By Amadou Dibba, UK     

To start with, I would love to point out that the decision to present my assessment of Mr. Samsudeen Sarr’s current posture was, more than anything else, necessitated by a compelling urge to advance alternative views on a subject which, depending on the way it is construed by the stakeholders, has the potential to spell either good or far- reaching consequences in the way things shape up in the aftermath of its end. At this point let me state that the release of our uncles, brothers and sister, agreeable and relieving as it is, did not come about as a result of the almighty Sabarry mission in the formula and style proposed by our dear and respected Samsudeen Sarr. The release has been welcomed and appreciated not so much because it was not expected, as it is because it was the right thing to be done and that it is de rigueur, in the African and Gambian context, for a beneficiary to be graceful enough to show gratitude, in spite of himself. That is the mark of reconciliation, the courage to forgive the wrong done to one without further rancour. This, it must be noted, is in counter-distinction to the despicable alacrity to crawl in supplication for mercy even when one has not done any wrong. The God-given dignity, not ego, will naturally militate against the pursuit of such a mission by the dignified. That is why Sam’s proposal can only be a recipe for those who do not value such a gift, and by god there are many such people.

What intrigues me more about Mr. Sarr’s reaction to my assessment is the importance he seeks to attach to the facial identity of those of us he brands as Cyber warriors. In a desperate effort to justify his insistence on photo identity, he admits that he is aware of the saying that the person writing does not matter but the ideas he puts forward. But in the same breath he comes up, in the subtle style of a wily old fox, with a weak subterfuge for the necessity to identify oneself during what he regards as an epoch in the recording of the history of The Gambia. Now, dear readers, I must confess I am at a loss here. Apart from the fact that by so doing Mr. Sarr has drifted from the point of departure- i.e. addressing in totality the points he has been challenged on, such as the incongruity of the comparison between Presidents Jammeh’s and Obama’s popularity; the vacuity in using the apparent approval given by the Western-educated doctors of Jammeh’s HIV/AIDS healing programme and the support of the country’s religious leaders/ marabouts as a benchmark to gauge genuine support for the Gambian president, etc- he has also failed to tell us whose purpose complete identification is going to serve if we comply by forwarding our photos. In his desperation, he even accused us of using his photo to go along with our commentaries. I suppose that is his way of subtly telling the editors that they should know better. For by God even though I would readily grasp at his snapshot as a valued souvenir, I do not have one at hand, much less send it to any medium. Or is it perhaps that our ‘jabs, uppercuts, hooks and low blows’ intended to ‘knock him out of the ring’ have reached so deep in him that he is itching to punch our faces to pulp when he meets us someday? I will allow myself the liberty to make such inference, given his demonstrated taste for martial arts as typified by his choice of the boxing bout metaphor. While I justifiably dread such an eventuality between myself and one I consider my senior, in keeping with my upbringing, I hasten to state that things will have come to a pretty pass for Mr. Sarr as that would mean he has failed to measure up in what is supposed to be a battle of wits.

But in point of fact, the real thrust of his pretence on the exaggerated importance of photo identity is by no means lost on me. Because of lack of tenable points in support of his stance, he resorts to the unconscionable challenge in a bid to deter those of us who cannot sit by and let people imbibe just any idea. As the whole gamut of his stated probable reasons suppose, many reasons could be responsible but perhaps the key among them is the safety of the person. But so what if it is? In a situation where an individual or group in charge of the affairs of a state may use resources and institutions as they please to settle scores with the defenceless without regard to the rule of law, it is cynical and preposterous, to the point of being laughable, to insist on getting the photo identity of people susceptible to such unfair treatments as a condition for them to share their thoughts and ideas. Is Mr. Sarr trying to rewrite history by feigning surprise at the use of pseudonyms, as if the technique has not been used throughout recorded history? Let me for the sake of argument agree with Sarr’s standard of measuring sincerity. But I will also challenge him to, in addition to his ‘boldness’ to reveal his true identity, to be a regular, obtrusive visitor to his motherland if he really means well for her. I bet he would shudder at the thought of it after having fled it some 10 years ago for fear of what might happen to him. Could it even be that because of nostalgia and the accompanying urge to be able to visit Banjul, he is already regretting the extent to which he has gone in distancing himself from, and denouncing the current regime and he is therefore affecting a change of heart induced by the maturity that comes with age for some? Does Mr. Sarr think that we are so dull as to think that his decision to reveal himself is worthy of credit? Come to think of it, if it is cowardice on the part of those of us who do not do likewise because we are not on self-imposed exile and enjoying refugee status, I wonder what it is on the part of one who is happy to sever ties with his country of origin out of some imaginary fear? I have always held that where a person, on account of being in position of authority, will not scruple to abuse the powers and trusts conferred by his position to victimise others for daring to hold dissenting opinions, then individual citizens are absolutely right to resort to whatever method of protection they can conceive, if it helps them to hold on to their beliefs and views. What is sauce for the aggressive goose is certainly sauce for the defenceless gander, not least because the only other alternative- to acquiesce, grin and bear the situation- is despicable!

I will attempt to give a passing mention to the other points because they are less important, proceeding as they do from the figment of Sarr’s over active imagination as an author. By the way I have to say that I envy his achievement and gift as a Gambian writer in a class of his own. He has long overcome what I like to call literary inertia by authoring a novel at a time when I was still going to secondary school or even earlier. I am not sure I can say so much for many of my compatriots in the area of writing. But then gifts vouchsafed by the providence of our Guardian Lord do not necessarily preclude the propensity for baser motives in mortals.

He mentions the very remote probability of a cessation of what he terms as cyber attacks and a still more remote situation of The Gambia as a polity degenerating to a level that the government sends out blanket invitation to private citizens to proffer blueprints in the best way the country could be ruled, saying that many of my type would recoil. Apart from the fact that the mere contemplation of the scenario shows Mr. Sarr to be out of touch with the processes of government, which relies to a great extent on the existence of properly functioning constitution and institutions, competent personnel to formulate and execute the right policies, his imaginary scenario is only fit for an imaginary state. I advise Sarr to wait for that unlikely moment and see if he will not be taken by surprise at the ingenuity of the human spirit even on the part of those faceless people he seems to be bemused by.

Mr. Sarr seems also to think that anybody within The Gambia ‘plays along’ with the crowd to show insincere support for the system. But I can state without any fear of contradiction that there are people who would not stoop so low no matter what.

In all honesty however, he has attempted to address the doubt raised about his autobiography, Coup d’etat by the Gambia National Army, owing to the prejudiced impression his admitted change of heart conveys. He makes a thinly veiled admission that the charge is valid by boldly suggesting that he intends to expunge certain parts from the said book in a second edition that will reflect his current mindset.

To conclude, I cannot help but agree with the part he dedicates as an advice to the Gambia National Army. The section would have been free from the charge of being lopsided if a parallel advice was given to the government to ensure organisation and holding of free and fair elections as a way of championing the democratic process of holding rulers accountable to the ruled; the ensuring of the primacy of the rule of law and the imposition of term limit to the presidency as the surest means of pre-empting coups and other forms of social upheaval. Eid Mubarack in advance to Mr. Sarr, the editor and all brothers in faith.