OP

| The veiled ploy, masked behind the school ‘veil’ civil suit |

 

By Pa Louis Sambou

Poverty,\ncrime, corruption, unemployment, worse than poor healthcare facilities and\noutcomes but to name a few of those issues which confronts The Gambia and which\nhas serious societal consequences for ordinary people. In the face of such crises,\napparently, in the unconventional wisdom of some, pupils’ ‘right’ to rebel\nagainst reasonable school regulations, is top priority – a ‘fundamental\nright’ which merits ‘special’ legal protection some fancifully argue\n(with a straight face no doubt), and hence the targeted civil suit against the respective\nChristian mission schools all of which indicate a very strong determination to vigorously\nresist the insidious invitation to permit the boundaries of school discipline to\nbe the domain of external forces whose views and values are so antithetical to\ntheir own, among other things, they’re fatally hostile to the interests and principle\nof education as we understand it today.

It is of paramount\nimportance to bust the myth that this dangerous fringe ‘concerning citizens’\nfold represents or acts in the interest of all Muslims in The Gambia; whilst\nthey may obliviously convince themselves that such is the case, any sensible\nobserver would easily conclude that such could not be further from the truth; it\nis a fringe fold, with views so extreme and corrosive, they verge on genocidal –\nabhorrent views which are completely alien to, and incompatible with our values\nas a diverse society with a long history of peaceful coexistence. Now, let’s examine\nthe relevant verifiable facts and the colourful records of this ‘concerning\ncitizens’ fold who now self-servingly and ironically moonlight as ‘equity\ncampaigners’ shall we? Among other things, these concerning actors:

v   Constitute individuals\nwho willingly allied with former\nPresident Jammeh in his wayward persecution of respected Imams, including but\nnot limited to 90 year old Sheikh\nSheriff Muhideen Hydara, in breach of their section 25 rights\namong others; 

v  - Constitute individuals known to have been behind former President Jammeh’s\nunlawful declaration of The Gambia as an ‘Islamic state’, in breach of the Constitution,\nand the section 25 rights of Christians among others;

v  - Successfully lobbied to\nhave the failed draft Constitution to remove the Constitutional prohibition\npreventing non Muslim parties from being subjected to the jurisdiction of the Sharia\nin total disregard for the religious rights of Christians;

v  - Successfully lobbied to\nhave the failed draft Constitution to allow an opportunity for the jurisdiction of the Sharia to at a\nlater date be easily expanded beyond family law, into Criminal and Civil law, (in total disregard for\nthe religious rights of Gambians) hence the refusal to entrench clause 10;

v  - Consistently made not once and, not twice  but numerous\npublic pronouncements, provocatively\nemphasising that The Gambia “is a Muslim country, whether people like it\nor not”,\ncompletely delegitimising the Christians’ right to exist in the Gambia as\ncitizens of equal civic status or at all (in total disregard for the constitutional\nand religious rights of Christians); and 

v - Constitutes individuals\nwho espouse dangerous conspiratorial\nantisemitic and deeply offensive tropes suggesting that ‘Jews and Christians\nare insidious and aren’t to be trusted’.

So, it is highly questionable\nwhether the claim that these hold the ‘religious rights’ of anyone in high\nregard could be taken any more seriously than the espousing of animal rights\ncredentials by a poacher seeking custody over a game park.

Suffice it to say, the\nweight of evidence which isn’t an exhaustive list, strongly details a catalogue\nof very hostile militant conduct of serious concern on the part of those actors\nbehind the civil suit, which conduct is consistent with a dedicated determination\nto systematically eliminate Christianity in The Gambia – this is by no means an\nopinion, but rather an evidence - based fact which lays bare, the motivation\nfor the suit in the first place. So, I venture to opine that, by the afore\nstated empirical token, the targeted civil suit is one brought against the\nChristian Church and its congregation in The Gambia (but conveniently pursued\nin disguise through its Mission schools). Effectively, the suit has all the\nhallmarks of an intimidation tactic, designed to pursue a course or outcome whose\npermissibility in law (whether domestic or otherwise) is highly questionable. This\nsuit must therefore be understood and construed through this prism, and upon\nwhich basis any objective analysis of the subject matter worthy of any\ncredibility ought to be premised. On the facts, it would be difficult, if not constitute\na self-deception for one to attribute any credible degree of seriousness to any\nliterature which leans towards anything else to the contrary.

The facts and\ncircumstances of this case are such that the case relies heavily on the\nprinciple of equity. As the cardinal maxim has it: “he who comes to\nequity, must come with clean hands”. So, as far as equity goes, and\nconsidering the competing nature of the right in question, the worrisome pattern\nof concerning behaviour of the party seeking favour in equity in bringing the\nsuit, has to be juxtaposed with the conduct and corresponding religious rights of\nthe opposing party: Christian pupils who attend Muslim schools whose uniform\ncode includes the veil, are compelled by those schools, to wear the veil, and school\nrules to which such Christian pupils oblige and abide by, and which disciplined\nconduct the Christian Clergy subject to the suit in question has not disapproved.\nSo, in view of these, could bad faith actors of the ilk unmasked above really benefit\nfrom equity? Is a benefit in equity even merited in view of the facts and\nsurrounding circumstances? Well, these are fundamental questions upon which the\ncivil suit rests, and it is one for the Courts. It is nonetheless a considerable\nuphill challenge for the ‘concerning citizens’ fold, and for which my heart\ngoes out to the advocate tasked with the misfortune of pushing this water up\nsuch steep hill. Until then, I suspect the ‘court’ of public opinion of all\nmanner, light and shade will in the meantime continue to delightfully take its\nview on the subject matter – which is fair enough, after-all, we live in a free\ndemocratic society.

The oversubscribed use\nof the terminology ‘discrimination’ in this context does also\nmerit some attention. This is a key legal terminology, which the Constitution helpfully\navails a readymade legal definition to, and as follows (section 33 subsection\n(4)):

“affording\ndifferent treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their\nrespective descriptions by race, colour, gender, language, religion, political\nor other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status\nwhereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or\nrestrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject,\nor are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of\nanother such description.”

The relevant detail in\nthis definition being: “affording different\ntreatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their\nrespective descriptions by…religion”. The\npublicly known and verifiable fact is that all the respective schools enforce a\nuniform code across the board, consistently requiring all pupils without any\nexception, to abide by such uniform code. So on the basis of the readymade\nConstitutional definition and the facts, the challenge on the part of the\n‘concerning citizens’ fold to establish the existence of “discrimination”\neven in a remote sense, is by no means any less insurmountable than the\nuphill challenge to overcome, in order to substantiate a merited favourable\nconsideration in equity.

As a demographic\nwhich constitutes less than 10% of the population, the Christian community, as\na collective, has over many decades been subjected to conditions, treatment and\nrestrictions which are unmatched by any adversity faced by any other\ndemographic of any description in the Gambia. For context, let’s explore a few\nof these:

v   - The\nMinistry of Education recruits and avails at public expense, Islamic studies\nteachers for all schools including Christian Mission and private schools, but\ndoes not avail Bible Knowledge te