Max,

1. Halifa did not associate or hold discussion with the soldier(s) about ministerial position. He said the interaction was brief and indicated instantly to him/them that he would respond to their offer. Why are you twisting the facts?

2. Halifa has already indicated elsewhere that he wanted to put his rejection down in writing so that history would record it for posterity to deny people like you and Momat Cham the chance to falsify it. Current happenings have vindicated him and shown him to be a man of forethought.

3. The testimony of Momat Cham, in so far as it relates to Halifa and Ousainou Darboe is suspect because, not only does it contradict known historical facts, it also defies logic and common sense. (I will give reasons why I think so)

Furthermore, Momat Cham, like many of his colleagues at the GNA in 1994, who were the senior officers, lacks credibility for completely losing the respect and loyalty of men under their command to very junior officers, who toppled the government and imposed themselves on their supposed superiors. How could you rely on the testimony of such a witness?

4. Halifa did not follow the soldiers to Sam’s residence because he was interested in what they were offering. He went to Sam’s residence because he thought the soldiers had stayed unnecessarily long and wanted to know why. In other words, he was concerned for the wellbeing of Mr Sarr, rather than being interested in what the soldiers had to offer. That is crystal clear from his statement for anyone who understands simple English.

5. I think you have completely misunderstood Halifa’s statement about the reason for the circulation of the letter to prepare the base for resistance against the Junta’s future plans. From what I can tell, this is simply saying that the letter was written and circulated to lay the foundations for resistance, if the Junta was to plan any course of action that doesn’t commit to a return to multi-party democracy. This is NOT referring to the PDOIS base, as you erroneously think, but to preparing the basis for resistance for ALL who want a return to democracy.

6. Mr Sallah has already contacted the commission to recall the witness, but he reserves the right to respond and debunk fabrications which are already in the public space, whilst he awaits the commission’s response. Where is the unprofessionalism you are claiming? Not responding instantly would allow people like you to abuse the minds of the public.

7. You have repeated your rediculous claims of PDOIS’ role to entrench the Junta, but you haven’t presented any new argument. It’s the same old propaganda that lacks any credibility, so I won’t waste time, because this has been dealt with before.

Finally, Momat Cham’s evidence, like I already stated, is suspect and unlikely to be true. Why?

History has ample evidence to prove that the PDOIS Leadership has consistently rejected offers, whether ministerial or not, to work in any government that is not PDOIS led. They have rejected offers in the first republic; they have not taken up cabinet positions in the Barrow Administration; they had indicated to Hamat Bah, independent candidate of United Front, that they would not be in his cabinet, if he had won. So there is a tract record of rejections to support Halifa’s rebuttal of Momat Cham’s evidence.

As for Ousainou Darboe, the evidence relating to him defies logic and common sense. Why?

Well, Darboe was not a public official in 1994; he was not a politician or known political activist; he had no issues with the Junta on the 23rd of July 1994 that would warrant the sort of behaviour Mr Cham want the nation to believe. There is simply no reason for Darboe to lock himself up and refuse to see the soldiers unless if he was scared to death, which I’m pretty sure, you will not agree with.

And even if Darboe had known the reason for the soldiers’ visit in advance, which I doubt very much, normal behaviour would require that he sees the soldiers and give his response. Furthermore, who would believe that a group of soldiers who have just toppled a government would arrive at the gate of anyone who has no reason to be visited by the soldiers and they would refuse to open the gate/doors for them? Why would anybody want to take such an approach that could antagonise the Junta and create problem where non existed? That simply defies logic and common sense.

And don’t tell me that Darboe was defying the Junta by refusing to see the soldiers because history has something to say about that too.

Bax

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section are the author's own and do not represent the editorial policy of Kairo News. Kairo News will trash any comment that inflames tribal, racial or religious hatred.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: