| The veiled ploy, masked behind the school ‘veil’ civil suit |
By Pa Louis Sambou
Poverty,
crime, corruption, unemployment, worse than poor healthcare facilities and
outcomes but to name a few of those issues which confronts The Gambia and which
has serious societal consequences for ordinary people. In the face of such crises,
apparently, in the unconventional wisdom of some, pupils’ ‘right’ to rebel
against reasonable school regulations, is top priority – a ‘fundamental
right’ which merits ‘special’ legal protection some fancifully argue
(with a straight face no doubt), and hence the targeted civil suit against the respective
Christian mission schools all of which indicate a very strong determination to vigorously
resist the insidious invitation to permit the boundaries of school discipline to
be the domain of external forces whose views and values are so antithetical to
their own, among other things, they’re fatally hostile to the interests and principle
of education as we understand it today.
It is of paramount
importance to bust the myth that this dangerous fringe ‘concerning citizens’
fold represents or acts in the interest of all Muslims in The Gambia; whilst
they may obliviously convince themselves that such is the case, any sensible
observer would easily conclude that such could not be further from the truth; it
is a fringe fold, with views so extreme and corrosive, they verge on genocidal –
abhorrent views which are completely alien to, and incompatible with our values
as a diverse society with a long history of peaceful coexistence. Now, let’s examine
the relevant verifiable facts and the colourful records of this ‘concerning
citizens’ fold who now self-servingly and ironically moonlight as ‘equity
campaigners’ shall we? Among other things, these concerning actors:
v Constitute individuals
who willingly allied with former
President Jammeh in his wayward persecution of respected Imams, including but
not limited to 90 year old Sheikh
Sheriff Muhideen Hydara, in breach of their section 25 rights
among others;
v – Constitute individuals known to have been behind former President Jammeh’s
unlawful declaration of The Gambia as an ‘Islamic state’, in breach of the Constitution,
and the section 25 rights of Christians among others;
v – Successfully lobbied to
have the failed draft Constitution to remove the Constitutional prohibition
preventing non Muslim parties from being subjected to the jurisdiction of the Sharia
in total disregard for the religious rights of Christians;
v – Successfully lobbied to
have the failed draft Constitution to allow an opportunity for the jurisdiction of the Sharia to at a
later date be easily expanded beyond family law, into Criminal and Civil law, (in total disregard for
the religious rights of Gambians) hence the refusal to entrench clause 10;
v – Consistently made not once and, not twice but numerous
public pronouncements, provocatively
emphasising that The Gambia “is a Muslim country, whether people like it
or not”,
completely delegitimising the Christians’ right to exist in the Gambia as
citizens of equal civic status or at all (in total disregard for the constitutional
and religious rights of Christians); and
v – Constitutes individuals
who espouse dangerous conspiratorial
antisemitic and deeply offensive tropes suggesting that ‘Jews and Christians
are insidious and aren’t to be trusted’.
So, it is highly questionable
whether the claim that these hold the ‘religious rights’ of anyone in high
regard could be taken any more seriously than the espousing of animal rights
credentials by a poacher seeking custody over a game park.
Suffice it to say, the
weight of evidence which isn’t an exhaustive list, strongly details a catalogue
of very hostile militant conduct of serious concern on the part of those actors
behind the civil suit, which conduct is consistent with a dedicated determination
to systematically eliminate Christianity in The Gambia – this is by no means an
opinion, but rather an evidence – based fact which lays bare, the motivation
for the suit in the first place. So, I venture to opine that, by the afore
stated empirical token, the targeted civil suit is one brought against the
Christian Church and its congregation in The Gambia (but conveniently pursued
in disguise through its Mission schools). Effectively, the suit has all the
hallmarks of an intimidation tactic, designed to pursue a course or outcome whose
permissibility in law (whether domestic or otherwise) is highly questionable. This
suit must therefore be understood and construed through this prism, and upon
which basis any objective analysis of the subject matter worthy of any
credibility ought to be premised. On the facts, it would be difficult, if not constitute
a self-deception for one to attribute any credible degree of seriousness to any
literature which leans towards anything else to the contrary.
The facts and
circumstances of this case are such that the case relies heavily on the
principle of equity. As the cardinal maxim has it: “he who comes to
equity, must come with clean hands”. So, as far as equity goes, and
considering the competing nature of the right in question, the worrisome pattern
of concerning behaviour of the party seeking favour in equity in bringing the
suit, has to be juxtaposed with the conduct and corresponding religious rights of
the opposing party: Christian pupils who attend Muslim schools whose uniform
code includes the veil, are compelled by those schools, to wear the veil, and school
rules to which such Christian pupils oblige and abide by, and which disciplined
conduct the Christian Clergy subject to the suit in question has not disapproved.
So, in view of these, could bad faith actors of the ilk unmasked above really benefit
from equity? Is a benefit in equity even merited in view of the facts and
surrounding circumstances? Well, these are fundamental questions upon which the
civil suit rests, and it is one for the Courts. It is nonetheless a considerable
uphill challenge for the ‘concerning citizens’ fold, and for which my heart
goes out to the advocate tasked with the misfortune of pushing this water up
such steep hill. Until then, I suspect the ‘court’ of public opinion of all
manner, light and shade will in the meantime continue to delightfully take its
view on the subject matter – which is fair enough, after-all, we live in a free
democratic society.
The oversubscribed use
of the terminology ‘discrimination’ in this context does also
merit some attention. This is a key legal terminology, which the Constitution helpfully
avails a readymade legal definition to, and as follows (section 33 subsection
(4)):
“affording
different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their
respective descriptions by race, colour, gender, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status
whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or
restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject,
or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of
another such description.”
The relevant detail in
this definition being: “affording different
treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their
respective descriptions by…religion”. The
publicly known and verifiable fact is that all the respective schools enforce a
uniform code across the board, consistently requiring all pupils without any
exception, to abide by such uniform code. So on the basis of the readymade
Constitutional definition and the facts, the challenge on the part of the
‘concerning citizens’ fold to establish the existence of “discrimination”
even in a remote sense, is by no means any less insurmountable than the
uphill challenge to overcome, in order to substantiate a merited favourable
consideration in equity.
As a demographic
which constitutes less than 10% of the population, the Christian community, as
a collective, has over many decades been subjected to conditions, treatment and
restrictions which are unmatched by any adversity faced by any other
demographic of any description in the Gambia. For context, let’s explore a few
of these:
v – The
Ministry of Education recruits and avails at public expense, Islamic studies
teachers for all schools including Christian Mission and private schools, but
does not avail Bible Knowledge teachers for the benefit of Christian pupils and
students at all – as a Christian pupil or student, unless you are lucky to be
in a Christian Mission school, the Gambian State, through such discriminatory policy,
denies you the right to the religious education it accords your Muslim
counterparts at public expense.
v – For
decades and to date, the Gambian State uses public funds to build places of
worship exclusively for Muslims, both on and off publicly owned (central and
local government) premises. This incentive is denied Christians by the Gambian
State.
v – The
last time I checked, Islamic law was compulsory for all University of The
Gambia Law School students including Christians.
v – The Gambian
State makes contributions towards religious endeavours such as Hajj to Mecca,
but the same incentive is denied Christian pilgrimages to Rome etc.
v – During
the draft Constitution process, between 2018 and 2020, despite there being
numerous suitable competent and eligible Christians in the legal fraternity in
The Gambia, not a single Christian lawyer formed part of the Constitutional
Review Commission (CRC). The only Christian admitted into the Commission, was a
retired dentist with absolutely no experience or knowledge on the subject
matter. As if this was not bad enough, the CRC
chairman, Supreme Court Justice Cherno Jallow for reasons best known to him and
whether under duress or otherwise, he subjected the process to the whim of the
same ‘concerning Citizens’ fold, completely disregarding
the statutory instructions directed under the CRC Act, excluding from the draft
the religious rights protections which are guaranteed under the existing
Constitution, and unreasonably resisted reasonable calls to entrench clause 10,
and which omission created a back-door for Sharia to be extended beyond family
law to criminal and civil law through a simple amendment. Rather conveniently, the
dangerous ‘concerning citizens’ fold with whom he (Justice Jallow) admittedly
collaborated well in advance, on “topical issues regarding the
Constitution” who wanted Sharia to be extended to criminal and civil
law, were the witting beneficiaries to such a back-door. You have to wonder at
whose expense, if not Christians. I’m certainly not
alleging anything here, but merely pointing out the extraordinarily special
privilege and access which was accorded to such a dangerous entity, at the
expense of Christians, and a corresponding coincidence of particular interest
which still remains a cause for grave concern to most no doubt.
v – During
the draft Constitution consultation process etc., with the exception of very few,
Gambian private, public and independent media organisations, for reasons best
known to them, excluded Christians from the debates and discussions on the
issue – this significantly limited Christian participation in such an important
democratic process and suppressed the publicity of their concerns. This
exclusion did not go unnoticed, and it was articulately highlighted by
Professor Saine in one of such events. This exclusion was
that bad, even a major press conference on the issue, by the Gambia Christian
Council was noticeably snubbed by large parts of the Gambian media fraternity.
If not
already obvious, dare I say, that all of the above which the Christian
community has endured for decades and up to date, all either fall within prohibited
conduct which qualifies as “discrimination” under the
Constitutional definition set by section 33(4) or in a broader sense.
As you
would have already noticed, the objective of this article is to enlighten and
educate rather than emphasise or reinforce any differences between Muslims and
Christians, so the above is by no means an exhaustive list, but a polite nudge to
highlight the point that actually, there is quite a lot which our Muslim brothers
and sisters take for granted, but which incentives, advantages or facilities
are, through the operation of government policy or Executive discretion, denied
Christians. Evidently, with the enormous level of unequal treatment Christians
are subjected both socially and by the Gambian State, we ought to be very
careful not to bring about a chain of events which may set an adverse precedent. Otherwise, should Christians be forced into adopting a litigious approach to
things, our Court system would be so overwhelmed, it would most probably simply
grind to a halt.
In my
view, this ‘veil’ case is a blessing in disguise, because it creates perfect
opportunity for a national conversation and enlightenment around the subject of
the unequal treatment the Christian minority has endured for as long as I can
recall, an enlightenment to which I hope this humble piece offers some
contribution. So, to those participants to this important debate, whose
arguments hinge upon ‘support for religious rights’, you do have a
responsibility if not a special duty to yourselves and to the public, to have a
handle and grasp of the brief first and foremost, so as to accurately project
an objective factual perspective rather than hide behind a benign body of texts
in order to assist (whether intentional or otherwise) what is by all definitions,
a veiled ploy by the dangerous fringe fold in question, to systematically ‘cancel’
Christian existence and Christianity in The Gambia among other obnoxious
objectives which these bad faith actors have in mind including the reversal of the
rights of women, children and amending domestic laws so as to permit men
to lawfully enter into sexual relationships with “12 and 13 year old
children” as publicly professed by one of their leading personalities.
Since
matters which necessitated this article emerged from the surface, the public
framing of the subject matter as a ‘tension between Christians and Muslims’ is
something which I personally find particularly disturbing especially as someone
who hails from a multi-faith background (or Chris-Mus as street slang refers
to it). Such mischaracterisation is not just a distorted reflection of reality,
it is a very dangerous exaggeration. There is absolutely no tension between
Christians and Muslims, what we have before us in The Gambia, is a fringe reactionary
fold with a very dangerous majoritarian mindset as to how civilised society is
to be re-oriented, falsely claiming to represent all Muslims in The Gambia in
its pursuit to systematically ‘cancel’ the Christian minority under the guise
of ‘defending the rights of the Muslims’. With over 90% of the
population Muslims, this is clearly euphemism for a sinister strategic endeavour
to cull the 6%. This is unacceptable, legally questionable, and not in keeping
with the norms of a democratic society. Under such unique circumstances, the
Christian community, having passively endured decades of unprovoked abuse, it
is now left with no alternative but to take an unprecedented stance to push
back, as a self-defence mechanism to defend its right to exist – because unfortunately,
law enforcement and the State appear to be abdicating their responsibility in
failing to hold accountable mob attacks on Churches, intimidation of Christian worshippers,
and multiple genocidal incitements from individuals hiding in plain sight of
the authorities.
I must
concede that there are very limited situations for which nuance does not apply;
this, right here is one such situation. So, having had the benefit of the facts,
and supporting hard evidence in the form of video clips embedded within the respective
hyperlinks, here are two questions, which I would invite my fellow citizens to
give very serious thoughts to:
v – Do you
desire a Gambia where your “12 and 13 year old daughters” are going to be queuing up at maternity
units up and down the country in order to deliver,
instead of being at school?
v – Do you
personally fancy the prospects of being subjected to the “Sharia
criminal code”?
Unless
your desired response to both these is ‘YES’, you have absolutely no interest
whatsoever in supporting the dangerous fringe fold in question to prosecute its
cause, whether in its persecution of Christians or otherwise. This is because,
the above forms part of their ultimate objective. The alternative to citizens
standing up to stop these corrosive forces in their tracks, does not even bear
envisaging.
About the Author
The author is regular columnist contributor to this medium.
Twitter handle: @That_Pragmatist
Publisher’s Note
Views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. Want to be a contributing author? Please email opmail220@gmail.com