Still on the review of the Explanatory Notes to the Barrow Papers 2024…
Three areas worthy of attention concern the presidency. They reflect the primary intention of the Barrow Papers to not only create an all-powerful president but also to fence the president in such a way as to make it utterly difficult to hold him accountable, much more remove him through constitutional means.
First, the 2020 Draft has restricted a serving president from engaging in any other work or business for which he receives income other than his official duties as president. But the Barrow Papers exempted agriculture from the provision thereby allowing a president to engage in an agricultural venture. The justification they provide is that by allowing the president to engage in agriculture it will promote the sector and will not affect his functions.
The reason a president is prevented from any other business including agriculture is precisely because of the privileged position he has. The power and influence of the president is far and wide which touches all aspects of society. Hence allowing a president to engage in agriculture has a direct negative impact on farmers, businesses and the entire economy. This is because the president is in a position to receive such vital information and engagement which he could divert to his own benefit.
We recall the case of Yaya Jammeh when he got involved in agriculture after he amended the 1997 Constitution in 2006 to remove such restrictions. Immediately we saw him become the biggest farmer in the country. Not only did he utilize official information and resources to his advantage, but he also took a series of lands from communities for his farming interests.
Then we saw how civil servants, security forces, students and ordinary citizens from all over the country were mobilized to work on his numerous farms for free. His Kanilai Farms became so big that it dwarfed all farms and agricultural ventures in the Gambia thanks to his position as president.
Second. In the 2020 Draft, section 106 calls for elections within 90 days if there is a vacancy in the office of the president. This is an international standard. But the Barrow Papers removed this and provided that a vice president or speaker or even chief justice as the case maybe, will continue in the office of the president for the rest of the term. The Explanatory Notes states that such arrangement maintains stability and prevents chaos and is cost effective.
Contrary to this misplaced justification, the democratic principle is that no one leads a people without their consent. The people did not elect the vice president nor the speaker or the chief justice hence to make them serve as president is not only undemocratic but threatens national stability and good governance. Such a dangerous provision has the potential to create dynasties where a president appoints his or her spouse or child as vice president since there are no standards as to who to appoint as vice president.
Third, Section 108 of the 2020 Draft provides for the removal of the president by impeachment. It says the grounds for impeachment are ‘abuse of office’, ‘violation of a provision of this constitution, and ‘misconduct’ among others. This is also standard. But the Barrow Papers added, ‘gross’ in front of each of these words hence ‘gross abuse, gross violation and gross misconduct’. Why? The justification provided is that it “sets a higher threshold for the removal of the President and requires more serious misconduct…”
This may sound plausible on the surface but what is the real definition of ‘gross’ in terms of abuse of office, or violation of the constitution or misconduct? What difference or value has ‘gross’ added on to the offences originally set in the 2020 Draft? In my opinion, the 2020 Draft is adequate as it is, hence the Barrow Papers only wishes to make it quite difficult, if not impossible to impeach a president, hence raise the president above accountability.
Check out for Part 6