By The Editorial Board
No politician relishes to ride roughshod over our fragile republic than Mai Ahmad Fatty, the Secretary General of The Gambia Moral Congress (GMC). Every time he sees the opportunity, he coldheartedly exploits our political vulnerabilities to make himself relevant in our national discourse. Despite his expediencies in taking advantage of our self-inflicted mishaps as a nation, whenever he tries to prey on people, Mr. Fatty entrammeled himself in amateurish contradictions.
His latest stunt was nearly a month ago. On September 20th, 2020, Mr. Fatty released a video of himself, in tears, calling on members of the National Assembly to approve the Draft Constitution without any amendment effected to the document. He proclaimed a “100 percent” support for the document as he railed against those he called “specific unnamed individuals” who “have arrogated themselves the powers of the Republic of The Gambia.”
In his concluding remarks in the video posted on his Facebook Page, Mr. Fatty said:
So you members of Parliament, as you get into that hallow chamber tomorrow, we want you to remember the people of this country; we want you to fear God; do what is right by this nation. Vote for the Constitution so that it goes to the next stage. Let the people decide. If you disagreed with a provision of this Constitution, and you have confidence in the ability and power of your support, of your grassroots support among the voters of this country, let it go to a referendum, go around the country and tell the people to vote against the provisions you dislike. But that power should not be rob from Gambians. That power, that choice—that sovereign choice belongs to our people. And nobody on earth should deny them the power again. Never again would we allow selfish politicians to derail a national course.
It is fair enough for Mr. Fatty to take a position when he called on members of the National Assembly to approve the Constitution. Fully implied in his call on the legislature, any rational person would assume, is his clarity that the government adopted a constitutional promulgation method that met the standard he called “right by this nation.” That would have been both an enlightened and honorable stance for a respectable political leader and his party.
Mr. Fatty’s duplicity came to light just four days later. On September 22nd, 2020, the National Assembly voted down the Draft Constitution by failing to advance it to the third reading in the legislative body. Two days thereafter, Mr. Fatty called a press briefing to give the reaction of the GMC on what he called ‘the Great Betrayal” and “Great Deception of the Century.” In apportioning blame between members of the legislature and the executive branch of government for the failure of passage of the Draft Constitution, he said:
The role of the Attorney General’s Chamber and Ministry of Justice is most shocking. The Ministry relied on the wrong provision of the constitution they knew will automatically lead to the rejection of the bill. This is the surest evidence of the government defeating its own bill in parliament. They presented the bill (inaudible) Section 226 of the Constitution—a provision that we submit has absolutely nothing to do with presenting a draft constitution for referendum. It’s not the section for a referendum on the new constitution. We are saying that the bill, that was presented in parliament, Section 226–they talked about 226(4), 226(7), all the entire provisions of 226 is not relevant for the purpose of a constitutional promulgation. It’s the wrong section in law, and we have very strong reasons to justify this in law. So, in essence, what I am saying is that the Minister of Justice intentionally chose the wrong section of the law that will ensure the defeat of the bill in parliament.
Mr. Fatty concluded his remarks by saying “the manner in which the bill was drafted—the constitution promulgation bill, and relying on the wrong provisions of the law to initiate a parliamentary process facilitates the rejection of the bill.” The Constitution Promulgation Bill which set in motion the mechanism to adopt the Draft Constitution was published in The Gazette of The Gambia one hundred days before Mr. Fatty called on members of the National Assembly to take an up or down vote. For the constitutional scholar he attempted to masquerade himself to be, one would have expected that he knew well before September 20th that relying on Section 226 to adopt the Draft Constitution was the wrong section in law. And if he had known that, it would have been both morally and ethically wrong for him to call on members of the National Assembly to approve the Draft Constitution in “the manner” it was presented to the legislative body. Why did Mr. Fatty come out four days later to argue that attempting to promulgate the Draft Constitution through Section 226 of the 1997 Constitution was the wrong provision in law when four days earlier he had called on the legislators to approve the Draft Constitution based on that same provision as presented to the Assembly in black and white? When did he know attempts to promulgate the Draft Constitution under Section 226 was wrong in law? Was it between September, 20th, 2020 when he was for it and September 24th, 2020 when he came out against it?
To further play on the nation’s anxiety, he claims to know the law under which the 1997 Constitution could be repealed. When he was asked by reporters to state the law, he said he’ll keep that secret to himself until he takes the case elsewhere—presumably to the Supreme Court. He needn’t have to hide from the public which other law, outside of the 1997 Constitution, permits the repeal of the Supreme Law of the Land. The courts will still rule in his favor if he were right even if he had disclosed that provision at the press conference. Why torture the nation with waiting and wondering?
Mr. Fatty’s contradictions at the Press Conference were too fatalistically numerous to address all of them here. In responding to a question from a reporter challenging him for supporting the least qualified candidate — Adama Barrow — over the highly qualified candidate — Halifa Sallah — Mr. Fatty further wallowed in false equivalence. He said no one should blame him as Mr. Sallah and he — Mr. Fatty — both voted for President Adama Barrow.
This Editorial Page is no cheerleader for Mr. Sallah. We criticize him just like anyone else when the moment calls for it. But truth be told, Mr. Fatty could not equate his political misadventures to Mr. Sallah’s political prudent actions. Mr. Fatty had the option to choose between Candidate Sallah and Candidate Barrow. He chose Mr. Barrow. Mr. Fatty even claimed that he made Mr. Barrow president by travelling to Germany to lobby Henry Gomez to instruct delegates of his party to vote for Mr. Barrow at the Convention in Kairaba Hotel. Mr. Fatty claimed to instruct delegates of his party to vote for Mr. Barrow at the Convention which he claimed guaranteed Mr. Barrow as the flagbearer of the Coalition 2016. Mr. Sallah, on the other hand, offered himself as an alternative to Mr. Barrow at the Convention. On that consequential decision for our country, Mr. Fatty flunked the test.
The question posed to Mr. Fatty was not the reasons he voted for Mr. Barrow against former President Yahya Jammeh, but why did he choose Mr. Barrow over Mr. Sallah? The unhinged Mr. Fatty blithely deflected the question with the false equivalence of ‘I voted for Barrow and Halifa voted for Barrow. If I am wrong then Halifa is wrong, too.’ Given his buyer’s remorse after claiming to have been the kingmaker of President Barrow, this question will haunt Mr. Fatty for the rest of his career on the Gambian political milieu. Did he forget that he also claimed to have fired Mr. Sallah as the spokesperson for the Coalition 2016 that eventually aborted the democratic experiment of Coalition 2016?
When it comes to following constitutional processes in The Gambia, Mr. Fatty lacks all credibility on that terrain of our public lives. In February 2017, Hon. Fatty as a minister in the Cabinet of President Barrow submitted a bill to amend the age limit on the president, vice president and judges to run for and hold public office. Mr. Fatty did not even bother to comply with the one-hundred-day requirement stipulated in the 1997 Constitution for the proposed amendments.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Fatty is the forerunner of the lawlessness he claims to abhor about the government of President Barrow. Even though he does not see his self-contradictions, duplicities and hypocrisy, they glare before the proverbial eyes of the rest of the country.