President can originate foreign policy, the Senate can accept, change or reject policies proposed by the President. And the Supreme court has jurisdiction over maritime law.

      Halifa is supremely conversant with the Gambian constitution and understand the letter and spirit of the constitution.

      He is always on point. I also support your contention that the appointment of foreign reps should be subjected to the approval of the National Assembly. It should be party of the constitutional amendments.

      • Kamalo , I know you will come to defend your friend Bax. What I emphasized is that president directS and formulateS the foreign policy as you implied by “the President can originate foreign policy” but it is totally wrong for Halifa to indicate that legislature concludeS the foreign policy. Kamalo, you are absolutely wrong to indicate that “Foreign policy formulation and execution in the US is a function of both the Executive, the President, and the legislature, the Senate”. US president setS the agenda of foreign policy but not the senate or house. Senate is legislative body which serves as check and balance and this is why USA senate has foreign policy committee which ensures that executive operates within the constitution and supreme interest of USA. Halifa is a politician who always brings confusion on every issue. President Barrow has final say in foreign policy and he is also the one who directs and initiates foreign policy based on the constitution. There is no disagreement that NA should serves as a check and balance which why is the constitution gives that authority to NA on any national issue not just foreign policy. Halifa is just fixated with foreign policy he is looking for sabotage and attention. Halifa is not conversant with constitution but he is very good at quoting it which is easy. I have downloaded the constitution in smartphone and i can quote anytime I want. Those that mean I am an expert on constitution, no I am not. Halifa is not a lawyer and he has never studied law. He does not know the constitution as you claimed. why is he always making constitutional blunders on every major decision.

        • Max, a lot of dynamics goes into setting the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. The two branches of the U.S government, the President and Congress, are constantly interacting and influencing each other when it comes to foreign policy.

          The constitution gives broad powers to both the President and Congress in setting the foreign policy agenda of the U.S.

          And to show you that the formulation of foreign policy is a function of both the President and the US Congress, consider these:

          – the president commands the armed forces, but the congress declares war.

          -the president makes treaties, but not without the advise and consent of the senate.

          -the president appoints ambassadors, but they must be confirmed by the senate.

          And, the Congress has specific foreign affairs powers:

          – the responsibility to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.

          – the power to raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

          The Senate Foreign Relations committee have jurisdiction over foreign aid and legislation that concerns the operations of the US State Department. And the State Department carries out most of the US foreign policies.

          The House International Relations committee has broad responsibility for legislation dealing with America’s relations with the rest of the world. They have jurisdiction over foreign aid that is given to poor and developing countries, as well as military training and equipment that is given to the US allies around the world.

          Therefore, you can see that my statement is not wrong, that the formulation of foreign policy is a function of both the President and the Congress.

          The department of State advises the President in the formulation of foreign policy, and the department is in a continuous engagement and consultations with the US congress, the American public, other US departments and agencies etc. etc. in this process.

      • Luntango (Degaleh Wagh, Tabaa Bung Bang Yekumofo)

        Kamalo: “Halifa is supremely conversant with the Gambian constitution and understands the letter and spirit of the constitution”.
        Absolutely, Comrade Kamalo. What incites Max is the slective use to which Comrade Sallah puts that “supreme” knowledge – as Shakespeare says: “A sword ill-used loses its edge” – sharpness for edge. In this instance, me thinks Halifa is using it in a purely perosnal fight with Lawyer Darboe – however “objectively” Halifa tries to couch the argument!
        Halifa is an interesting fella, if you look at Chief Justice Hassan Jallow’s Conference this week, The Point, Daily Observer and even Fatu Net gave coverage to Hon Hassan Jallow’s Speech. Halifa completely wiped the Chief Justice off Foroyaa’s coverage of the event. Completely – even his presence was NOT mentioned! I think Halifa was being vindictive because the Chief Justice ruled against Halifa’s attempt to stop the NAM’s Swearing-In a few weeks ago. I appreciate, of course, that Halifa’s beef with the Chief Justice goes back all the way to the Pre-Jammeh Era: “Nyo Long Kunda, Kontong Nyininkar Ti Jay”! Beat that my in-law – in Swahili!

  6. Max…

    Who is actually being silly here, if I may ask? Hon Sallah made it clear that the Fundamental Principles of a country is its Constitution and you are running your mouth to cite Trump, Obama and Bush.

    Has The Gambia got the same constitution as US ? Is our executive relying on the same instruments as Trump to formulate and pursue his foreign policy objectives? What relevance has Trump’s, Obama’s or Bush’s foreign policy pursuits got to do with a lecture on Gambian foreign policy formulation, conclusion and implementation?

    Did you say Hon Sallah has delivered his lecture because of Hon Darboe’s achievements and that, “Halifa Sallah is simply out there to sabotage Honorable Darboe.?” Really Max ? Did I hear you personalise national achievements and credit it to one individual? How is this different from those who used to, and still credit, every achievement of the APRC Administration to Yaya Jammeh?

    Didn’t we just hear on GRTS that President Barrow donated two brand new vehicles to GRTS; vehicles reported to have been donated to President Barrow by Mr Yankuba Darboe, D/G, Gambia Revenue Authority? Excuse me, but I have to ask: did we get rid of Yaya Jammeh and his APRC or I’m I hallucinating ?

    You know Max, every individual, especially those who seek political office, have got their own ideas, concepts, understanding and specifics about governance and government, as well as their envisaged objectives, and Hon Sallah has stated what his idea of a good foreign policy entails.

    Foroyaa reported as follows: “Mr. Sallah asserted that good foreign policies enable the free movement of persons, goods and services.” This is his idea of a good foreign policy and I cannot, for the life of me, see how articulating ones understanding of a concept can be construed as hypocrisy.

    You may disagree with his concept of good foreign policy, and you are entitled to that, but how can you call it hypocrisy or sabotage of Hon Ousainou Darboe?

    No, it is not sabotage or hypocrisy, and since you have all agreed that democracy and party politics must prevail during this transition period because the Coalition is “dead”, I will say that Hon Sallah is engaged in a battle of ideas. Can’t you handle it? Why act like a frightened little man ?

    You cited a number of the the Barrow Administration’s achievements to prove your claim that Hon Sallah is being dishonest when he stated that the new government’s foreign policy has not yet been defined and articulated. Do you know what is meant by “define and articulate”? Did Hon Sallah state that the government hasn’t signed anything loans, agreements or earn respect ? Try to read and understand what is being stated begore you react. That way, you will not make a fool of yourself.

    Finally, I noticed that you have a lot to say about an academic exercise, in an academic institution on Foreign Policy, and even view it as sabotage, but have remained ominously silent about a legal court case between members of the same government. Are you now suddenly dumb and wordless ?

  7. Bax , first , here is the link where Halifa Sallah stated in foroyaa newspaper that ” the executive cannot act alone but must rely on the legislature to able to conclude foreign policy “.

    You have avoided the quote above in the same report but you selectively talked irrelevant point of discussion. The President has constitutional right to determine the direction of foreign policy but the National Assembly must act as a check and balance to ensure that executive branch follow the constitution and supreme interest of Gambian people. This is what happens in any democracy. Halifa Sallah assertion that executive must rely on the legislature to conclude foreign policy is not factually correct. What it means is that legislature is the decision making body of the foreign policy according to his deceptive statements. At the end of the day, it is the president who direct foreign policy but not the National Assembly. In his belief, he thought the National Assembly is the one who determine every decision regarding foreign policy. Halifa Sallah never indicated his own foreign policy doctrine but he spoke on general terms which I believe even elementary school children are aware of people to people, state to people or state to state relationship. He never offered any ideas about his foreign policy contrarily to your false assertion . He dismissed the executive constitutional rights to direct foreign policy but falsely stated that the executive must rely on legislature to be able to conclude foreign policy. Why he even talking about foreign policy at this moment? It is the president or foreign minister who should talk about foreign policy doctrine but not a mere National Assembly member who should serves as a check and balance. Halifa needs to set up foreign policy committee who will look into president foreign policies doctrine. I am sure in U.K. You have parliamentary committee which specializes on foreign policy matters. USA has similar committee regardless which party is in power . His speak is designed to undermine Mr Darboe and to position himself as an expert on foreign policy. He has his own personal agenda. Let him focus on his job at the National Assembly. Halifa Sallah is seeking attention.

    With the court case , lawyer Darboe is within his constitutional rights to pursue any legal matters especially something which has been going on prior to become a minister. There is no conflict of interest. That matters affects everyone

    • The link I’m asking relates to the following claim you made earlier: “In one of foroyaa publications, they talked about the protection of former president’s assets.” You should provide the link to Foroyaa publication so that the information can be verified.

      • You know this is evidence you wanted to see but now that I provided , instead of acknowledging your false propaganda you asked for another evidence. Halifa Sallah is very interesting fellow who think he knows everything. Where do you see in the constitution that the executive must rely on the legislature to be able to conclude the foreign policy? Would you please provide that evidence? “To be able to conclude the foreign policy ” which means to make final say or decision . It is this false and dishonest statement that I do not agree with his comment . This is where he is trying to sabotage Mr Darboe or president barrow. He told those students that the National Assembly makes the final decision on foreign policy which is never true . Even in the case of authorization for war , the National Assembly members will only approve or disapprove but the president has final say or decision. So it is erroneous for Halifa to say that executive must rely on the legislature to be able to conclude the foreign policy. That is self righteousness and empowerment which is a dictatorial.

        • Wow Max, that first statement is interesting. Do you seriously think that I will ask for a link to a Foroyaa publication that is still on display on its website? Come on, you should demonstrate a bit more intelligence than that.

          You posted a comment on the 23rd May (I think it’s the 4th on this page) where you began like, “it’s the tip of the iceberg.”, and somewhere in that comment, you made the claim that , in one of Foroyaa publication, they said that Jammeh’s assets should be protected.

          I began my response to that claim, by asking you to do the decent thing and provide the link or produce the relevant quotation. It was in the same response that I referred to Halifa’s Foreign Policy speech, which you disastrously tried to interpret. Now you have the nerve to accuse me of falsehood for pointing out what you obviously aren’t able to see. Please, let’s show some humility.
          You can continue in your ignorance and confusion about what Hon Sallah said. That’s your right.

          Sensible people can see that the executive, as indicated by Hon Sallah, and as laid down by the constitution, does rely on the legislature to conclude certain aspects of foreign policy and he has shown how and where.

          The executive cannot negotiate and implement such aspects of foreign policy as international agreements or treaties and it must rely on the legislature to ratify and bring to conclusion, such agreements and treaties before they can be put into force.

          Only someone stubbornly buried deeply in his/her own ignorance can argue against this fact.

          • Bax , Halifa’s foreign policy speech was designed as a sabotage and to position himself as foreign policy expert. Currently, foreign ministry is the one which is making headlines in every day news in terms of political, human rights and economic bilateral relations , initiatives and development with international community. Halifa Sallah has an agenda . For the past 22 years he has never given a foreign policy speech or even recognized that Dictator Yaya Jammeh’s foreign policy was dictatorial since he never believed that there was a dictatorship in The Gambia when jammeh was in power. He refused to call jammeh , a dictator and the regime a dictatorship but today he is saying that he didn’t want return of dictatorship. Foreign minister Darboe or president Barrow should have given the foreign policy speech to students at UG , Halifa Sallah’s speech should have headlined as ” Halifa Sallah call for foreign policy committee at the National Assembly “. With this headline, he should have talked about the role of the committee and National Assembly members to ensure that supreme law of the land and interest of the Gambian people is forefront of our foreign policy. Instead he even criticized that president Barrow’s foreign policy is yet to be defined and articulated which is further from the truth . Halifa Sallah is an expert on deceptive politics and he lack through understanding of the constitution. Whenever he gives speech , I believe he has hidden agenda. Honorable Darboe always ignores his deceptive politics. He should be grateful that UDP graciously handed over National Assembly seat to him because they did not put any candidate against him in serekunda central. He would have been a loser as he always was in every election which UDP did not help him .

  8. My in law….I can’t beat that in Swahili. Blimey, that’s good! Anyway, here’s my response to your response to kamalo.

    First, I’ve looked up the relevant dates of the Chief justice’s speech and the publications carrying it and I can tell you that your insinuations about Halifa and Foroyaa are unfounded.

    Fatu network published the story on the 23rd, but didn’t say when the event took place. The Point carried the story on their 24th edition and though they too didn’t state the date of the event, they gave an idea by using the description, “yesterday” in relation to the event, meaning 23rd May 2017.

    Interestingly, the latest Foroyaa edition that carried Halifa’s speech delivered on the 19th May, was the 22nd May 2017 edition.

    It can quite clearly be seen, therefore, that the latest Foroyaa edition could not have either carried the speech or even mentioned the Chief Justice, as it preceded the event by may be, up to 24 hours.

    Any insinuation of malice or grudges against the Chief Justice, as reasons for the failure to publish his speech or carry the story in Foroyaa, at this point in time, is completely unfounded and grossly unfair to both Hon Sallah and the Foroyaa Editorial Board. I hope apologies will be offered here, as they are definitely due..

    Second, it seems the theme of the lecture (Foreign Policy) is itself generating conspiracy theories to undermine, sabotage and perhaps, compete Foreign Minister Hon Ousainou Darboe.

    On the issue of the court case involving Lawyer Darboe, I am quite surprised that included in your “justifications” of that action, was the fact that he is a lawyer and the matter is legal.

    That to me, seems to indicate that you are suggesting that whatever reasons can be cited for the inappropriateness of this court action are overshadowed by that fact alone. (Ie: that Darboe is a lawyer and this is a legal matter). That is quite astonishing to me.

    Even more astonishing to me is the fact that, having accepted that there are other ways in which their grievances or concerns can be addressed, you still believe that there are no reasons for criticism, but I beg to differ. And here’s why:


  9. Oops, I realised that I haven’t finished my points about the conspiracy theory and wish to continue from there.

    I am not sure how the theme/topic of the lecture (ie: Foreign Policy) was chosen, but I would assume that either the student body chose it beforehand and invited Hon Halifa to deliver a speech on it, or it is part of a pre-arranged course of lecture for this academic year, delivered on the date and time on the academic programme, which would have been in place before the commencement of the Academic Year 2016/2017: a period when Lawyer Darboe would still have been in prison.

    Either way, unless it can be shown that Hon Sallah actually organised the event and chose the topic, venue and time for this speech/lecture, any conspiracy theories should just be laughed at and dismissed as another example of the anti-Halifa, anti-PDOIS malacious propaganda that is clouding the online political “landscape.”

    On the matter of the court case, I hope you will agree with me that the need to resort to court, in pursuit of redress or declarations relating to governance, is when a government refuses to accept responsibility for the commission/ommission, or the illegality of, an action affecting the plaintiffs, and is unwilling to change its ways.

    The intention of the plaintiffs then, would be to turn to an independent, higher national institution than the one they have an issue with (executive), for arbitration and ruling that is legally binding.

    The action of Darboe & co would make absolute sense if the political and governance situation in the country has not changed, but since it has, it is my view that this court action is not just pointlessness, but it is an absolute waste of Public Resources, because the plaintiffs are seeking from the court, amongst other things, what this coalition government is committed and willing to do.

    In a nutshell, the plaintiffs want the court to declare that the Public Order Act is “null and void” due to so many reasons that they cited and that the requirements of Police Permits is illegal, etc. My questions are:

    Isn’t Constitutional Reform a Manifesto commitment of President Barrow’s Administration?
    Can’t the Public Order Act be brought into conformity with the new reformed constitution, by the coalition?
    Why does anyone need to go to court to seek a declaration on a matter where almost all have agreed, including the sitting government, that it is problematic and needs reform?
    Doesn’t that constitute a waste of time and resources?

    And yet, you see no reason to be critical of the action? I’m beginning to lose hope in The “New” Gambia.

    • Luntango (Degaleh Wagh, Tabaa Bung Bang Yekumofo)

      Come, come, my in-law! Losing hope in our bright new future? Just yesterday, Farato rioters burnt cars and chased away the PIU – without a single shot being fired and no fatality! That is the New Gambia. No need to “lose hope”!
      Chief Justice Hassan Jallow coverage: The stories are EXACTLY of the SAME EVENT – I have copied all the 4 reportings just incase Foroyaa sues me! And the FACT is, the other three reports of THAT ONE EVENT mentioned Chief Justice Jallow – Foroyaa did NOT. Simple as that. Case closed!
      My comment about Lawyer Darboe “after all being a Lawyer” was not meant as a compliment! It was meant as a weakness of lawyers in general. Still, if Lawyer Darboe wants to challenge (and nullify) the Act under which Solo and Co. were arrested at a PEACEFUL Demo I think he is entitle to it … it is his right as a “sovereign citizen” to challenge the Act in court!

  10. Luntango (Degaleh Wagh, Tabaa Bung Bang Yekumofo)

    PS: It is good for two African brothers to be able to have a discussion – without being interrupted by an uncouth Mzungu!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *