By Omar Bah
Mai Ahmad Fatty, leader of the Gambia Moral Congress, has hailed the Barrow administration as The Gambia’s most law-abiding government since independence.
Responding to questions on the controversial land tussle between Government and GHOMM, Mr Fatty said: “So far, experience has shown that in all fairness, on matters of execution of judicial orders, President Barrow is the most tolerant democratic leader in Gambian history. There have been adversed court decisions against him and his government, such as the Ya-Kumba Jaiteh case, and other recent court judgements against the State.
“In all of these, there is clear evidence of government compliance with court orders. The State respected and fully complied with court orders, and thus far, I cannot imagine the contrary. The current context as regards the attitude of the State on court rulings, judgements or orders will cast some cloud over the allegations of impropriety.”
Fatty added: “I do not personally believe that President Barrow will endorse anybody to disobey the law, and it does not make sense to me that having obeyed the court when it was against his personal decision, that his government could thereafter act otherwise in any other case. Politics aside, I believe that President Barrow’s government is the most law-abiding since independence. That is my objective professional view as a lawyer.”
The Gambia, he added, “is a country of laws, and laws constitute the foundations of a structured democratic system. In that context, it can be asserted that The Gambia is indeed, under the new dispensation, a country that practices the rule of law with respect for due process rights”.
On the issue of an alleged court order, Fatty noted: “I have not had the opportunity yet to access processes filed in the suit or to any consequent order(s) requiring a party to the suit to act or refrain from acting in any way whatsoever. I cannot, therefore, affirmatively respond to social media hysteria or rumours and treat those as the absolute truth of the matter.
“In the absence of access to the court processes, particularly a supposed ‘Court Order’, any opinion I may express thereon would amount to abstract conjecture. That would be improper and does undermine professional credibility. That would also be unhelpful.”