He stated the following:
The state executive and the religious leaders have the right to exercise their freedom of expression. I am not sure what Bishop Desmond Tutu would have said if he were to give a lecture on what religious leaders say regarding expression of opinions on that day on national issues. It was also interesting to see how political representatives should address gatherings of religious leaders was not adhered to.
Practice is better than precepts, teaches the old saying. The Banjul Muslim elders customarily visit the person who occupies the state house after their Eid Prayers. During the colonial days, the people had no forum to determine who occupies the state house. It was a monarchical era. Hence fora with the Muslim elders and the Chiefs called ‘Mansa Bengo’ and so on and so forth were the means to plead with the governors to address some basic concerns affecting their communities. Since the monarch could not be removed and one would want to be heard those who spoke must start with praise singing before expressing what they wanted from the government.
The trend however did not change after The Gambia became independent because the people still equated the president with the monarchy. One would have expected that after 2016 when the people brought about change through the ballot box that those in office would use the occasion of meeting representatives of religious and other civic groups to listen to their concerns and give concrete assurances on how and when to address them. In fact, such groups should have developed the tendency to meet to build consensus on what they wish to discuss with the executive and then maintain a tradition by having a spokesperson who would convey the concerns to the executive for remedies.
The role of the executive is not to transform such fora into a platform to settle scores against other sectors of society. The platform of the Banjul Muslim elders should be utilized for better purposes than to serve as a platform for the executive to express an opinion on all national matters without availing others who think differently the opportunity to express an opinion on such matters.
I strongly believe that President Barrow and members of his cabinet should be advised to measure what he should say on such occasions in order to maintain the integrity of a customary practice of rapprochement between state and religion. In fact, the old practice could have been refined by the Banjul Muslim elders by extending an invitation to their Christian counterpart to give their dialogue with the executive an interfaith posture so that matters that affect their congregation and their faith could be given fullest expression.
I listened carefully to every word expressed by President Barrow and the cabinet minister who spoke. I am sure that many comments which I will take up later in a press conference of PDOIS should not have found expression during such a solemn occasion convened by religious leaders and not by the state. I would therefore strongly advise that from henceforth such a meeting be preceded by consultation before it is convened to avoid the type of scenario which creates more disharmony than national cohesion on a religious occasion.
