Bakary Bunja Dabo, Secretary General Party Leader Gambia For All
The process of framing a new Constitution for The Gambia continues to prove both laborious and contentious. The most recent development in the unfolding saga is the reported postponement of the National Assembly’s consideration of the bill that introduced the Draft Constitution 2024 to the parliamentary institution’s second ordinary session, sometime in June. It is said that it was the Government, through the Attorney General, that requested the deferment to allow for further consultations aimed at fostering consensus among stakeholders.
Ever since the violent overthrow of constitutional order in 1994, the Gambian state, in terms of its institutional line-up, its administrative system and processes, as well as its very aptitude to cater to the needs and aspirations of our people, has suffered marked decline, one from which it is to still make real and sustained recovery. Our party, Gambia For All, has been consistent in calling for an overhaul of the state in its institutional structure and governance practices, the objective sought being a modern state with a progressive outlook and endowed with functioning institutions to inspire and lead the collective efforts needed to drive the nation-building project. To us, the case for a new constitution rests on the objective need for a new social and political pact to serve as anchor for a reformed state. GFA believes that the foundation here has to be a forward-looking basic law, or constitution, to serve as anchor for the far-reaching reforms needed to foster a resumption of the path to purposeful nation-building from which the country has been diverted by the antics of the rogue regime.Our country might have seen the back of the tin-pot dictator some eight years ago, but breaking out from the system of institutionalised bad governance, through which he had misruled the land for close to three decades, is a daunting challenge with which we are still to come to grips. That is why, since 2016, persistentclamour from many quarters has been for a newgovernance system that will unequivocally uphold the principles of constitutional democracy, the rule of law and good governance. There is pressing need to do away with the ineffectual system inherited from the grotesque dictatorship, but which still operates under the present administration; fit just for sustaining anuncaring, predatory state and an inept systemcharacterized by reckless abuse of authority andmismanagement, all of it within a culture of generalised administrative malfeasance, and against the backdrop of systemic impunity.
This is why Gambia For All remains steadfast in its advocacy for comprehensive legal and institutional reforms to underpin the desired system change. In that regard, we have been closely monitoring relevant developments regarding the issue, from the preparatory National Stakeholders’ Conference, held in May 2017,through the setting up of the Constitutional Review Commission [CRC] tasked with drafting a replacement to the 1997 Constitution.
Upon publication of the Commission’s final report in 2020, our party scrutinized its proposals with keen interest before issuing our 08 August 2020 public Statement in which we averred that the CRC draft represented a significant improvement on the constitution adopted back in 1997 and still in force. We further asserted that, if adopted, the draft would likely prove to be “an effective instrument to underpin the functioning of a progressive modern state, the practice of good governance and the moulding of a democratic society in which citizens [would] enjoy the scope for living in freedom and dignity” before commending it to Gambians for support should it ever get put to them in a referendum.
In reaching that conclusion, one crucial litmus test we used was the answer obtained from asking the question whether, and to what extent, the draft document could be said to prescribe adequate safeguards against a repeat of the structural dysfunctioning and other weaknesses within our existing governance framework which had in the past caused so much disservice to our collective desire to live together in peace, and to develop into a progressive modern nation state.
In that regard, we noted a number of notable merits inthe proposals submitted at the time by the CRC; theyincluded provisions that would go to robustly promote the decentralization of the administration of the country, help streamline the organisation of public services and enhance transparency in the management of public finances. We noted with particular satisfaction that in the area of constitutionalism, the CRC proposals went beyond a mere formal statement of the principle of separation of the three arms of the state; they provided for a reasonable and fair extent of oversight powers and functions that needed to be givento the National Assembly in respect of specified executive decisions and appointments with a view to strengthening strategic checks-and-balances within the system. Most of all, we hailed the wide-ranging improvements proposed in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens.
In a nutshell, GFA considered that the CRC draft contained many progressive ideas capable of delivering an appropriate governance framework for our situation. In the event, that draft suffered the fate we all know.
A new draft, dubbed “Draft Constitution 2024”, is presently receiving consideration. GFA has taken time to examine this new draft too. In so doing, we deliberately steered away from the on-going polemic over controversial and arguably unnecessary characterization [“Barrow draft”, “people’s draft” etc]; our focus is maintained on the substance, bearing in mind the wishes and aspirations of our people for an effective state and “a just, secure and prosperous society”.
Therefore the benchmark used for assessing overall suitability is the inherent capability of the instrument to uphold the principles of constitutionalism, of democracy, the rule of law and the attainment of the national goals of progress and social justice. The approach we took also entailed contrasting the new set of proposals with the provisions prescribed in the CRC draft, in order to maintain things in perspective. The draft Constitution 2024 is noteworthy for retaining most of the essential features with which the 2020 draft has been credited; to that extent it can be said that its prescriptions are pertinent and broadly suitable for addressing the challenges we presently face as a nation. As matter of fact, by proposing some well-reasoned adjustments in some instances, or adding clarity in others, the new draft can be said to offer some welcome improvements.
Regrettably however, not all the changes proposed follow this same thrust; several key provisions in the CRC draft have come back modified, watered down or deleted in the new text. Here, it must be admitted that the office of the Attorney General, in their otherwise helpful Explanatory Note, supplied arguments which we duly took into account but which we do not consider as sufficient justification for the alterations contemplated.
In the final analysis, GFA cannot but deplore the fact that some of the proposed changes unduly downgrade, or completely discard, provisions that have been noted for their potential to uphold democratic principles of checks-and-balances in the running of the state and deepen our democratic practices generally. To be clear and specific, the proposed substitute provisions the implication of which gives particular concern are cited hereunder:
1. Clauses 81(3) and 88 (4) et al: Oversight powers/functions for the National Assembly; we believe that there is strong case for subjecting specified decisions of the Executive, including appointments, to parliamentary confirmation. Recent past experience teaches us that the concentration of excessive unchecked powers in the hands of the executive opens the system to abuse on an appalling scale. Set against the gain in safeguards promised in the confirmation provision, the risk of bureaucratic delays attendant to the process is but a little price which we should afford to pay.
2. Clauses 131 & 132: Appointment of Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP]; here again, we consider that the good governance gains in the form of a transparent process offering job security safeguards, outweigh any fears of undue delay to be caused by the involvement of the National Assembly.
3. Clause 1o6 (4): Presidential Succession; in our system where the Vice President is hand-picked, not elected as running mate, and where the choice of the Speaker for parliament is equally imposed from without, [courtesy of the unhealthy partisan approach that guides decision-making in that institution], the democratic principle dictates that the election of a successor, in the event of vacancy in the office of president, should be expedited. The substitute proposal in the new 2024 draft will be tantamount to allowing the President to continue to rule from the grave, or in any case long after he would have ceased to hold the office.
4. Leadership & Integrity [Chapter V of CRC draft]:While the rather verbose prescriptive style may not sound elegant drafting, we believe there is good case for retaining the provision to underscore the will of society to lay down as matter of law the imperative of upholding the values of integrity in public service, especially at leadership level.
5. Anti-Corruption Provisions – Clauses 94, 95 & 103 of CRC draft; we maintain that, given the imperative need for a national crusade to combat the scourge of corruption within our society and body politic, we believe that the bold provisions contained in the CRC draft should not be discarded as superfluous or excessive.
In light of the considerations outlined here, GFA is unhappy with attempts to substitute amendments or omissions in lieu of positively meritorious provisions proposed in the CRC draft; in our view, the alterations contemplated only detract from the potential for the delivery of a fit-for-purpose governance framework which our situation needs.
We now view the recall of the draft for further consideration, before its return to parliament, as an opportunity for the relevant authorities, both executive and legislative, to demonstrate responsible leadership by placing national interest above partisan political calculations in the handling of this fundamental national issue. It is GFA’s contention that the cases cited here exemplify meritorious provisions contained in the CRC draft which should find their place in any new submission to parliament for consideration, and to the electorate eventually, for ultimate decision. We make bold to call for their restoration.
National Executive Secretariat;
On behalf of the Central Committee,
