We have been focusing on politics in this column with the objective to document the contemporary history of the Gambia and to help our readers appraise themselves with the happenings of the past. We are now covering issues that culminated during the coup period of 1994. This we hope will go a long way in helping us have a better understanding of the evolution of politics in the Gambia as well as help forge a future genuine democratic dispensation for our homeland.
As the members of the AFPRC expressed contradictory opinions on the merits of establishing a National Consultative Committee to determine the time table to return to Democratic Constitutional Rule, an intense debate unfolded. We have been capturing the opinions expressed by prominent members of the society on the time table after the July 22 coup d’etat. In our last presentation we began the publication of the content of a memorandum submitted to the NCC by Halifa Sallah. We published a part of the memorandum which sought to inspire the members of the National Consultative Committee to fulfill their mandate without fear or favour; affection or ill-will. Allow us to continue from where we stopped:

According to the programme document 01’ the AFPRC, public accountability entails.
“1. Recovery of public assets and properties unlawfully acquired.”
Furthermore, exercise in social rehabilitation entails:
“Control of crime, drugs and other social vices.”
On the question of effecting public accountability, Commissions of Enquiry such as a Commission on public officers, a Commission on government departments, a Commission on public corporations, a Commission on land administration and special audits shall investigate into all these areas and submit findings which will ensure a “reform programme aimed at eliminating weaknesses” and preventing the “Reoccurrence of corruption.” What schedule then has been established for the implementation of this aspect of the programme?
According to the timetable of the AFPRC, the target date for the establishment of the commissions of enquiry is November, 1994. The date when the Commissions should complete their task is not stipulated. In this respect, the programme of action left a vacuum. However, if what was said during the swearing of the judges is to go by, the commission should complete their work within six months.
Hence, if this was the only factor to be considered in determining a timetable for transition to democratic constitutional existence, then the transition period could have had a life of one year or less. However, that is not the only consideration of the AFPRC.
Furthermore its programme for social rehabilitation has the objective of controlling crime, drug trafficking and abuse and other social vices by strengthening institutions fighting crime and drugs, rehabilitation of drug abusers, “restoration of traditional values through the home, school and the community and the provision of employment opportunities and youth service schemes. The question now arises: What is the target date for the commencement of the social rehabilitation exercise? When is the exercise to be completed?
Well, according to the timetable, no target date is set for the commencement or completion of the social rehabilitation programme. Probably the AFPRC does not consider it prudent to give time for the solution of such complex problems. Suffice it to say; what traditional values are to be retained in this ever changing world is a matter of debate. Here too there is no need to debate on the evident. Clearly, any programme to eradicate social vices and provide employment that is necessary to help eradicate poverty which is the breeding ground for social vices is beyond what can be done in four years within a hostile international environment. This is the work of a generation. Hence, it cannot provide a reasonable and justifiable basis for determining the life of the AFPRC in office. That is how matters stand on the first aspect of the programme.
Let us move to the second aspect.
The second aspect of the programme of the AFPRC at “creating a viable governance environment”. What does this entail?
According to the programme, this entails, among other things;
“1. Constitutional reform and review of the electoral system:
2. Systematic and procedural changes in the management of public resources and efficient discharge of other functions of government in a more transparent and accountable manner”.
The other aspects are “strengthening the judicial system, improvement of management capacity” and “strengthening institutional capacities.” This is to go along with a civic education component.
According to the programme, “Civic education is the key issue and central point around which all other issues revolve.”
That “The main emphasis in civic education will be on the general populace (the majority of who in the Gambia are illiterate in order to acquaint them with their rights and duties and ensure their informed participation in the political process…”
“Civic education will also be directed at leadership relationships (government opposition: military civilian: civil service/ trade unions: public sector private sector, etc) to make these groups aware of the ground rules of the democratic process.”
Here one can see that the aim of the civic education exercise is to enable all groups to be aware of the ground rules of the democratic process. Unfortunately, while civic education is scheduled to begin in January; 1995, the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission is not to start until December, 1995 and a new constitution is not to be promulgated until December, 1997. Yet it is the very constitution which should spell out the ground rules for the democratization process.
Furthermore, a new electoral law should further elaborate on the ground rules for the democratization process. However, in the timetable a new electoral law is to be promulgated in December, 1996 whereas civic education to enable all groups to be aware of the ground rules of the democratic process is to commence in January, 1995. This constitutes the putting of the cart before the horse.
In my view, since the fundamental strategic objectives of the AFPRC is declared to be to enhance public accountability and create the environment to ensure sustainable democracy, the establishment of the commissions of enquiry to recover public assets and properties should have gone hand in hand with the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission and Electoral Review Commission which shall have the mandate to prepare the democratic and constitutional instruments which shall provide the ground rules of the democratic process. Civic education is meaningless if it is just to be in the abstract. To talk about the empowerment of the people is a futile exercise without having, the instruments which show concretely how that power is to be exercised to influence the decision making process and even change their manner of government.
Hence, I can assert without any fear of deviating from the truth that civic education is inconceivable without putting in place the instruments which should be relied on to teach the people the powers they have to ensure accountability and transparency among people occupying positions of public trust and determine proper representation. The schedules for constitutional and electoral reforms are therefore not properly placed. They should begin sooner rather than later

THE AMBIGUITIES OF THE PROGRAMME
The fact that the programme of action had deviated from the declared strategic objectives of the Council in terms of prioritisation of activities gave rise to many ambiguities and inconsistencies; in short, the programme has stated categorically that
“The structure of the electoral system reveals inherent systematic weaknesses.”
Yet a referendum is scheduled for September 1996 before the reform of the electoral system which is scheduled for December 1996. Obviously, to conduct a referendum on the basis of the registers and accept it as viable is to acknowledge the defects of the electoral system. It is therefore clear that electoral reform should precede any referendum.

WASTAGE OF RESOURCES
No one can doubt that the casting of votes is a very expensive exercise. Yet, the timetable envisages the holding of a referendum in September, 1996. The election of a Constituent Assembly between September and December, 1997, local government elections in March, 1998 and general and presidential elections in November, 1998. It can be objectively argued that if the people are considered mature enough to be consulted at a referendum in September, 1996 or to elect a Constituent Assembly in September, 1997, they should equally be able to elect a President and other representatives in any of each instance.
To avoid ambiguity and wastage of resources, the same authority which the AFPRC will rely on to promulgate new electoral laws in December. 1996 could be relied on to promulgate a new constitution as recommended by the Electoral and Constitutional Review Commissions. This is better than to go through the whole exercise of electing members of a Constituent Assembly just to adopt a constitution and then ensure their replacement by elected representatives few months later. There is need to amalgamate the voting exercises stipulated in the programme.
The third aspect of the programme is the empowerment of the people. When something is plain, it is futile to debate on it. I have already indicated in no uncertain terms that empowerment of the people must be linked to constitutional and electoral reforms: that the public meetings and debates which could accompany electoral and constitutional review by the commissions may be the initial instruments of enlightening the people to know the powers which are to be vested in them by the constitution and the electoral Act that will be in place. Subsequently public meetings and debates on the media, in schools, halls, etc. on all aspects of national life will enrich the democratic culture.

See next edition of focus as we follow Halifa Sallah’s contribution to the debate on the Timetable to Constitutional democratic rule after the coup of 1994.