assane ndiaye-nguisstal

KAYJATTA

NOT MUCH GOOD:

 NOT MUCH GOOD :

KAYJATTA
_________________Not much good
That monster has devoured her off-springs
And this is no post-partum depression
The strong men of the continent
With hands soaked in blood
Shoot , kill , and loot
All I see is naked power
No great leader
Development corrupted, traumatized
A primordial soup that begotten not
Politicians  blossom by the impure

Not much good
In the grip of Morpheus
I saw a shooting star out of orbit
And why shall man rest
Until the sun awash the creepy night
It might be true
Africa was great
The cradle of civilization
That Adam was African
But while I sit in my house of exile
All I see is the stench
Dependency and pestilence
knowledge rejected
Truth rounded-up, surrenders to falsehood
Fear trumps liberty
The Leviathan lives on 
And I slumber
And my people scrape the earth
Barely the crust

Not much good
The self-centered politician
Strangled the economy
The Lieutenant, oh the retired Colonel 
Set us ablaze
Mine like Soyinka's - a waste
When I look home-ward
All I see is a smoking gun- smouldering

ON WHY DR. JANNEH SHOULD BE UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASED IMMEDIATELY:

KAYJATTA

The First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams stated that; "we don't need free speech for a lot of speech in society. We need free speech most of all to protect people who say and do unpopular things...unpopular with the government, or unpopular with the public at large".
Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. also stated that "...the principle of the constitution is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for those whose thoughts we hate".
These two quotes above are very instructive, and should be the guiding light for freedom of expression in all free societies.
The late Isaac Asimov, the celebrated scientist, novelist and poet; wrote about a mathematician by the name Pochik who suspected his colleague to have stolen and taken credit for his groundbreaking work. The only way this could have been done would be to know Pochik's password, but Pochik insisted that it was impossible for anyone to break the code to his 14-letter password. In short, the great mathematician, Pochik demanded an investigation into how his password could have been discovered by his rival mathematician; but he (Pochik) would not tell the investigators what his password was. He wanted them to recreate the password and then provide the explanation of how someone could have cracked the code. This (Pochik's dilema) was similar to the story of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar and the three Wise Men. The King had a terribly scary dream, and called the Wise Men of his kingdom for an interpretation of the dream. The problem was that the King has forgotten the dream; all he knew was that it was a scary one. He therefore demanded the Wise Men to recreate the dream and then give the interpretation, failing which they will all be executed.
It is very true that President Jammeh of the Gambia operates pretty much like the Babylonian King. In the cases of the former police chief, Inspector Ensa Badji; the former Army Chief of Defense Staff, General Lang Tombong Tamba; and now the former Communications Secretary (Minister), Dr. Janneh among many others; the Gambian leader, as the State-run newspaper the Daily Observer fundly calls him, badly needed an interpretation of his fears, but did not have a story. Therefore, he summoned his Wise men-the NIA (National Intelligence Agency), NDEA (National Drug Enforcement Agency), and the GPF (Gambia Police Force) to create one.
This trump up charges against Dr. Janneh, a made up story by the Gambia's security forces is so wobbly-so groundless- that it is laughable. There is not a single thing in all of their allegations that is illegal. "printing and distribution of T-shirts, End to Dictatorship, and Freedom" are all legally protected speech because they  express a state of  mind. The purpose of a constitutionally-guaranteed free expression is not for speech that we all like-such as the letters of "appreciation" that fill the pages of the Daily Observer every day. The purpose of free expression is to protect expressions that the government or the general society may dislike. Free expression is critical to creativity and economic development. The allegations of "clandestine and subversive" acts are nothing but myth rooted in the autocratic thought of the Jammeh regime. Dr. Janneh, by his words and actions, did not incite violence. He did not procure any weapons, no stock piles of weapons were found in his possession, and no revolutionary literature was found associated with him. Therefore, all that Dr. Janneh should get is perhaps a speeding ticket since his vehicle was allegedly running at "top speed". T-shirts with the words "End to Dictatorship", and "Freedom", did not add up to a crime anywhere in the world. The violence in the Middle-East and North Africa that Jammeh is using as an excuse to root out potential uprising was started by the oppressive regimes in those countries, not by the peaceful legitimate protesters.
The worst that Dr. Janneh may have committed could be an attempted instigation of mass protest against the government or government policies. But again that would be perfectly legal. Mass protests against the government are protected by the law. Citizens have a right not only to speak out against the government, but also to petition and protest against the government.
The Gambia opposition parties, if they want to be credible in the eyes of Gambians, must add their voice and if necessary flex their muscle also to redirect political socialization in the country. Silence perpetuates impunity.
I have to appeal to the Gambian courts again. The courts-the judiciary- is that finest branch of government that Madison (one of America's Founding Fathers) called the least tyrannical and the least dangerous. The Gambian courts must stand up to the true meaning of their creed and rule against these frivolous cases. The courts must rid the Gambia of all the trappings of autocracy. But I am aware that the concept of a "Gambia judiciary" may be a fallacy in the true sense of the word, because the Gambia governments-past and present (but even worse in the present) has out-sourced our legal system to Nigeria. Nigerian judges of dubious personal character are in control of the Gambia courts....
Notwithstanding, the Gambian courts are hereby urged to throw out this case against Dr. Janneh for lack of merit....

THE GAMBIA GOVERNMENT, PRISTINE CONSULTING, AND THE BIOMETRIC CARDS SAGA:

KAYJATTA

The Gambia government had sued Pristine Consulting company for economic crimes involving tens of thousands of dalasis stolen from the proceeds of the biometric cards produced on behalf of the government. The co-owners of Pristine Consulting are brothers, the elder of which, Assan Touray has been in and out of detention since the saga unfolded last month. The Younger brother, Abdourahman Touray, who happened to be my high school classmate, has since fled the Gambia for the United States.
Assan Touray, the Chief Technology Officer of the company has been freed on a ten million dalasi bond. Now Pristine Consulting has countersued the Gambia government for breach of contract claiming a total of about sixty one and half (61.5) million dalasis in damages. At some point one is tempted to ask whether the Gambia, a country struggling to feed itself, should spend so much money on biometric ID cards at this point in time. I am not downplaing the importance of biometric ID cards, but I doubt that the Gambia has any pressing national security and other issues that justifies an urgent need for biometric cards at such costs.
However, as soon as the countersuit case was mentioned in court, the Gambia government offered its intent to settle out of court. The government's decision to settle out of court may only be a ploy. The Jammeh government is known to corner its opponents and twist their arms into submission. The former Mayor, Laye Conteh was cornered in a similar out-of-court settlement for charges of economic crimes where he was coerced into paying millions of dalasis to the government before getting his freedom from the frequent episodes of detention at the notorious Mile II prison.

          THE JUDICIARY:

Kayjatta

The judiciary is the third branch of government. Madison considered it the least dangerous branch in that it is less susceptible to abuse of power as compared to the executive and legislative branches.

In the United States, the judiciary’s main function is rule adjudication in original and appellate jurisdictions. The courts of original jurisdiction comprise of state courts, federal courts, and military courts. The appellate jurisdiction comprise of appeal courts and the Supreme Court.

The Federal court system consists of district courts (94 of them), courts of appeals (13 of them), and the Supreme Court. The Courts of Appeals consist of a three-judge panel who deal with errors of procedures of law. In other for the appeals courts to hear a case, a brief must be submitted.

The Supreme Court, often simply referred to as The Court has a nine-judge panel-this is only by tradition since the Civil War, the Constitution did not specify any number of judges on the Supreme Court. The nine judges consist of the Chief justice (John Roberts is the current Chief Justice) and eight associate justices. The Chief Justice’s position is an administrative one; he is not more powerful than the other judges.

The president nominates the justices, but the senate confirms their nomination after a thorough scrutiny. Justices of the Supreme Court enjoy life tenure, but can be impeached for gross mis-conduct. The disadvantage with life tenure is that infirmity may set in with old age. The fact that justices are not elected but nominated, to serve for life, brings up an argument that is described as the “counter-majoritarian difficulty”. This means that a small group of unelected people amass enough power to overturn or dictate the decisions of millions of citizens. This argument attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court justices.

The Supreme Court enjoys both original and appellate jurisdictions, and its main task is the interpretation of the law. This guarantees the uniform interpretation of the law and also maintains national supremacy.

The Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of cases (about 1%) that are brought before it. A writ of certiorari is filed and if granted (must be approved by four justices), the case will be heard. Usually only cases that raise pertinent constitutional questions, the solicitor general is a party, or many interested groups file amicus curiae; are heard.

The judicial decisions made by the justices are informed by judicial philosophy, original intent, and (political) ideology. These might also be described as judicial restraint, judicial activism, and strict constructionist.

The major oversight, policy and law making tool the judiciary possess is called judicial review. This is essentially the power of the courts to make law by side-stepping both the legislature and the executive. Interestingly, this powerful tool is not designated to the courts by the constitution; it is an implied power. However, James Madison, that greatest of U.S. founding fathers expected this to happen. The case of Marbury V. Madison (1803) establishes judicial review in the U.S.

The courts have expanded their own power by assuming judicial review as one of the basic functions of the judiciary; however the power of judicial review is not likely to survive in countries where the independence of the judiciary and the tenure of the justices is not guaranteed. This is where the Gambia comes to mind.
The Gambia has a very weak judiciary. Judges are appointed by the president without any input from the National Assembly (the legislature) and are fired at his will. Furthermore, most of Gambian judges are contracted from foreign countries in the subregion, mostly Nigeria and Ghana. Many of these judges understand that they are hired by the president and therefore are expected to serve his interest. Consequently, the judiciary is muzzled and the rule of law non-existent. Judges that act against the government and the president are routinely fired. Justice Savage, the first and only Gambian Chief justice ever; Magistrates Bory Touray and Buba Jawo are just examples of those dismissed by the president.
The lack of independence of the Gambian judiciary is a big set back for the development of democracy and economic development. A vibrant, progressive and independent judiciary  where judges can interpret and apply the laws in accordance with modern thinking is necessary for a positive evolution of the Gambian society. Primitive and archaic laws such as sedition (libel and defamation, particularly of government officials) and "lying to a government official" that are systematically used to imprison journalists, defense attorneys and other critics of the government could have since been effectively laid to rest by the courts. These crude laws deny Gambians free speech. Free speech is instrumental in fostering tolerance and also helps in the achievement of development (in education, technology, business entrepreneurship, and artistic creativity). No wonder that many potentially great Gambian artists are reduced to only singing about the president, and many other smart educated Gambians who could have started their own businesses are reduced to only chasing the president's entourage just to scrape a living. Consequently, there is a plethora of songs, paintings, sculptors and loyal followers of the Gambia's Sheikh Professor.
The courts can be very instrumental in changing the cause of evolution of societies even more dramatically than the legislature and the executive both of which even if independent are often slow and deliberative because of the nature of their constituencies and source of power. I will briefly mention some landmark cases in the U.S. where the decisions of the courts have revolutionized U.S. society and culture.
One such landmark case is Brown V. Board of Education 1954 (Topeka, Kansas). In this case the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" doctrine that legitimized school segregation was unconstitutional. This marked the end of legal segregation in the U.S. This ruling also helped sparked the civil rights movement leading to the enacting of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. These acts legally ended all forms of discrimination (in education, employment, political participation, housing, etc, etc) based on race, gender, and national origin.
Another landmark case that revolutionized U.S. society is Roe V. Wade of 1973. This case legalized abortion in the U.S. This case is very interesting because the court is very innovative in deciding the case. The decision in Roe V. Wade, that is the woman's right to abortion, is based on the right to privacy. Privacy, which is the right to be left alone or not to disclose personal matters is not in the constitution, but the courts created this by relying on other rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment for example. Therefore, the court argues "the decision of abortion is between the individual woman and her doctor" based on her right to privacy. This decision has tremendously boosted women empowerment and gender equality.
It will be unfair to end this without mentioning free speech and how the courts grappled with its challenges in different circumstances. Free speech is absolutely guaranteed in the U.S. constitution and culture. However, the courts have redefined free speech in different ways-sometimes restricting it and other times expanding it-depending on prevailing circumstances but never attempted to abridge it. During World War II and the anti-war movement, the court used the "bad tendency test" to define free speech. Then the "clear and present danger test" , also called "fire in a crowded theater" was later adopted. Since the case of Timothy McVey however, the courts use the "direct incitement test" as the current policy governing free speech. This means that any speech that directly incites violence or insurrection is not protected by free speech.
The Gambia should move quickly towards the separation of powers and particularly the independence of the judiciary. The courts and the judges must be active in claiming their independence. In the face of foreign (Nigerian) judges who are often referred to as "mercenary judges" controlling the judiciary, the Gambia Bar Association (GBA) must keep the pressure on the government for reforms. This might appear to be a long shot, but as far as I can see, the rights and freedoms for Gambians will be given by the courts, not the presidency.