PDOIS And July 22: Between Common Interest And Complacency

By Alieu SK Manjang

Today marks 23 years when the score of Gambian soldiers overthrew Jawara regime in 22 July 1994. Unlike previous years, this year’s anniversary is unprecedentedly being remembered by mourning people who were brutally killed by Yahya Jammeh in his 22 years of dictatorship. While we are recollecting Jammeh’s brutality since the coup of 1994, it should be equally remembered that when Jammeh took over power he banned the pre-coup political parties with the exception of the People’s Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS). Therefore, 22 July not only evoked memories of brutality and killings, but it called our memories to the fact that it has reshaped and reconfigured Gambian political playing ground, as PDOIS was given a preferential treatment relative to other existing political parties prior to the coup. This begs the legitimate question of the party’s position vis-a-vis the coup that uprooted the democratic elected government of Jawara, which was being opposed by PDOIS in its crumbling stage.

Apparently, the party’s Wikipedia page indicated that PDOIS didn’t publicly denounce the coup; similarly a documentary filmed by Swedish at immediate aftermath of the coup confirmed that both Sedia Jatta and and Halifa Sallah were optimistic about the transition as they also reassured Gambians that the AFPRC would honor their promise to hand over the power to the people after the elapse of the transition period. In view of this, it will be of reflective to remember the possible active or passive role PDOIS might have played, as the sole strong political party at time, to make sure that the coup leaders return back to their military barracks, and to firmly stand that they relinquish power to the people. Gauging this equally raises following questions:

Was PDOIS instrumental in or complacent with AFPRC’s entrenchment of its power from 1994 to 1996?

Was it the convergence of political interest that dictated PDOIS leadership’s failure to publicly condemn an undemocratic act of removing an elected government?

Was Sidia and Halifa’s turning down of cabinet positions from Jammeh sufficient to confirm their denouncement of the coup?

Does their recent rejection of cabinet positions from Barrow’s coalition led government invalidates this suggestion?

Considering the present hyperactivity of PDOIS’s in the Gambian political scene since the December elections , could we have witnessed different scenarios should PDOIS was equally obsessed and concerned with people’s sovereignty, as this principle currently clearly stands out in their political discourses?

Does this suggest that the party was intellectually and politically immature to inject this principle into their political discourse in a bid to mobilize the electorates to stand up for the possible usurp of political power by the Junta?

Was there any tangible or real threat that could have muted and silenced the leadership of the party to champion that cause as the party is currently embarking on?

Answering these questions will sufficiently address horizontal and vertical consistency or inconsistency between PDOIS principles and their actions in different epoch of Gambian politics . More importantly, it will permit the Gambians to understand the extent to which PDOIS has been complacent with entrenchment of AFPRC’s power in The Gambia in the infant stage of the coup.



  1. Thank you Mr Manjang for your brilliant and intellectual analysis and questions regarding PDOIS and its leaders . The answer to your thoughtful questions can be found in the article below I wrote about PDOIS ” as an agent of military dictatorship”.


    I hope the readership will find it very interesting to reflect on how PDOIS have played a crucial role to prolong military dictatorship in The Gambia until the entire leadership of UDP was kidnapped and illegally incarcerated in mile two central prison. Currently, it is not in the PDOIS party interest to see Jammeh’s assets been frozen . It would be interesting to see how PDOIS leadership will react to the commission of enquiry into former dictator Jammeh’s assets and corruption.
    In fact , PDOIS leadership was on the record to have bless and encourage given chance to coup makers in the early days of constitutional violation.

  2. ALIEU MANJANG whatever your write-up is intended for, is just devoid of reason and cannot stand the test of honesty in every meaning of the word. PDOIS could not be banned because they stood their ground from STAND AT EASE to CEASE FIRE unlike other political parties who took sabbatical and coiled their tails into their cocoons for fear of the JUNTA..You need to be reminded that both SEEDIA and HALIFA have said during their trial that they did not cease operation because nobody is yet born who can deny them exercising their Fundamental Human Rights. With this in mind the JUNTA knew they are determined and unstoppable.Your claim about a documentary film by a Swedish is an incorrigible lie. Provide the link. You just another MAX in grand style sheer hatred for no just cause. You can go to PLUTO for all i care but PDOIS will exist and propagate their ideas, programs and policies.

    • Bamba, PDOIS never protested about unconstitutionality of military dictatorship or coup in the country. Halifa and Seedia protested about the attempted ban of foroyaa newspaper and that protest was done to protect and preserve their business interest . You must remember that PDOIS leadership depend on foroyaa for their financial gain . Foroyaa newspaper continued operation without any threat or problem during military dictatorship was a tactical and strategic decision to legitimize military dictatorship in The Gambia. Please read my article above , you will have better understanding.

  3. MAX JONES stop beating the noisy drum that the UDP executive was kidnapped and illegally incarcerated.The UDP executive violated the law just like the KANILIA people and they were tried and convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction. As to the PDOIS reaction to the Commission of Enquiry into JAMMEH’S assets, PDOIS does not concern itself with the affairs of leader who is not at the helm of affairs.

    • Bamba , I am not max Jones . I understand that there is an individual who goes with that name on Facebook. Max Jones never write any article in this forum or any online newspaper. I am wondering whether this individual tried to steal my identity.
      Concerning your comment on PDOIS not interested in the affairs of leader not in power , such position is the belief of PDOIS leadership who are not interested to see justice as far as Jammeh’s corruption and illegal assets are concerned. So I am not surprised. It is the same reason that Halifa Sallah continue to ignore such important part of economic patriotism which is to recover Jammeh’s stolen assets.

  4. Max…

    Provide proof (ie financial statements of PDOIS) to substantiate your claim that their leadership depended on Foroyaa for financial gains. That’s what a concientious individual would do. Failure to provide proof will stand you accused of spreading FALSE and malicious information intended to smear the PDOIS Leadership.

    Whatever reasons you can conjure up for the refusal of PDOIS to bow down before Decree No.4 without a fight, one thing you cannot deny is that at least, they stood up against the AFPRC’s rampage on our rights, even if it was to protect a business interest.

    The PDOIS Leadership, comprising Halifa Sallah, Sidia Jatta and Sam Sarr, came out of their comfort zones and staged a public defiance against the military Dictatorship, just metres from their seat of power. And they continued to write extensively on the pages of Foroyaa, to publicly and openly challenge and admonish the Junta, whilst offering their alternative views on the way forward, at every juncture of the transition process. That is the enviable record of PDOIS recorded by history at that point in time.

    Perhaps, you would like to tell us the record of those you praise today, during that difficult and very tense period (1994-96)?

  5. Notes on Halifa Sallah’s arrests:

    During military junta’s AFPRC government or rule, “it would be recalled that Halifa Sallah and Sidia Jatta, Editors of Foroyaa were arrested on Friday 19 August 1994” for defying Decree no. 4 (banning political parties and political activities by AFPRC military junta), detained, faced the courts and prosecuted.

    “On 15th November 2005, he was arrested along with two other opposition leaders (O.J & Hamat Bah) on the grounds of subversion, accused of having collaborated with the President of Senegal. The charges, however, were dropped following the intervention of Olusegun Obasanjo then-President of Nigeria.”

    Further arrest “on 8 March 2009, Sallah was arrested and taken to the Central Prison, Mile II. The Jammeh regime accused him of “publishing a seditious intent and spying”; on an petition to the President (VP of National Security Council) APRC government condemning the arrests of citizens on Jammeh’s witches hunting arrests. However the charges against him, were dropped on 25th March, “in the interest of peace and justice.”

    “Sallah was also reportedly detained in June 2009, when he went to visit a group of imprisoned journalists at the NIA. He was held overnight before being released.”

    Reminding you also during the PDOIS Convention 2016 when unsung heroine Mrs Amie Sillah Sarr recalled her sorrowful ordeal under tyranny imprisoned at Mile 2 with her baby.

    • Mr Lowe , PDOIS leadership protest was against the ban of foroyaa newspaper because the junta made the assumption that foroyaa was part and parcel of PDOIS. When the matter was taken to court , PDOIS leadership won the case because foroyaa was legal business entity but not an organ of PDOIS based on legal status. However, again PDOIS was not functioning as a political party during the transition period because of degree #4 which banned all political activities and parties. You can see that foroyaa was in business operation during transition period but PDOIS was banned during the same period. It was during this period that PDOIS leadership encouraged and advocated for Gambian people to support or give chance to young military leaders and they also helped to draft the constitution as well as encouraged Gambians to vote on referendum on new constitution. PDOIS leadership were pioneers of this current constitution which jammeh has used to legitimize military dictatorship. This is why I have indicated that PDOIS was an agent of military dictatorship in The Gambia. Since 1994 foroyaa was the only private newspaper which openly operated or functioned without any threat from Jammeh’s terror machine. The newspaper has never been attacked or its editors never faced any trouble. Why did foroyaa received preferential treatment from jammeh’s regime When other media houses were forced to close , its members went on to exile , killed , disappeared or illegal detained? Please answer this fundamental question.

      • Max…

        1. Decree No.4 sought to ban political parties and political activities. It wasn’t meant to ban businesses. The PDOIS Leadership was not charged for operating an illegal business, but for engaging in actions or activities that contravened Decree No.4, and since the Decree was not meant to ban businesses, how could you continue to argue as such. I am sorry but that is just foolishness.

      • Are you being dishonest refusing to present the facts as they are or you are just trying to misinform the people ? In either case you are dishonest in your presentation of what actually happened.

        Contrary to what you are saying PDOIS leadership did not won that case. Instead they were convicted for publishing and distributing a paper [ Foroyaa ] which was an organ of a political party PDOIS and were given a suspended sentence of three years. This is the fact, Max.

        After that court case the only change that happen to Foroyaa was that it was no longer put on its front cover as organ of PDOIS but the paper continues to operate as before. So the freedom that Foroyaa is enjoying from then up till now was fought and won. It was not given on a silver plate as you want people to believe. That is what you must admit Max.

        Again if PDOIS was not functioning as a political party during the transition period because of degree number four as you say, how come you are now accusing it of encouraging and advocating for Gambian people to support or give chance to young military leaders and also helping in the drafting of the constitution as well as encouraging Gambians to vote in a referendum for the new constitution which you claimed to have legitimize military dictatorship ? .

        Now in your view did all those who contribute in the drafting of that constitution also stand accused as PDOIS for legitimize military dictatorship ?

        What about those who folded their hands like you Max ? How do you class them ?

  6. Astahfirrullah Astahfirrullah Astahfirrullah
    for all of your comments.

  7. 2. Seriously, sometimes you don’t even deserve a response. Every one knows that Foroyaa is not only part and parcel of PDOIS, it was the organ of the party. In fact, printed right across the front of the page in those days were the words, “Organ of the People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism.” How could the Junta have assumed wrongly?

    The charges themselves clearly indicated that the duo were charged in connection with printing, displaying, distributing, exposing (for sale) and possessing a newspaper in the interest of a political party, which contravened Decree No.4. So you are talking absolute nonsense.

    3. You praised Alieu SK Manjang’s article as “brilliant and intellectual “, but you have contradicted him here when you claimed that PDOIS was banned “during the same period.”

    Here’s what you wrote:

    @Max: “However, again PDOIS was not functioning as a political party during the transition period because of degree #4 which banned all political activities and parties. You can see that foroyaa was in business operation during transition period but PDOIS was banned during the same period.”

    Mr Manjang’s claim is that all parties, with the exception of PDOIS, were banned during that period. Let me quote what he said:

    @Alieu SK Manjang : ” While we are recollecting Jammeh’s brutality since the coup of 1994, it should be equally remembered that when Jammeh took over power he banned the pre-coup political parties with the exception of the People’s Organization for Independence and Socialism (PDOIS).”

    If you are right (and of course you are right because PDOIS was also banned and had to re-register to exist in the 2nd Republic), why did you praise a view point as “brilliant and intellectual”, when it contained such a flawed statement? What does that say about you?

    4. You persistently continue to falsely allege things against PDOIS without any proofs. Where is the proof that PDOIS encouraged people to give the Junta chance or helped to draft the constitution? Provide the proofs and stop making unstantiated claims.

    PDOIS knew that a first step towards normalising our situation was a constitution and that’s why they campaigned for a “Yes” vote. They also, not only contributed their quota throughout the consultation period, but took the trouble to serialise the draft to help voters understand what’s at stake, and see the defects of the draft for themselves.

    May be, you should tell us the role that those you support today played during that period to campaign for a “No” vote and what would have been, had we voted “No” and rejected the draft. I hope you are not among those who claim that the Junta would have dissolved itself and gone back to barracks. I wonder who they would have handed over to? Any idea?

    5. I think Jammeh knew very early on, since that first clash with PDOIS over Decree No.4, that trying to clamp down on, and silence them, would not only be difficult, it would be counterproductive. And he knows that except silencing them for good, no amount of intimidation would work against PDOIS. Halifa made that very clear during that trial when he told the judge that no human being was yet born who could deny him his right to freedom of speech.

    So, there’s your answer why Foroyaa was left alone. Of course, it had to re-register and drop the words, “organ of the People’s Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism.”

  8. Bax and PDOIS disciples, I don’t think you really understand why PDOIS Leadership protested in the early days of the coup . The protest was about the publication of foroyaa newspaper which the military junta assumed was an organ of PDOIS. Degree # 4 banned all political parties and political activities but it did not ban freedom of expression which foroyaa newspaper was entitled to like other newspapers which were all operational at the time. Despite military junta , freedom of expression was not banned , in fact jammeh had encouraged freedom of expression at the time in order to gain recognition and to be seen as soliders who came to empower citizens. But the publication of foroyaa newspaper did not go down well with the junta’s perception about the newspaper. There was two distinct problems at display at the time which Degree #4 affected as far as foroyaa newspaper as an organ of PDOIS was concerned , one was the freedom of expression and two was political activities. The was why the charges included printing , displaying, distributing, exposing and possessing a newspaper in the interest of a political party which contravened Degree #4. PDOIS leadership protest was about the freedom of expression as well as business interest of foroyaa newspaper publication. It was this reason that both Halifa and Seedia printed the publication and displayed the newspaper. They have never protested against the ban of PDOIS or any political parties at the time. This was exactly why they were arrested and taken to court . In the court , PDOIS leadership defended foroyaa as a newspaper which must continued its publication as a separate entity and the court granted such right to foroyaa because other newspapers were all operational at the time. This has led foroyaa to remove from its front page the term ” organ of PDOIS ” in order to operate as a newspaper in the country. This gave victory to PDOIS leadership and to allow foroyaa publication as well as protect and preserve the business interest of PDOIS leadership as legitimate owners of foroyaa. Why did foroyaa removed the term ” as an organ of PDOIS ” after the court case ?
    Legally speaking , foroyaa was registered as separate entity and its continuing to function that way despite political bias and non criticism of its owners by the same so called editors. Foroyaa newspaper never criticized Halifa Sallah despite his flaws political strategy and lack of understanding of the culture and social dynamics of the country in his rhetoric in talking to confused elites who also are disconnected with indigenous people.
    Contrarily to false claim that PDOIS did not win the case , PDOIS leadership won the court case and it continue to operate to this day . Fabaks get this fact.
    This was the only fight Halifa Sallah ever engaged in and won legally despite there was suspended constitution at the time. Any other matters related to laws or constitutional which he engaged in , he was severely criticized and lack constitutional understanding. The moment foroyaa was given victory, From that day , jammeh made a tactical and strategic decision to allow PDOIS and foroyaa to function as an agent of military dictatorship. PDOIS leadership campaigned for yes on flawed constitution which entrenched jammeh in power for 22 years. They were Part and parcel of pioneers of the military constitution, and foroyaa served as a institutional newspaper to legitimize military dictatorship. It was the only newspaper which was never touched and its editors never arrested . We must also remember that as far as human relationship is concerned, Sam Sarr had good relationship with Jammeh. Foroyaa was never critical of Jammeh as a leader and all their editorials were expressed in generalization which can be applicable to any political leader. They never called out jammeh as a dictator or its regime as dictatorship. It was a policy of PDOIS not to call Yaya jammeh , a dictator until after the election when Halifa Sallah started to indicate that they would never allow The Gambia to return to dictatorship. What a political hypocrisy ? I have confronted PDOIS and its disciples about they never called jammeh a dictator.
    Recently, Halifa Sallah spoke against the commission of enquiry as a discriminatory treatment against the former dictator. Left to him alone , Yaya Jammeh will have full control of illegal assets but thank God we have people in the forefront who care about justice .

  9. Bax said “PDOIS knew the first step normalising our situation was a constitution and that’s why they campaigned for a “Yes” vote. They also, not only contributed their quota throughout the consultation period, but took the trouble to serialise the draft to help voters understand what’s at stake, and see the defects of the draft for themselves.”
    What is wrong with you in above statements. Is this not why I said PDOIS were pioneers and advocate of flawed constitution?
    Bax , in essence what you have indicated in above statements was that PDOIS advocated, supported and campaigned for military constitution as a mean to legitimize military dictatorship. This means that PDOIS leadership were the pioneers and encouraged Gambian people to vote yes on constitution which was designed to legitimize and entrench dictatorship. If they have campaigned no , the military junta will have no other choice but to return to barracks where they belonged . No vote means no to constitutional violations and the military junta would have returned to barracks . PDOIS helped to legitimize constitutional violations when they campaigned, advocated, supported and blessed the efforts of coup leaders to entrench themselves in power and there after acted as an opposition party with hidden agenda to preserve and protect their business interest despite their limited political support in the country.
    How can someone who truly believe in rule of law and democracy campaigned for violators of constitution and abusers of democracy?

    • Max….

      Point 1. There is neither TRUTH, nor any RELATIONSHIP between PDOIS supporting a “Yes” vote at that referandum and your claims of pioneering, advocating, supporting and campaigning for a “military constitution as a means to legitimising military dictatorship”. This is just the figment of your idle mind and imagination, completely devoid of reality.

      Point 2. The Constitution you call a “Military Constitution”, and had also called “Toilet Paper” in the past, contains some of the most beautiful provisions you will find in any constitution.

      Here are some examples:



      1. The Gambia is a Sovereign Secular Republic

      2. The Sovereignty of The Gambia resides in the people of The Gambia from whom all organs of government derive their authority and in whose name and for whose welfare and prosperity the powers of government are to be exercised in accordance with this Constitution”


      2. All citizens of The Gambia have the right and the duty at all times to defend this Constitution……..” (ask yourself what you did in 22yrs to defend this constitution before you incessantly attack PDOIS.)



      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 this 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.”

      You can see Max, that these beautiful provisions, contrary to your foolish claims, are compatible with any democratic society and this is what PDOIS and many Gambians supported.

      Like I stated before, the PDOIS Leadership had indeed, played their part in our efforts to return our country to normalcy from day one (July 22nd 1994) and history has recorded it. My question to you, which remains ignored and still unanswered is, what is the record of those you praise today as heroes and liberators?

      @Max: “No vote means no to constitutional violations and the military junta would have returned to barracks.”

      If I understand you right, your view is that a “No Vote” at that referandum would have meant that the military would go back to barracks. I am intrigued by this line of reasoning and want to learn more. So do me the honours and help me out with the following questions :

      1. Would the military have left voluntarily or be forced out?

      (a) If they left voluntarily, who would they have handed over power to? Any idea?

      (b) Who would have led the uprising, if they refused to budge? Your heroes?

      2. What is the basis of your claim?

      Point 3: The military junta received national endorsement, through the National Consultative Committee, to implement a TWO Year Transition programme (1994-96), including the drafting and adoption (by referandum) of a new Constitution and the holding of multi-party elections to move us into the 2nd Republic.


      • Bax, those who voted “no” on the constitution wanted the military junta to return to barracks. Some have continued to challenge military government. You must remember that the first ever crackdown occurred when patriots organized demonstration in the early days of the coup to express their condemnation of military junta. These were PPP supporters who were arrested and taken to court. PDOIS was an opposition party before the coup , if they had encouraged the citizens to vote no during referendum then the military would have no choice but to accept the verdict of the people , that is rejection of the new military constitution. PDOIS never condemned military coup in the first place . Campaigned for yes vote was designed to ensure that military dictatorship was entrenched. PDOIS leadership were the only politicians who campaigned, support and blessed the new constitution at the time .

        • Oh, you mean the “Visa demonstration”, held in front of the US Embassy? What was its impact on the Junta and Transition process? Absolutely NIL. Easily dispersed and never heard of again. Not many people even knew about it. That’s your idea of “condemnation, is it?

          PDOIS did more than any condemnation would do: they took on the AFPRC in the most productive way at every stage of the process.

          Here’s my favourite part from a letter addressed to the AFPRC Junta on 24th July 1994. Imagine, just 2 days after the coup, when PPP officials were either hiding, complying with the order to surrender at nearest Police stations or running away, whilst opposition politicians, professionals were on.self imposed “holidays.”

          Quote: “It was Sankara who said, “A soldier without political education is a virtual criminal.”

          Let us add that a soldier who does not have the interest of the people is a virtual beast. Such a soldier would put his/her personal interest before the interest of the people. Such a soldier would.not hesitate to engage in ruthless extermination of those who are determined to live as free and dignified human beings. Such a soldier would prefer people.to cringe, crouch, and crawl before him/her because of the gun in hand.” (And it goes on…)

          PDOIS also circulated a petition for a National Conference to be called to decide what the people.want and when one.of the distributors was arrested and detained, the author (probably Mr Sallah himself) took responsibility, went to see Interior Minister Cpt. Hydara (late) and offered himself for detention, which led to the young man.being released. That’s activism that produced impact on the Junta. What did your visa demo achieve? Another question that will most likely be ignored because there aren’t any answers.

          • Bax , clearly you have no respect for anyone who demonstrated against military dictatorship except PDOIS leadership. You have shamelessly called Solo Sandeng and his group of peaceful protesters ” distraction and threat to The Gambia’s peace and stability”, and now you disrespectfully called PPP supporters who demonstrated against military Junta “Visa demonstrators ” while you hypocritically and passionately defended Halifa Sallah and PDOIS leadership who campaigned and pioneer the current constitution. It is outright disgusting and I demand full apology and total repudiation for your disparaging remarks against patriotic citizens who demonstrated against constitutional coup. For your information, majority of people who demonstrated against military coup have never left the country and they have suffered in the last 22 years. They and their families were denied jobs and other services/benefits citizens should have. I hope you take personal responsibility for your statements.

  10. So it is clear that PDOIS’ support for a “Yes” vote was in consonance with the wishes of The Gambian People to get past the Transition and into normalcy within the endorsed 2 year period.

    Point 4: You have never hesitated to criticise PDOIS for what you allege to be supporting a military constitution to legitimise military dictatorship, but have no criticism for anyone else, despite everyone else relying on the same “military constitution” to form, register political parties and partake in elections sanctioned by the same military constitution for 20 long years. Any reasons for this double standards?

    I would have thought that those who viewed the constitution as a military constitution would have rejected it and refused to rely on it to conduct party politics. Won’t you agree? It certainly smacks of hypocrisy to me, to oppose an entire constitution, as a military constitution, but still utilise it to pursue personal or group political ambitions. That would certainly qualify such individuals or groups as “ligitimisers of military dictatorship” to me, because they knew the constitution was a military one.

    At least, PDOIS didn’t see it that way, so they shouldn’t be accused of legitimising military dictatorship. It is those who knew that it was a military constitution but still went ahead to rely on the same constitution to participate in the electoral and other constitutional processes who should stand accused of legitimising military dictatorship.

    Point 5: Does it make sense to you that people would hide behind a political party to engage in business? Is it a crime to engage in newspaper business? For your information, people create fronts in life to hide illicit activity. PDOIS does not have to hide behind a political party to run Foroyaa as a newspaper business, and for you to claim so is illogical and shamefully ignorant. Again, my challenge to you to proof that PDOIS leadership relies on Foroyaa for financial gains still stands.

    Point 6: You asked how Democrats, who believe in the rule of law, can campaign for violators of the constitution, meaning that the PDOIS Leaders were campaigning for the AFPRC Junta. Again, this shows how shallow minded and one dimensional you are. The campaign for a “Yes Vote” was for The Gambian People, who were subjected to international isolation, economic sanctions and face serious internal threats, due to the coup and volatile security environment. The nation needed a new constitution as soon as possible, to begin the process of returning to normalcy and an acceptable status quo to our international development partners.

    The AFPRC did not want a constitution so soon and left to them alone, no one would have been talking about a constitution for at least 4 years (1994-98), which was their initial announcement. In fact, the constitution would kill the AFPRC and force the Junta to either return back to barracks or resign from active service, form their own party and contest the elections, which they did and knowing you, I will not be surprised if you now point the finger of blame at PDOIS for the creation of the APRC. That will be interesting indeed, but you never fail me.

  11. It was in fact not the wish of the AFPRC for this constitution to be endorsed at the referendum that was why The July 22nd Movement which was the brainchild of Baba Jobe created purposely to support the junta was campaigning for a no vote. The AFPRC only came to embrace the Yes Vote after the people have already decided. So it is only those with myopic minds who consider this constitution as military constitution.

    Jammeh was never happy with this constitution.

  12. Fabaks, it is absolutely untrue and outright fabrication to state that AFPRC did not want this constitution to be endorsed. Why did the junta come up with the idea of constitution in the first place if they did not want it to be endorsed? For the junta to be able to legitimize themselves in power, they needed a constitution. Was it not lack of term limit in the constitution that Dictator Yaya Jammeh and his gang used as a pretext to stage illegal and treasonable crime? Stop making things up here .

  13. Max, I am beginning to wonder what actually is wrong with your reasoning. You don’t know why they came up with a constitution ? it is because that is what was demanded by the people. Either you were too young then and cannot remember that or you are suffering from memory deficiency, otherwise you would have known that.

    Was it not the Junta which has gathered the opinion and influential leaders from all over the country at the state house and beguiled them into calling for a no election which has miserably failed ? How could people with such intention on their own will come up with an idea of a constitution which calls for a multi-party democracy characterised by elections and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms ?

    Who said it was lack of term limits in the constitution that the junta used as a pretext to stage the coup ? Is that what they said or your own imagination ?

    How did the constitution legitimize them in power ? Did they need the constitution for that and how ?

    If you are implying that it is the constitution that keep them in power then why was Yahya Jammeh unseated on 1st December 2016 while it is the same constitution which was and is still in place.

    Don;t you think the force that ousted him on 1st December would have taken him out had it been created in 1996 elections ?

    • Fabaks , the mere fact that you denied that lack of term limit in the constitution was not used as justification for the coup, tell me something is fundamentally wrong with your credibility. For your information, junta stated that Jawara overstayed in power and there was no term limit in the constitution. These were some of their reasons for the coup. It amazes me how you could fabricated and denied factual information.

      • You can run but you can’t hide, Max. This is the question you have asked and on the basis of which I gave you those answers above.

        You said…

        ”Was it not lack of term limit in the constitution that Dictator Yaya Jammeh and his gang used as a pretext to stage illegal and treasonable crime?”

        and now you are saying…

        ”These were some of their reasons for the coup.”

        But the question was how did the constitution came about ? You said..from the Junta, therefore in your thinking a military constitution needed to.legitimize themselves in power. I said that is a lie. I said this constitution was demanded by the people.

  14. Max….

    Sorry, for upsetting you so badly, but I didn’t coin the term. May be, I have evoked old memories. Actually, that demo was dubbed the “visa demo” by many at the time because of where it was held: in front of USA Embassy. Miles away from the Junta’s seat of power in Banjul.

    By the way, these are the same PPP officials who failed to stand up when it mattered most because they were the ones in government and parliament on 22nd July 1994?

    That’s like a farmer, eventually mustering the courage to get up and strike at a python’s tracks after the snake had taken his chicken and left, but not even daring to do so near the snake’s lair. Commendable action by the brave farmer, according to Max logic.

    I’m not going back to the Solo Sandeng incident and what I’ve said then, regardless of your distortion. I still stand by what I said and have absolutely no apologies to make.

    And since you have no answers for me, I will draw the curtain on this one. Till we “meet” again, adios.

Leave a Comment

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