So much has been said about the December 1, 2016 Gambian Presidential election that saw Adama Barrow defeating the incumbent Yaya Jammeh.
Mr Barrow, according to the declaration by the nation’s electoral body, flopped Yaya Jammeh convincingly to strip him him of a position he has wielded for more than two decades.
Indeed, Yaya accepted the result, conceding defeat to his real estate rival. He was applauded for this feat seen as the Achilles’s hill of most African rulers lacking and which of recently has started making inroads into the continent. But no soon had he conceded, that Jammeh disputed the poll’s result. He hinged his latest move on the claim by the head of the Independent Electoral Commission of the discovery of irregularities.
The discussion, as soon as Jammeh made this rather stunning U-turn, shifted from that of commendation of the Gambian elections and of the beauty of democracy to that of grave concern and strong criticism. The focus have been to castigate the incumbent for his refusal to honour what has been widely described as the wish of the people of Gambia and the new tidal flow in Africa and to raise alarm over the crisis the decision is brewing.
Many, much as beyond the question in context, have gone to censuring the man, wondering why he could not just step down for another after a whole lot of 22 years in power! He’s been described as greedy, power-obsessed, insensitive and an anti-democratic dictator. And more to it, all these came to wear emphasis after his reverted decision to stay put.
In all these, and together with the emissaries of heads of government sent to convince him, the man has refused to budge, insisting on staying on.
But let’s leave the emotional flight, of the censure-charade for a while, even momentarily. Let’s leave the understandable anger from the distaste at such obnoxious temerity to resist popular choice, of the audacity to hang on. We’re are going to look at the matter from just the ‘Jammeh’s perspective’. That’s to say let’s assume we’re Jammeh and reason along with him…
Let’s just have it, and assume it to be so. Such that it might be easy to stream along with him-and somehow, find meaning-in the rationale of his desire to insist and remain adamant on a possible supreme Court’s nullification of the presidential result and by so cling onto power. Let’s give Jammeh some benefits of doubt.
There are three points, from the narrative above, to consider. And these are (1) the fact that the Gambian Election Management Body, the IEC, declared Adama Barrow winner and (2) the fact that the same IEC made an admission that it discovered some infractions, later. In both cases, Mr Yaya Jammeh showed a believe of the electoral body. The last is something that has baffled him: (3) the decision of the Supreme Court to postpone judgment.
The exercise of acceptance by Jammeh to the first issue brought him commendations. He received the announcement and had acted on the result; and thanks to the umpire. However, with the second exercise, following the same wave of receiving and acting on declaration, rebuke trailed; and no thanks, but to who?
If indeed the electoral umpire had indicated a suggestion of irregularities- which believably could cause an obvious blinking towards the integrity of the already declared result- then, is it not something to be looked into, to be worrisome? Even for the singular reason that the credibility of the declared result is questioned, is it not something truly worth challenging?
Is it not clear, from the positions of the IEC, that electoral body is in a dilemma over this, and would it be unfair to both conscience and democracy to seek a judicial review? And except it’s been viewed as an opportunistic frame to criticize the over two decades cling to power, why should it be seen as an act of over-ambitiousness in seeking resolution and in the court of law?
Then the last. If there seemed to be an obvious dilemma from the action of the electoral commission and having, also, taken such to the court for resolution and considering the limitedness in time, shouldn’t the Supreme Court have acted swiftly in just deciding on an interpretation to save the deadlock? Fine, if there was no available judges as to indicate a judicial lacuna to drag the crisis, wouldn’t all these ECOWAS countries feigning care and concern have found it more helpful and reassuring to ‘lend’ some judges so as to clean up the stale than threatening to forcefully install Barrow while the question lingers?
From the immediate above, does it not suggest conspiracy from both the Supreme Court and from the ECOWAS ‘big brothers’. Does it not beat the mind that the ECOWAS brothers have turned blind to making the simple yet helpful decision and has instead threatened brimstone?
Are we following Jammeh’s (assumed) perspective?
My take… However, reasonable and acceptable Yaya Jammeh’s bases of his insistence might be, I ask, would it not rather be more reasonable and more acceptable to respect the subsisting scenario, step aside and pursue his right, in what would be seen as a more constitutional manner as obtainable?
But Yaya’s take on this might be, how assured is he that justice could be delivered to him when outside the reins of power-considering the African power of incumbency?
Yes, for even as on point as Jammeh could be… Indeed, it would be an usurpation of power to refuse the subsisting declaration and cling to power, waiting till May when the possibility of hearing such petition has been indicated by the country’s Supreme Court.