Part One
Picture of Halifa Sallah
Dear Dr Janneh,
I am thrilled by the technocratic conviction that motivated you to commence this inter -generational dialogue aptly coined as “Legacy, Transition, and a Blueprint for The Gambia’s Future.” This is providing the foundation for a high-grade discourse on issues that should preoccupy the minds of our thinkers at this decisive juncture of our history. Under normal circumstances I should not engage you in a debate on your opinion about me. You have a right to your opinion and it should be respected. It does not define me. I am sure our precious time could be better spent in exchanging views on how to build a freer, fairer, better and more prosperous Gambia. Hence, if your second intervention was just about me and PDOIS I would have brushed the debate aside, probably with a sarcastic remark to navigate away form what would have been a frivolous and fruitless discourse.
However, it stands to reason that conscience and no less so, the national interest have compelled me to engage you a little bit further because of your call for all to congregate and ensure that we build, in your own words, “Team Gambia 2026” in real terms rather than just rhetorical ones.” Suffice it to say, we cannot build a common ground on the fundamentals of a future compact until there is trust.
This is the reason why I would not want us to cut the umbilical cord of our dialogue until a qualitatively higher-grade of understanding of the points at issue is imbued and sealed in all our minds and hearts, as oath or affirmation compelling us to say the whole ruth and nothing but the truth. It is such abiding commitment to truth that would engender the love, respect and sincerity we would need to maintain our compact as partners in the building of The Gambia that we deem fit to live in and further bequeath to our children and children’s children.
Your second intervention has raised three points at issue which I am compelled to address so that the chapter and verse of this constructive dialogue would come to a close. I intend to be precise and incisive in separating the grain from the chaff so that the decerning citizenry and other partners in truth beyond our borders would be able to distinguish facts from fiction and embrace the facts that give us the clarity we need to unite a people without any barrier and build a nation of sovereign citizens.
The first issue is one that refuses to die even though its roots are withering away under the blazing sun. In short, you are still insisting that you have addressed your letter to the right person alleging this time that my indecision merited the missive being sent to me. Allow me to state this for the last time as I stand before the court of public opinion with heart guarded from drifting into the wilderness of passion and mind, guided by the dictates of national interest, that I chose to declare not to stand again to seek any elective office in any public elections held in The Gambia, because of my conviction that I could better serve party, country, continent, the world and their peoples after doing my best in the domain of being an elected duty bearer. Since I made the statement I have never indicated any word or initiated any action on my own volition that runs counter to my pronouncement. Where then lies the evidence of indecision?
Recently, calls have started to be received that I should come back because of trust in my leadership capacity and qualities. Is it indecision to open up a constructive conversation with people who wish to entrust me with the responsibility of managing the affairs of a country until we find a common ground on the route to take to build a freer, fairer, better and more prosperous Gambia? I have said without hesitation or prevarication that the call for me to come back is a demand for a given type of leadership, one that is committed to bring about system change. Would it be a display of love of nation and people and a show of commitment to vision and mission of building a country that is free from poverty, injustice and ignorance by simply telling them that I have retired from political activity just to nurse an egotistically motivated false sense of personal integrity at national expense? It is my humble decision not to make a monumental historical folly by telling people that their hope of my coming back is misplaced. My decision is to tell them that their call is well placed and that they have done it at the right time when the political situation in the Gambia is in a state of flux and people are desperately searching for a way forward. Hence if their hope could be kept alive by their call for me to come back, I have the duty to keep that hope alive and guide them to take the route that will lead to the change they want. This is precisely why “Team Gambia 2026” is looming in the horizon.
Hence, allow me to take leave of this first point by affirming with all the emphasis I could muster that my mission to participate in building a freer, fairer, better and more prosperous Gambia is a lifelong commitment that will never be betrayed. The issue of coming back is a demand from some people due to trust. You may write to them to ask them to change their mind. I have the duty to keep hope and mission alive by guiding those who made the call to achieve their aim of getting the appropriate leadership without sacrificing my integrity. Am I guided by indecision or a sense of mission by carefully crafting a response that will keep hope alive until the mission is safely guarded and eventually guided into the hands of “Team Gambia 2026” without sacrificing integrity? If you cannot see the wisdom of my position then I would concede that you are focusing too much on the thick forest of baseless suspicion and have lost sight of the relevant tree that is serving as a beacon of hope for a better day. In that case, we could agree to disagree and let the future and history be the final judge of all.
Secondly, I am amazed by your 180 degree-change of tone from seemingly holding Halifa Sallah and PDOIS in reverence to be a Halifa and PDOIS basher. Let me put context in view and then question whether you have any facts to back that we have failed to produce leaders who could be successors for 35 years.
Dr Janneh, I was the coordinator and spokesperson of NADD from 2005 up to its deregistration. Did that mean that there were no leaders who could become presidential candidates and manage the affairs of the country? In the same vein, I was the spokesperson of the United Front in 2011. Did that mean that the other members of the coalition were not qualified to be national leaders? It goes without saying that I was the spokesperson of the President and the coalition in 2016. I took centre stage. Did that mean that the other leaders could not lead a country?
Hence occupying centre stage in PDOIS does not mean that PDOIS does not have leaders who could lead a party or nation. You have got it all wrong by refusing to contextualise the content of my reasoning. I challenge the notion of generational monopoly of competence, commitment and innovation by affirming that the driving force of the three locomotives of development is the abiding love one has for country and people and the readiness one is prepared to discharge at a moment’s notice to answer to the call of duty to country and people. It is indeed the duty of all citizens irrespective of age, to serve one’s people and country to the best of one’s ability, once capacity of mind and body is not diminished.
Having contextualised that some people are calling upon me to come back because of knowledge, experience and consistency I added that the only sure way of meeting their expectations without sacrificing integrity before the altar of patriotic expediency is to call upon any one who could perform my role to rise up to the occasion.
In this way, I would serve as the insurer that guarantees a transfer of leadership to those who have the attributes people claim to see in me. This constitutes sound tactics of maintaining grassroots support for system change as we endeavour to build Team Gambia 2026 to make it a reality.
The fact that people like you focused your attention on a tree and lost sight of the thick forest of PDOIS leaders, I am compelled to give an insight on what is not readily visible regarding this invincible party that no person on earth has the moral authority to discredit. I dare say that anybody who attempts to do so will end up in eternal pillory.
For your information PDOIS first participated in elections in 1987. We had five candidates namely, Sidia Jatta , Sam Sarr, Halifa Sallah, Dr Baboucarr Gaye and Abass Manneh.
We had three other medical doctors and a host of graduates at the tertiary level lined up for the next following elections. The 1987 elections served as the litmus test. It was evident from the results that patronage in Gambian elections was so entrenched that it would take a protracted struggle to uproot it.
Hence two teams emerged in PDOIS. Those who chose to be in the service of party for a lifetime to wage the protracted struggle to build its roots like the late Dr Omar Touray while others remained on the side line to monitor and take part in the development of the party as its goes through a political metamorphosis of coalition building for regime change and has now come back to its real mission of promoting system change with a leadership that would eventually emerge to form the core of Team Gambia 2026.
I have made it clear in my book “Nurturing Sovereign Citizens” that PDOIS had to pay the ultimate sacrifice to push the country forward to democratic constitutional rule after the coup of 1994. We kept the real PDOIS members waiting while we built coalition after coalition from 2004 – 2016 to ensure that change comes through the ballot box. They are sharpening their intellectual tools for the coming battle of ideas.
Finally, you did allege as follows: “for over 20 years, you have remained its de facto presidential candidate. This suggests not a democratic rotation of leadership, but a symbolic monopoly.” Your 20-year count of alleged monopoly of presidential candidature is fiction and not fact. There is no correlation between holding the position of Secretary General and presidential candidature. Since its inception PDOIS sponsored only four presidential candidates. I participated only once as a PDOIS Presidential candidate.
Every generation is obliged to prepare the next for national duty and PDOIS more than any party has performed its duty not only for party but for country, continent and the world contrary to your unfounded allegations.
In fact, even the children who were nurtured in our nursery schools are now professors or PhD holders. They are performing in all works of life. Those adults who were trained in our night schools and women in our adult literacy classes are community leaders. PDOIS nurtured members could be found leading in all works of life.
Suffice it to say, the Central Committee is a working body of volunteers without remuneration and not a power house of pomp and privilege. In PDOIS, members decide everything. They decide who serves as candidate in all public elections. Its Secretary General is neither a signatory to its account or a comptroller of its funds. There is no personal gain. This is how matter stand.
I have noticed that as a technocrat you have hastily done your homework to justify your high-sounding appellation. A careful review of your proposals would reveal that they are sketchy jottings on priority programmes on education, health, energy, youth employment, management tools on public financial discipline and institutional framework and a listing of possible sources of development cooperation and financial assistance that are already in the books of existing governments.
First and foremost, I must assert that no single Gambian would read your proposal and see in it an answer to eradicate poverty, injustice and ignorance.
You have teased out programmatic blue prints without even the usual attempts by technocrats to outline the vision, mission, policy directives and strategic plans that should underlie or engender the sectoral programmes that should be implemented to attain tangible outcomes that could be monitored, assessed and evaluated to determine success or underperformance.
This is the danger of relying on prescriptive development models and management tools that aim to suit all economies that has transformed some of our technocrats into copycats who rely on SWOT analysis to look at the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of systems only to give prescriptions that are applied and assessed to deliver a high level of growth, only to have the country listed among the least developed and heavily indebted poor country.
Before subjecting your proposals into careful review allow me to divide technocrats and policy makers into three categories.
SEE PART TWO IN THE NEXT EDITION
