Halifa Sallah was asked whether National Assembly members can justify what happened to the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (Promulgation) Bill 2024. The following was his response:
What happened at the National Assembly is unreasonable and unjustifiable. What happened in 2020 was also unreasonable and unjustifiable. Two wrongs, however, cannot be equated with what is right. A wrongdoing that is repeated would only do more harm.
Allow me to give you an example. The Elections Bill is before the National Assembly. Clause 147 of the Elections Bill reads:
“Where a person who desires to run for an elective office in accordance with this Act is an employee of an institution, the institution shall, on application of that person
- grant the person leave of absence with pay for the duration of the election Campaign up until five days after the declaration of results;
- guarantee the person his or her job irrespective of his or her affiliation.”
This is the same as section 130 of the Elections Act. However, they are in contradiction to section 170 of the 1997 Constitution which states:
“Any person who holds an office in a public service
who wishes to contest an election for a political
office shall, prior to nomination as a candidate,
obtain one year’s leave of absence without pay,
which leave shall not unreasonably be refused.
(3) If a person who has obtained leave of absence in
accordance with this section is elected to a political
office, he or she shall immediately resign from his or
her office in the public service and, if he or she fails
to do so, he or she shall be removed from such
office.”
In 2020 the CRC proposed a new clause 269 to replace section 170 which provides for six months’ leave without pay for civil servants.
Had the bill passed the second reading in 2020, I would have proposed to the National Assembly members to reject the CRC proposal and instead replace it with section 130 of the Elections Act just as in clause 147 of the Elections Bill.
Hence neither the 2024 nor the 2020 Constitution Bill is without fault. All that is needed is for it to be scrutinised by the National Assembly members and properly crafted to be fit to be the Constitution of a third republic.
The National Assembly members are lawmakers. They have the authority to change the text of bills. Rejecting a Constitution (Promulgation) Bill prevents individuals from making amendments to its text and stops further constitutional and legal reforms. This is not progress, it is retrogression.
Without constitutional reform there can be no legal or institutional reform. Without constitutional reform the third republic becomes mere wishful thinking. Hence the struggle waged in 2016 to bring about change would have amounted to mere change of face and no means to bring about a third republic.
