Column | On The Legality of Barrow’s Self-Perpetuation

 

Author weighs-in on the legality of Barrow’s iron gripped to power, and the self-perpetuating rule 

By Alagie Saidy-Barrow 

 

You would often hear Barrow supporters and the Eaters say that legally, Barrow has every right to self-perpetuate in power and begin that process by running for a third term in 2026. Even Barrow’s detractors and those who do not support him concede that he has a legal right to continue the self-perpetuation. Some of Barrow’s “againsers” (as we say in Badibu) caveat their legal concession by insisting that while he has the legal right to contest, it is still morally wrong. For a nation enmeshed in syncretism, I shudder at the thought of mixing politics and morality, but I guess there is a reason why we have a political party called Gambia Moral Congress. 

 

Some of the "againsers" are quick to remind us that Barrow himself spoke out against the very act of self-perpetuation that he is championing today. Of course, everyone who stands to continue eating on the backs of tax-paying Gambians will support Barrow’s self-perpetuation. After all, it serves their interest because it means they will continue to eat. I call them the Eaters. With remarkable simplemindedness, these Eaters will always anchor their argument on the legality of Barrow’s self-perpetuation just because the 1997 Yaya Jammeh Constitution allows self-perpetuation. For them, all that matters is that the 1997 Yaya Jammeh Constitution does not bar Adama Barrow from contesting the presidency, just as it did not bar Yaya Jammeh from contesting to his heart's desire. These Eaters ignore the fact that it was Adama Barrow himself who once said, "I promise Gambians and the world that my government will introduce a new constitution, which will include term limits and absolute majority.” Apparently, Adama Barrow wants term limits for others but not himself. The simpleminded position of the Eaters brings to mind a few trenchant questions that many of us hardly ever contemplate when they cite the legality of Barrow’s self-perpetuation. 

⁃ How representative is the 1997 Yaya Jammeh Constitution of Gambians? 

⁃ Does the lack of term limits in that constitution represent the wishes of the majority of Gambians when it was inserted? 

⁃ Does the lack of term limits represent the wishes of most Gambians today? 

⁃ When is it appropriate for legality to supersede morality? 

⁃ What is the essence of a constitution?   

⁃ What determines the validity of a constitution?                    

 

Before we begin to think of answers to the preceding questions, let us consider what a constitution means to us. A constitution is supposed to spell out how people choose to govern themselves and the rights of the people within that setup. Constitutions are supposed to reflect the desires and aspirations of the people who subject themselves to its primacy. A constitution must reflect the will and interests of the majority of the people, or else its validity is questionable. This is why some form of consultation with the people is often carried out before the draft of any constitution. It is said that “the validity of a constitution can be determined by the extent to which it defines and protects the rights and duties of citizens, and whether it meets the needs of an open and democratic society.” Let us take a look at the preamble of the Yaya Jammeh 1997 Constitution. It reads:

 

“Our hopes and aspirations as a people were reflected in the enthusiasm and zeal with which we embarked on the task of nation-building on the attainment of independence. The self-perpetuating rule of the recent past, however, soon gave rise to the abuse of office and related vices which negated the total welfare of the Gambian people. The sovereign people of The Gambia therefore endorsed the change of government on 22nd July 1994 to rectify such evils.” 

 

The first point to note is that the Yaya Jammeh 1997 Constitution spoke out against self-perpetuation before claiming that Gambians endorsed the so-called change of government on 22nd July 1994 to rectify such evils (self-perpetuation and its attendant vices). If you were to ask Yaya Jammeh and his spineless lawyers who wrote this lie for them about how or when Gambians endorsed their July 22nd seizure of power, they would not be able to provide you with any answers. That is because this is a blatant lie in the 1997 Constitution. That Gambians settled for helplessness does not mean they endorsed the July 22nd seizure of power. Importantly, while the preamble of the 1997 Constitution speaks out against Dawda Jawara’s self-perpetuation, it somehow allows Yaya Jammeh to do exactly what it condemned Dawda Jawara for: Self-perpetuation. The Yaya Jammeh 1997 Constitution, like your average Gambian, is interestingly full of such self-contradictions. On the one hand, condemning self-perpetuation in Jawara but deliberately embracing self-perpetuation in Jammeh on the other hand. Pantomiming the rule of law in one instance while allowing the NIA to abuse the rights of the Gambian people in another instance. 

 

It is also important to note that what we are witnessing with the 2020 Draft Constitution today is exactly what Yaya Jammeh and his AFPRC did to the 1995 Draft Constitution. A Constitutional Review Commission, headed by Chief Justice Gilbert Mensah Quaye of Ghana, was established in March 1995 and after consultations with Gambians, this Commission submitted a draft constitution to the AFPRC. Because the AFPRC/APRC was never really interested in a people-driven-and-owned-constitution, they rejected the idea of a constituent assembly to debate the draft constitution and decided to butcher it to their desires just as Adama Barrow and his NPP/APRC cabinet did to the 2020 draft. The AFPRC/APRC lawyers butchered the 1995 draft constitution to their taste and put it through a sham referendum to buy legitimacy, just as the NPP/APRC will be doing in due course. The people asked for term limits in the 1995 Draft Constitution, but the AFPRC removed it. So let us stop pretending that it is the Gambian people who never wanted term limits in the Constitution. On top of that, over the years, through moribund parliaments led by the likes of spineless Tombong Jatta, often at the beck and call of Jammeh, the APRC further bastardized the constitution no less than forty times to satisfy the sick desires of a tyrant. But the Eaters want us to believe that this same bastardized constitution reflects the interests and will of Gambians! 

 

For a people who project religiosity, particularly Islam and Christianity, as their main source of inspiration and lifestyle, it is interesting to note how legality trumps religious dictates when it comes to the Eater’s political interests. Keeping one’s promise, honesty, and temperance are all important qualities in Islam and Christianity. But when it comes to politics, the Eaters have zero qualms about ignoring these religious qualities and embracing greed, dishonesty, lies, inconsistency, and breaking one’s promises simply because these terrible political traits are not illegal. So when the dust settles, Barrow’s desire for self-perpetuation, undergirded by broken promises, betrayal, and greed, may not be Islamic qualities or morally acceptable, but since these traits are not illegal, the Eaters, both religious and irreligious, have no issues with self-perpetuation as long as they continue to eat. In the end, that is all that matters to them: EATING. Poor Gambia!

About the Author

The author is a regular contributor to this medium 

Publisher’s Note

Views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. Want to be a contributing author? Please email opmail220@gmail.com