Last week it made headline news in a number of papers that Hamat Bah has accepted my invitation to a debate. In fact, it is reported that he has even said that I am fond of inviting other politicians to a debate who often decline the invitation but that he, Hamat, has been invited for the first time and has accepted.
I want your readers to note that this impression Hamat is trying to make signifies a classic case of twisting facts and scenarios to divert the attention of the people from the central points raised in my letter to him which was motivated by his derogatory remarks against other opposition parties and his vain attempts to justify his participation in the elections. Readers would recall that in an attempt to justify the dismal performance of his party in the local government elections Hamat feigned his participation as a heroic did by equating his action with that of Tsangvirai’s party in Zimbabwe.
In this case also he is feigning a heroic did by creating a David and Goliath scenario so that it appears to the concerned person that the brave and cunning Hamat is ever ready to face the intellectual giant Halifa who is feared by every politician except Hamat. His real desire is to evade a discourse which he provoked in his interview after the elections on the tactics and strategies of the opposition during the local government elections and turn a political discourse into a wrestling march over imagined issues that are yet to be made public by Hamat. Hence people are now building castles in the air about a debate that is to take place at the stadium and Hamat has not even said what the topic of the debate is about.
I want your readers to understand that Hamat is not a head of state or a member of the Government and is not occupying any public office. He is therefore not my opponent. It is not rational for me just to jump and invite him to a debate without coming up with a relevant subject. This is why I want to put the record straight.
In my letter to him, I concluded with the following remarks: “We therefore hope that in an attempt to justify your own political missteps you will not try to erode the hard earned integrity of the opposition that is bent on moving forward to promote electoral reform and to do everything humanly possible to make a difference in 2016. Should you disagree with any point that is asserted, we would like you to concede to a debate or joint press conference to clarify our different positions and answer questions.”
Hence, I offered to engage in a debate or joint Press conference if he disagrees with the content of my letter to him.
Hence, the task before Hamat was to refute the points I made in my letter and then accept to debate the contending opinions. During his Press Conference Hamat did not mention a single point I had raised but went on to say that he is accepting my invitation to a debate.
It is Hamat who claimed that he participated in the Local Government elections to engage the government like the opposition did in Zimbabwe. I pointed out to him that Tsangvirai won the first round of elections in Zimbabwe and adopted the policy of non participation in the second round to push Mugabe into electoral reform which happened when Mugabe lost face before the whole world. I concluded that non participation in the Gambian context is meant to show that the opposition is serious about electoral reform.
It was mentioned to him in my letter that his tactics of participation only revealed the weaknesses of his party while the tactics of non participation revealed the weaknesses of the APRC in two ways. In the first place, they were defeated by the Independent Candidates in a number of constituencies and wards in both the National Assembly and Local Government Elections. In the second place the voter apathy showed that the people have no faith in the electoral system. For example only 36,000 out of 187,000 registered voters in the KMC participated in the Mayoral elections. It was indicated that this is sufficient ground to convince the government to concede to electoral reform.
It was added that if the APRC were to refuse to concede to electoral reform all forces for change could build an Independent movement like Banjul and support one candidate to victory and then charge him or her with the responsibility of leading a transitional government to build a genuine multi party system.
Secondly, Hamat stated in his Press Conference that he participated in the elections to test the strength of the APRC . He was asked how putting up 8 candidates in the National Assembly elections with 48 constituencies to be contested, on one part, and 10 Candidates in the local government elections with 114 seats to be contested, could be seriously conceived as realistic tactics to test the strength of the APRC. It was conveyed to him that if he were really serious about testing the strength of the APRC he would have recommended for the opposition parties to allow independent candidates to participate with their support just to prove that with a genuine multi party system, the APRC days are numbered.
Finally it is Hamat who endorsed the notion that the opposition is in a state of political slumber. He was reminded in the letter that when his candidate was taken to court we wrote to the President and followed the case until he had a narrow escape which has earned us great respect in his village and requested for him to concede to investigation by journalists to determine which party has greater respect in Sabach Njayen . We argued that it is Hamat’s party that has been engaged in political adventurism that is undermining its political base.
Furthermore, we argued that UDP has been holding rallies and is not asleep while PDOIS is the main human rights defender in the country that never goes to sleep.
Finally, the letter explained that Hamat praised the IEC for its conduct of the elections even though the term of the Chairman has expired. I questioned why Hamat has become an apologist of the IEC rather than speak with one voice with the opposition he claims to be a part of.
In his Press Conference Hamat did not touch a single point that I raised in my letter.
I therefore want him to state very clearly whether he wants to engage me on my contentions with the points he raised during his Press conference on the Local Government Elections or wants us to debate on other issues that he deems to be more pertinent. Once he makes this clarification in public we could fix a date for a debate on the subject of his choosing and I humbly suggest that we start at the TANGO Conference Hall with Tango as moderator and move to the buffer zone if the hall cannot contain the crowd and then move to the stadium if the buffer zone cannot contain the crowd. The first or second week of June would be most ideal if he comes up with the topic of debate, should it be different from the contentions I raised in my letter to him.
I want to make it clear that NRP is not my opponent. I have earned the respect of many members of the party. The minority leader would confirm that my doors are always open to him for consultation on National Assembly matters. Hence my letter should be put in its proper perspective. There is no struggle for political space between NRP and PDOIS.
HALIFA SALLAH