Since Mr Taal has dissociated himself from what would now be considered as an authorless article, I still have the duty to continue a debate with a ghost so that clarity will exorcise any misconception that may possess innocent minds, left unchallenged.
UNKNOWN AUTHOR WROTE
"There was sufficient (more than sufficient by me) discussions and public debates on this issue sine mid 2017 by almost all sections of Gambian society that it is inconceivable that anybody will participate in the last protest ignorant of either the realities or the possibilities that the protest can achieve. I do remember Hon. Sallah at one time advocating for a national dialogue on this issue. Any peaceful and legal attempt to achieve this national dialogue should not be seen as an attempt to forcefully over throw a democratically elected government. Democracy is like a game of football. Some teams like to take chances with long shots outside the penalty box while others want to wait till they are inside the 6 yrds box before shooting. In any case we achieve little by complaining of our opponents' style of play so long they keep within the rules of the game."
It is of course a matter of convenience for the unknown author to import superfluous arguments and cover up the points I raised during the adjournment debate with a curtain of ambiguity. Let me offer irrefutable proof:
The Author wrote: "it is inconceivable that anybody will participate in the last protest ignorant of either the realities or the possibilities that the protest can achieve."
Now may I ask what did the last protest aim to achieve and how? What are the possibilities of success and how?
The answers are not as obvious as simple and myopic minds would perceive.
Let us give few answers and then prove that what is uncertain is more gigantic than what is certain.
The protestors applied for a permit with the aim to deliver a petition calling on Barrow to honour his promise to serve a three year term.
Did they anticipate that Barrow will accept to leave in three years? Only a naive person would harbour such a belief after the Vice President clearly stated at the National Assembly that they had made a Cabinet decision for Barrow to stay for five years.
Hence those who are not naive would conceive the petition as a declaration of principle which must continue to be put in the public space. All honest Gambians have been stating and should continue to state the terms of the coalition agreement and call on President Barrow to honour his promise. This is perfectly right to do. I said it with all the might I could muster that to protest against betrayal of promise is an exercise that no one could suppress or discredit. I have been explicit and implicit is such pronouncement.
In fact, the unknown author acknowledges this in an ambiguous manner as follows:
"I do remember Hon. Sallah at one time advocating for a national dialogue on this issue. Any peaceful and legal attempt to achieve this national dialogue should not be seen as an attempt to forcefully over throw a democratically elected government. "
The author claims that i am an advocate of national dialogue but added that a peaceful and legal attempt to achieve national dialogue should not be seen as an attempt to forcefully overthrow a democratically elected government. Who is making such a claim? In making such a statement the author wishes to imply that I am drawing such an equation. This is moving from being ridiculous to being preposterous and deceitful.
Now, taking the statements of the author for their face value one could read that the protestors aim for Barrow to leave in three years by relying on peaceful and legal means.
This simply means that Barrow will not be forced to leave. How then will he leave if he does not want to leave? How will Barrow be ousted against his will in a peaceful and legal manner is a question whose answer is yet to be conceived and addressed, by the author and his or her fellow advocates , for the vast majority of people to digest . This is the question I put to Gambians to urge them to rethink their tactics and strategy before some naively and unthinkingly find themselves in a situation of confrontation when they are made to believe that they could oust Barrow against his will in a peaceful and legal manner without articulating how. Hence, the author chose to shroud the impotence of their tactics and strategies by giving the impression that the most consistent defenders of the coalition agreement are turning their back at the cause and ascribe to the most spineless deviators the mantle of consistent defenders of the cause. They wish to write history standing on their heads. When one stands on one's head the world turns upside down. Truth becomes falsehood and falsehood becomes truth.
History has already documented the trend the author has taken which will be unmasked and nipped in bud once it raises its head at the highest level of the political landscape. What their innocent supporters will enjoy they will not enjoy. No view of a political leader in post coalition 2016 Gambia will stand unless it could be defended with success before the judgment seat of reason.
The question raised is simple. It does not require any diversionary tactics or ostentatious remarks.
If peaceful protests and our wise counseling fail to convince Barrow to resign, how will he be legally removed from office after serving a three-year term, without overthrowing him?
If anybody has an answer, educates the Gambian people and stop procrastinating. If you have no answer stop alloying the truth with absurdities and ambiguities just to pretend to have the answers.