Washington, DC — Wedged into the heart of Senegal, the tiny west African nation of Gambia is often overlooked. But the Gambia has had a difficult history, particularly during the past decade after young military officers overthrew the government on July 22, 1994, bringing to an end the longest serving democracy in Africa.
After a new constitution was adopted in 1996, elections were held, and by 1997, the country had officially returned to civilian rule. Yahya A.J.J. Jammeh, the former chairman of the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) that had seized power, won the presidency and continues in that position.
Despite the lifting of the ban on political parties, "Decree 89" was passed which disqualified the ousted former president, Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, the former vice president and all former ministers of the People's Progressive Party (PPP) from contesting any political office. The decree was repealed last July, but the government can still impose "reasonable restrictions" on political activity.
The Gambia's human rights record has also continued to come under fire, particularly since April 10th and 11th of 2000, when security forces used live bullets to break up a student protest. Last year's U.S. State Department report on human rights practices called the Gambia's record "poor." Freedom of speech and the press is "significantly limited," according to the report.
Omar Jallow, interim leader of Jawara's Peoples Progressive Party, served for 17 years in the Jawara government, including terms as deputy minister of foreign affairs and minister of agriculture. He has been on a visit to the United States, where he was interviewed by AllAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. Excerpts:
What brings you to the U.S, especially for such a long period of time - one month?
First, I came to meet with Gambians here - some of whom have settled here, some are students pursuing higher education and some are political refugees on exile - to sensitize them particularly about the bad governance by the present regime, the rampant violations of human rights and the very serious and systematic erosion of people's power through frequent amendments of our constitution and other major laws of The Gambia.
For example?
For example in the past three to four years since the new constitution came into force, it has been amended 28 times and most of these amendments touch on people's rights. I'll give you a few examples: From time immemorial, village and district heads were always appointed or selected by their own local communities. Both the colonial authorities and the previous government encouraged this participatory democracy at the local level because it gave power to the people and provided a system of checks and balances between the traditional rulers and their people. But now the president has decided to usurp those powers that were vested in the local communities by taking it upon himself to appoint and dismiss all village and district heads.
What is President Jammeh's explanation of the need for this?
The president has not given any explanation. But we know that he has done this so that he can now use these leaders to manipulate and directly control the people.
Did this change go through the legislature to become law?
It went through the legislature and has become law. We are campaigning vigorously against this obnoxious law and will challenge it at the highest court of the land because we believe it represents a disenfranchisement of the majority of Gambians - 85% of the population.
The second erosion of people's power committed by the present government is the amendment of the country's Criminal Code. Before the overthrow of the elected government in 1994 and before this amendment, the High Court and Supreme Court were the only institutions of law that had the power to interpret the constitution. They were also the only courts that had the power to try people charged with treason and other crimes that carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. Now there is an amendment that gives such powers to the lower magistrates courts. This we see as a clear example of the manipulation of the judiciary. Because the government finds it hard to manipulate or impose decisions on the judges of the higher courts, they give these powers to the lower courts whose inexperienced lawyers and magistrates they can easily manipulate and control.
In addition, they further amended the Criminal Code to make sure that anyone charged with an offense that carries life imprisonment or the death penalty cannot be granted bail. Before this amendment, the decision to grant or deny bail rested entirely with the judges of the higher courts. Fort instance, if I go back to Gambia now and I am arrested and accused of any crime carrying the death penalty or life imprisonment, I cannot be granted bail and can remain in jail for up to ten years while the case drags on, depending on the whims of the prosecution which is directly controlled by the executive.
Yet another erosion of people's rights and power concerns the establishment of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the institution responsible for the conduct of elections. We believe it is wrong and improper for such an institution to be headed by five commissioners all of whom are appointed by the president and can be sacked by the president, who is himself a player in the game refereed by these same commissioners. And the president has already demonstrated his interference and manipulation of the IEC by sacking two of the commissioners including the chairman because they wanted to regularize some of the irregularities within the institution and its functions.
Also, there has been a spate of systematic politically motivated dismissals of civil servants over the past few years. The civil service is the bedrock of any meaningful development of any country. If there is genuine democracy, governments go and governments come but the civil service stays because it is supposed to be there to implement government policies and programs. But now it is a policy of the president to dismiss any civil servant, no matter how competent or professional, if he thinks that such a civil servant is not towing the ruling party line. Now appointments and promotions in the civil service are not determined by professionalism or competence, but by loyalty to the president and the ruling party.
In addition, we politicians are subjected to endless intimidation and harassment, although our constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of association without hindrance or oppression. Unfortunately, some of us are often barred through "legal" means from holding political meetings or from traveling within the country to campaign. We have been subjected to detention and torture and our families have been continuously harassed because of our political activities.
All these difficulties are being compounded by the gross mismanagement of the country's economy, which has brought the country and the majority of Gambians to their knees. So we thought if something is not done early, The Gambia could slide down the path of countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia. This is why our party thought I should come to the Diaspora to sensitize Gambians and to brainstorm with them on how to organize and pool our resources to make sure that there is peaceful and meaningful democratic change in The Gambia. We thought we should learn from the mistakes of the conflict-ridden countries around us.
You have been describing a kind of systematic effort on the part of the president and his party to accumulate power and authority through the changing of law, the changing of the constitution. At the same time, you talk of organizing Gambians both inside and outside The Gambia against this effort. So, the question that occurs to me as someone outside The Gambia is, when I look at the current government, am I looking at a dictatorship, a government that aspires to be a dictatorship or just another ambitious politician, but still governing a country in which people like you still have room to organize and effectively oust without say, resorting to civil war?
You are looking at a dictatorship. Knowing dictatorships, the more people succumb to them, the more despotic they become. That's why we are standing up to them to prevent them from derailing the whole system.
But Gambia is not, for instance, at the level at which Liberia under Charles Taylor is?
Liberians allowed Charles Taylor to take them to that level. That's why I said we should not allow that to happen [in the Gambia]. A lot of Gambians are keeping quiet because they are afraid. Some of us have been imprisoned for over 16 times and subjected to all kinds of harassment. For instance, I came here shortly after my passport was returned to me. It has been seized several times. It was returned because of pressure from different local and international quarters, including the press and the Commonwealth. What I'm saying is that if we decide that we are politicians, we cannot afford to abandon ship and shirk our responsibilities to the people. We have to stand up and say the truth and expose the violations of human rights, the deficiencies, the corruption and the mismanagement of resources by the present regime. And that's what we are doing.
In Liberia and Sierra Leone, most of the people who should have spoken out left their countries - they abandoned their responsibilities. We stood for some principles and beliefs and the people elected us on that basis. If the people supported us when the going was good, I think we should be responsible enough to support them when the going gets bad - to speak for them and to act for them.
So your choice - if I hear you right - is to stay inside Gambia and fight from within. What kind of time frame are we talking about here? I assume part of what you are doing is talking in terms of the next election?
Yes. The next election is in 2006. And come 2006, if we have the support of the people within and outside The Gambia, we could unseat the present government. During the first post-military transition election, people like me were banned from engaging in any kind of political activity. The punishment for breaking that ban was life imprisonment.
Given that, why should I assume that in 2006 you would be able to engage in political activities?
The ban was lifted in 2001 - just six weeks before the 2001 elections. We were able to re-register the PPP and campaign on a coalition ticket. It was not possible for a party that had been banned for 7 years to register, organize and mount a formidable campaign in 6 weeks. So we supported a coalition candidate, the leader of a party that had been active throughout. We were able to reduce the percentage of votes for the president from the 69% he got in 1996 to 52% in 2001. We believe that if we continue with the zeal and determination we started out with in 2001, that 2% margin can be eroded come 2006.
So you think this president will one, allow you to organize and two, actually conduct free and fair elections?
He has no choice if the people are organized. Because as much as he has the guns, those carrying the guns are Gambians and their families in Gambia are equally affected by what this government does. So, adequately sensitized, the security forces will support the people. We have seen this happen in Niger, in Ghana, in Guinea Bissau, in Senegal and in Kenya. It can happen in The Gambia. If you become too much of a nuisance as a dictator, the very instrument of coercion you use will turn against you. He should allow the process to take place and if he is defeated at the polls, he should bow to the will of the people. And we are going to make sure that there is a strong team of international election observers on the ground.
I read about a statement you made in North Carolina in which you were calling for the release of a certain commission's report pertaining to recovering Gambian assets.
Yes, after the coup we - all ministers in the previous government - were taken before a commission called the Assets and Properties Recovery Commission to determine our level of corruption. The laws establishing this commission also provided that its report will be made public and that draft copies of the report will be made available to all those who appeared before it so that we could appeal against any of its orders or proposed recommendations. Up to this day, none of us and none of our lawyers have seen this report and its findings have not been made public. So I am calling on the government to respect its own laws and publish the findings of the commission before which we were harassed and humiliated for 11 months.
What reason did the government give for not releasing the report?
They did not give any reason. But we know that it is because the commission did not come out with the results the government anticipated. I have been calling on them to release the report so that the Gambian people can judge for themselves.
Again we are back to what I think is the central question: Why, given all that you describe, should we expect one, that there would be fair elections in Gambia? And two: Why should we even expect you to be permitted to campaign in Gambia?
As I said, the government has no choice. These are challenges we are bracing ourselves for. I will never think that it's going to be easy but we will do everything we can to make it happen. On my way here I passed through London where I met with several senior government and commonwealth officials. I met with officers of the Commonwealth Secretariat who provide a good part of the funds for running the IEC and conducting elections. Because of my intervention, the Commonwealth Secretariat has written to the IEC offering them technical assistance for the management and running of the institution. With the international community on board and involved in the whole electoral process, the government will find it very difficult to rig the elections. The president will just have to bow to the wishes of the people.
Since we are here in Washington, DC, I'm curious as to whether or not you have been in touch with anybody in the Bush administration, the Congress or any other arm of the U.S government?
Unfortunately no, not officially. Before I left The Gambia, I had made some arrangements at both the U.S and British embassies there. When I came here, I had calls from the State Department trying to schedule a meeting, but this never materialized. I have though, met informally with some very influential people - Americans - with strong connections to the government and Congress. In fact they had asked me to extend my stay for a week but I couldn't because I have some very important appointments in London. On my next trip here, I will make sure that I make concrete arrangements to meet more government officials in the US.
The situation was very different in the UK. As soon as I arrived in London, I got a call from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They had prepared a program for me to meet with junior ministers, members of parliament, the Commonwealth Secretary General, the Chairperson of the Commonwealth Judges and Magistrates Association, and the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I had very fruitful discussions with all of them.
Generally, you sound more optimistic than I would have guessed.
Yes, I am optimistic although I am not underestimating the present regime's capacity to do anything. I am convinced, though, that the worst scenario would have been for us to sit back and do nothing. I think the best way forward is to be active and optimistic. We just cannot allow the status quo to continue. We cannot allow Gambians to be continuously suppressed and oppressed. It has to stop somewhere. When you push people to the wall, there is an automatic reaction. Bokassa, Idi Amin, Mengistu were all more powerful than Yahya Jammeh but they were all ousted by the people.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The Gambia is almost entirely surrounded by Senegal, which is considered one of the most stable countries in Africa. On the other hand, West Africa itself seems in many ways increasingly unstable with crises of varying intensity roiling Guinea, Ivory Coast and Liberia and with Liberian President Charles Taylor's hand reaching into many areas. Even Nigeria is still uncertain as we move toward the April elections. Does any of this broader regional uncertainty affect Gambia?
Very seriously and in many ways. One, there is a massive influx of refugees - over 100,000 - from conflict ridden countries in the region such as Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria and Guinea Bissau. Second, Gambia is so small that we do not have the basis to sustain violent conflict. And this brings me to our relations with Senegal. Senegal will never allow Gambia to be destabilized to a level where it will adversely affect its economy because we are at the heart of that country.
Talk to me about Zimbabwe. You were an observer during the last elections there. How do you understand Zimbabwe?
Yes, I was deputy head of the Commonwealth election observer mission there. I worked under Nigeria's General Abdul Salam Abubakar. Fortunately, I was head of the Kwe Kwe district, a very big district and had the chance to witness first hand the serious violations of human rights there. I took photographs and interviewed some of the people who were victims of torture. Some opposition supporters had their testicles cut off, some had the name of Mugabe's party, Zanu PF, branded with hot irons on their backs, and some were killed. If Africans treat their fellow Africans worse than we were treated by the colonialists and the slavers, what moral right do we have to protest against the way we are treated by the Ku Klux Klan or the Red Necks in Germany? And that is exactly what is happening in Zimbabwe. And there was the changing of the law extending the polling period 24 hours before polling started. Our report reflected what we saw on the ground. Our conclusion was that the elections were neither free nor fair.
I had been, as a young person, a strong admirer and supporter of Mugabe, but I am so angry with him now. When I was Deputy Foreign Minister back in 1977, I was The Gambia's representative on the UN Committee for Liberation. I got to know both Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo personally. At the Lancaster House meeting to work out the modalities for Zimbabwe's independence, all of us were unhappy with two things: the provision granting 20 seats in Zimbabwe's parliament to whites and the land issue. Immediately after independence, Mugabe organized a referendum and got rid of the 20 seats reserved for whites. Why did he not settle the land problem then? He was so popular that whatever he did would have been supported by the international community. And he had Russia and China backing him. Why did he wait for twenty-two years, at a time when he has a formidable Zimbabwean opposition, to settle the land issue? The British had given him 22 million pounds to fund the land distribution program. But he did nothing. He shared that money among the members of his party's central committee.
When I visited Zimbabwe about ten years ago as Gambia's minister of the Environment, Zimbabwe was exporting food to all the countries of Southern Africa. Today, Zimbabweans are starving and Zimbabwe is a net importer of food. What kind of policies and programs did they have? Zimbabwe has one of the most educated cabinets in Africa. Yet they are behaving as if they are in the 19th Century.
