Re: The Lawyer Politicians and the Constitution
Dear Musa Camara
As in your article dealing with the illegal appointment, and continuance in office, of Dr Amadou Scattred Janneh, as a Secretary of State, you are again on terra firma in contending that the GMC leader, Mai Fatty (Mai), was constitutionally barred from contesting the Presidency in 2011. Should His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhaji Doctor Yahya A J J Jammeh (the Professor) take us to election 2016, Mai’s constitutional fate would remain the same as far as his legal ability to contest the presidency. To the extent your argument is thus confined, I take no issue with your position.
However, your explicit contention that the claimed Vice Presidential agreement between Ousainu Darboe (Ousainu) of the UDP, and Mai of the GMC, was “illegal”, or at the very least, “immoral”, if only potentially, appears faulty from a legal perspective. On the constitutional layout that you relied on, your argument is impossible to sustain. If indeed they agreed as claimed, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ousainu to appoint Mai as Vice President. Constitutionally, Ousainu was under no infirmity in 2011, and any such transaction would have to revolve around him to pass legal muster. On the facts as alleged, that was indeed the case. Although Mai could not have been his “running mate” from a strict Constitutional perspective, they were nevertheless free to agree as claimed. Whatever your thoughts on the alleged transaction, it was neither “illegal”, nor “immoral”! It would have been a legally permissible political strategy around the Constitutional our architecture.
The provisions of the Constitution that agitate your conscience as far as the claimed agreement between Ousainu and Mai serve no legitimate national purpose other than to oppressively monopolize public power. For any president in full charge of his faculties, the Constitution’s eligibility provisions for election to the Presidency, or appointment to the Cabinet, would have to be immediately suspended upon taking office, and completely dropped, in due time, from any future supreme governing document of The Gambia. There is indeed a legitimate argument to be made for the contention that at least 80% of Constitutional provisions not entrenched must be immediately suspended by a successor government to Professor Jammeh’s APRC if only because of the document’s total concentration of national power in the Executive. It is the suspension of offending provisions – in collaboration with the National Assembly – that would have validated, and legalized, any claimed agreement between Ousainu, and Mai.
In a reaction to the expulsion of Ramzia Diab from the National Assembly, and clamoring for the appointments of Dr Janneh, and Manlafy Jarju, as Secretaries of State, to be rescinded on the grounds of their dual nationality, I argued thus:
“In its original version, the Constitution was a disaster for even the theoretical underpinnings of democratic pluralism. As if that disastrous version did not inflict enough injury on The Gambian body politic, Dr Jammeh caused amendments to be introduced in 2001 which made the document a total tragedy for the Gambian people. In so far as it effectively emasculated the Judiciary, and the National Assembly, by reducing these constitutional pillars of the state to mere appendages of the Executive through the unjustifiable centralization of all power in the President, the Constitution is nothing but a fascist document.
On this point at least, the assertion by the Attorney General and Secretary of State for Justice that the drafters of the Constitution were no fools, is highly questionable. The drafters were clearly no visionaries for saddling us with a document, which must be revamped in the Gambia’s impending Third and final Republic. Its general thrust is inimical to both the doctrine of the rule of law, and the concept of the separation of powers”.
Without question, someone with your demonstrated faculties can clearly appreciate why there are no “legal” or “moral” issues around the claimed agreement between Ousainu, and Mai. If indeed a deal was reached, it was a competent agreement with not a hint of illegality or immorality. In The Gambia, the Vice President is appointed, not elected. Even without suspending the problematic provisions of the Constitution, Ousainu would have been legally able to appoint Musa Camara as Vice President assuming exclusive Gambian citizenship. If you are a dual national who negatively triggered the residency requirements, a suspension of the offending provisions would have legally cleared the way for your Cabinet appointment.
On whether the phrase “ordinarily resident” is “technical”, that postulation should not detain us. I have heard the same argument before from our “concerned Gambian” on a different platform, but on the same issue, and it is not compelling at all. Although I accept that “ordinarily resident” can have a legal connotation, it is clearly a common phrase in daily usage. What “technical” meaning it has does not change the fact that for the 2011 presidential elections, Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia. Wherever Mai was resident in the run-up to 2011, it was not The Gambia, and the contention that he was ineligible to stand as a presidential candidate in that year, and in 2016 for that matter, is therefore unassailable.
As to our “concerned Gambian’s” contention that the Professor himself “will not be qualified to run since he too is sometimes absent from the country for days if not weeks”, that cannot be the intent of “ordinarily resident” in our constitutional context. Those are very short absences, and more crucially, on national service. In the UK, “the courts have interpreted ordinary residence as a regular habitual mode of life in a particular place, the continuity of which has persisted despite temporary absences”. In deciding its meaning, a Canadian Court stated that “”ordinary residence” connotes something more than mere temporary presence in a place. It refers to the place in which a person’s lifestyle is centered and to which the person regularly returns if his or her presence is not continuous”.
In further amplifying the meaning of the phrase, that same Court approvingly stated that “most common law courts understand ordinary residence to mean the place where a person resides in the ordinary course of his or her day to day life. If the inquiry is directed towards a person’s real home as many courts have suggested a person usually will have only one place of ordinary residence notwithstanding the family courts’ early reliance on cases decided in an income tax context where the courts held that an individual can have more than one residence”. As stated earlier, I accept your interpretation that Mai was not “ordinarily resident” in The Gambia in 2011, and that he was therefore ineligible to run for President in that year. For practical purposes, this remains the case for Mai assuming there is a 2016 in electoral terms, and under the Professor’s rules.
Notwithstanding, and for reasons earlier stated, I reject your contention that where an agreement was reached as claimed, Ousainu was part of an “illegal” transaction. It follows therefore that I reject your assertion that this alleged Vice Presidential agreement with Mai was “both an issue of character and judgment especially for Mr. Darboe”. If there was indeed a deal, it was neither “illegal” nor “immoral”, and there was never any issue either of “character” or “judgment”. If even in a tortured way, our extant constitutional framework would have permitted the outcome had Ousainu actually offered the Vice Presidency to Mai.
Say hi to our common colleague and friend, the erudite FS.
Lamin J Darbo