By Amadou Dibba, UK

Frankly, to say that I am surprised by the latest cannon of invectives from Mr. Samsudeen Sarr, in his response to a number of points I have raised in my recent commentaries, is to misunderstand the drive of a desperate person to have his way.

After reading his last piece, a lot became even clearer to me. The write-up, for all it is worth, helped to crystallise (I hope I’m not being verbose or grandiloquent again by Sarr’s standards?) my belief that the benefits of age and experience, some of the few assets that I believed could help a person perfect the skills for mature reasoning and argument, do not necessarily come in handy for all that fall under the category of ageing and experienced people. It takes a lot more, such as honesty, phlegm, cool-headedness, (which is most times a bi-product of age) and the courage to concede when one’s standpoint is shown to be untenable for being bereft of sense. But of course now and again, tricky people such as the pre-eminent Mr. Samsudeen Sarr tend to do so by cleverly avoiding or sticking (without valid arguments) to those points on which their view point has been neutralised.

In this piece I choose to be less circuitous by dealing directly with the issues at hand as far as Sam Sarr’s estimation of my views and style of writing is concerned. For while I appreciate the value of analysing current affairs and taking an independent standpoint on emerging and current events, I am reluctant to make comments about other affairs here as I believe that I will only be re-echoing sentiments already expressed. I am more comfortable to give free reins to the urge to express my views when I believe that I have a little more than what has already been said or completely different opinion, lest I bore my readers in an attempt to impress them with how worldly-wise I am.

Now to the interesting bit in Sarr’s observations about my writing style. But before that let me state that even after reading his piece twice over, I could not come across any valid argument in favour of his need for photo identity as a determinant of sincerity in an argument which is made more relevant for the points discussed. Any reasonable reader would arrive at such a conclusion, especially after Sarr’s u-turn to waste his time with some hibernator, to borrow a phrase from his penultimate piece. His decision to address the issues he’s been challenged on, more than anything, proves that his childishly petulant adamance on the need for identity, even though the lack of it did not hinder his understanding of the issues raised (although he claims that came about after some struggle on his part to ‘discern’ my ‘far-fetched and laborious’ writing), betrays his sinister intent and wishes for anybody who dares challenge his views or analyse his current posture, which is seen by many to be contemptible and worthy of ridicule. Of course that is not to say that he is not entitled to a change of heart. But where in the process of conveying the message for such a change of heart, his opinions threaten to mislead rather than enlighten, I for one will give my views in as point-blank a manner as my ‘verbose’ style can let me, even if I have to do it a thousand times over, giving little regard to ill-advised sarcasm that will only help to hone my appetite for engagement.

Let’s be clear about something. Contrary to how Sarr may understand or pretend to understand my argument against the need for the kind of identification he is making so much fuss about, it is not out of any fear of him as an individual as my joke about his possible belligerent tendency might lead him to believe because I, though I’ve been loath to state it, least fear threat of a physical kind from an individual, except of course if it is from some zombie sons-of-bitches on the prowl in the rocky hills around some little known villages in the Gambian countryside. But even then I have confidence in the protection of the Almighty against dark forces. In the mean time, the bee in his bonnet about the complete identity of this mysterious guy can continue to hum and hum and hum.

Lest I forget, let me share the fun in Mr Sarr’s statement that he is all for me “this week, the next and the one after that.” I doubt if this is necessary to say at all for if I were him, I would know that my adversary should expect no less. Or is that his way of sending shivers down my spine? Well I am sorry to disappoint him for this guy here does is not about recoil just yet. Maybe if it were a boxing bout I may, I repeat, may flinch in awe of his possibly more indomitable physique but certainly not in a clash of views and ideas.     

“To be quite honest” (a phrase that I have come to notice many of Sarr’s type tend to use when they are about to land a seemingly crushing blow on their detestable adversaries,) I had to suppress a sudden fit of laughter after reading Sarr’s derision of my writing style, coming from him of all people. I say ‘him of all people’ not because I expect more than average intelligence on his part to comprehend my message no matter how difficultly phrased, but because of the fact that if I did not consider it petty, I could have pointed out instances in his pieces where his construction fell short of being grammatically correct. For example, as the following would show, by using a verb where a noun should be, such as: “It is a source of rejoice (a verb)” when joy (a noun) should have been where rejoice is or using an adverb where an adjective should have been, such as “The maestro,” whoever that is, “writes in….flawlessly jargon.” Do I hear him curse under his breath out of some conceit that his own writing is impeccable or that these are too simple to be out of some grammatical deficiency? Well I say to him that coming from someone who, in defiance of decency in literary circles, finds it ok to pick on another’s piece in the manner that he does to mine, he should have been meticulous enough to cross his ‘T’s and dot his ‘I’s. But then again to even state that he should be meticulous is to suppose that he knows as much as he portrays with an insufferable air of self-importance. The above two illustrations, especially the first one, are no results of a slip of the pen, for want of a better phrase. As regards the structure of complex sentences, I learnt back during my secondary school years that just as in mathematics or any other science different people could apply different methods to arrive at the same solution, so in literature people’s diction and general style of writing can be different though they may seek to put across the same idea. But making reference to such matters on a non-pedagogic platform borders on pettiness that is typical of the fastidious. So by now, I believe, my dear Sarr should be convinced that I do not apologise for my style, knowing that if decency had occasioned it I could belabour this point by lifting out sections from his various pieces where I have had to do some mental gymnastics to try to understand him. Very simple, especially looking at the way he so easily but dishonestly tries to discredit my style by claiming that my readers end up being more confused trying to understand my reasoning. Coming from him, it is little surprise to me. He would have appeared more credible if he had arranged for some other reader to support his claim. But no, his design is such that he has to execute it himself. I did what little I have had to do above just to demonstrate to him that the attitude is not the hallmark of a good debater on substance. After all vocabulary (lexicon) is there to be studied and used, taking into consideration the target group of readership. Maybe I expect too much of my readership because I do not underrate them as gullible simpletons as Mr. Sarr seems to rate some. I can tell him with a fair degree of certainty that even being the author that he is, he could never say for certain how easily or quickly all his potential readers understand his diction and general style because it is a fact of nature, need I tell him, that people are gifted with different levels and capacities for comprehension and general intelligence, an undisputable fact that no amount of word twisting from Sarr can belie.

Mr. Sarr made reference to my supposed chastisement of him and the so-called Western educated doctors for acting on the instinct of self-preservation during his incarceration in Mile II and at the outset of President Jammeh’s HIV/AIDS healing programme respectively, trying to draw a parallel in my rationalisation of my right to do so under given circumstances on the one hand, and his and the so-called Western educated doctors’ claim to it on the other, admitting that while in his case it might have been so, in the case of the doctors(I choose to drop the ‘so-called’ so as not to entangle myself in verbiage) it is doubtful. While this suggests to me that Mr. Sarr’s understanding or definition of ‘self-preservation’ seems to be limited to the ‘urge to act to protect one’s life’ I hasten to add that the wider meaning (the natural urge to protect oneself from harm or death) is what applies here. Or does Mr. Sarr have the word ‘death’ etched on his mind side by side with ‘self-preservation’ so that the mention or sight of one invokes the other automatically? I can’t think of a better reason. He also accuses me of chiding both him and the doctors for it when my only crime is to mention that that is what has taken place. He might as well have said that I pilloried myself for claiming any right to self-preservation. So you see it is not ‘disingenuous’ after all to lump both Sarr and the doctors, (or should I say all of us?) as hankerers after self-preservation. But the most interesting part in this particular section, which sent me into a fit of convulsive laughter (to be quiet honest), is his guesswork on the probable reason why I left out (‘dropped like hot potato’) the University lecturer who vouched for the efficacy of the cure on both national and international media. I respect Sarr’s strategy in that pre-emptive strike (perhaps a life-threatening uppercut) meant to take the wind out of my sails, when he writes: “Knowing what this guy is capable of, I wouldn’t bet that he would not come back with clever reasons for excluding the lecturer…” Well I do not know if this fits his description of clever reasons but it did not occur to me to belabour the point, the more so as when the wider definition of self-preservation is used as the premise (which Mr. Sarr obviously seems to be unaware of), readers themselves could figure out the motives of the University Lecturer, especially those privy to the President’s threats to flush out unwanted elements in the university, who he believed were bent on sabotaging his government and the subsequent dismissal of some few months ago in what is believed to be orders from the alpha and the omega, to borrow Sarr’s term. Need I say more? So you see I did not just ‘drop the lecturer like hot potato’ because I could not reconcile his situation to yours or that of the doctors.

To the issue of the yet unresolved deaths of people believed to be Ghanaian and other African nationals whose bodies were found in a forest around Brufut, it is most unfortunate that I do not have a copy of The Point newspaper carrying the story, nor could I remember the date or the author. But I implore all to look at the issue from the point of logic. If bodies are found on the beach with the tell-tale signs of fish bites and disgorging of eyes, why would people speculate about the manner of death when the reasonable conclusion would have been that it is a case of drowning and on-shore dumping of the bodies. But Sarr explains this by referring to the jittery nature of the average Gambian in the face of death. Clever as it may sound, this does not hold water, especially when one considers the fact that a matter of such far-reaching implications for the government as the discovery of those bodies, demanded that better efforts be made to document the actual place and manner in which the bodies were found, so that any subsequent suspicion could be countered and, even if the identities and numbers could not be ascertained, the place and manner in which the bodies were found, would speak for themselves. But the worldly-wise trickster, who perhaps out of his indelible memories of the difficulties he encountered in his love life, makes an unimpressive allusion to my social life and raises doubt about whether I am in a successful relationship, giving his perception of my person as a possible stumbling block. But I will satisfy his almost insatiable curiosity on that score by telling him that I am a happily married man with lovely children just like him (Allah be praised), if that will be of any help for him to visualise my image and perhaps sketch his mental impressions. By the way, though I have known little more than the fact that Mr. Sarr was sometime the Commander of the Gambia National Army and the author of a novel titled “Meet me in Conakry,” and what is said to be his autobiography “Coup d’etat by the Gambia National Army,” I would still have been able to engage him based mainly on the issues he discusses without even having a glimpse of his face. Readers would notice that my recent writings do not constitute substantial reference to Mr. Sarr’s life per se but his views and stance on current affairs in The Gambia. It still intrigues me why the same is not the case for him. Let me remind him that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the age-old maxim that discretion, for all time, is the better part of valour.

At this point I will concede that owing perhaps to the fact that the lingering memory of the brutal killings of April 10 and 11, which overshadows any findings and/or compensation to victims’ families that Mr. Sarr refers to, I failed to state the fact that such a board had been set up, findings made and some members of the security forces blamed, preferring in stead to dwell on the enacting of the Indemnity clause, whose speed of enactment I overstated due to the insignificance of any other so-called remedial step that took place before or after it (the Indemnity Clause itself). In other words, the events of April 10 and 11, having been dealt with in the manner they were – ie. constituting a board to investigate and come up with findings, which culminated in a report “that clearly blamed some members of the security forces,” was too little to serve as consolation for affected families and I will show Sarr why presently. The sanctity of human life is such that Allah (SWT) states in the holy Qur’an that whoever kills a single human being deliberately, it is as if he has killed the entire humanity and who has saved the life of a single human being, it is as if he has saved the lives of the entire humanity, or words to that effect. When students armed with no weapons attempt to hold demonstration on account of their grievance, to confront them with life fire power was to attempt to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. How blaming some security officers and dishing monies to affected families, without punishing those responsible for the crime but rather passing into law an Indemnity Clause for good measure fails to show me how the memories of the victims are honoured or how definitive reconciliation has been secured. But the typical egoist, which Sarr’s attitude towards the matter portrays him to be, would always find an excuse why such should be forgotten about as though nothing ever happened. All this in an oily attempt to advance some dubious design! Though Sarr is not sure about his view on how well the issue has been resolved: “Since then the country seemed to have healed from the incident which Dibba thinks still rankles among Gambians when the rankling is all in his ever tormented head.” Do I have to explain Sarr’s own construction to him or is it a case of him not understanding himself, let alone his readers doing so?

True to his demonstrated penchant for antics and excessive pride not to own up, he attempts to “wriggle out of” my questioning the validity of his comparison of Presidents Jammeh’s and Obama’s popularity, not by defending his standpoint by showing how my assessment is flawed but, as usual, by putting up a weak defence in saying that he did so metaphorically. I am not sure if that would be construed as a compliment to President Jammeh. Then, to consummate the bunkum he is intent on dishing out, he spices up his mistaken observations by accusing me of arrogance for showing the difference between the drive of various classes to show up in occasions which seem to be Sarr’s perfect platforms to determine President Jammeh’s popularity. My response to that is that I believe that our duty as social beings to be accommodating of the shortcomings of each other does not detract from the fact that we are of varying degrees of faculties and abilities, a creation of Providence, so much so that it becomes cynical of that person who seeks to fault one who, out of necessity, has to make a reference to the phenomenon without singling out any person or group of persons from among the rabble or working classes. You want to go over that once more Mr. Sarr to bring it down to your “level of English?” What a joke that was!

As regards his quotation from “a great thinker” who has made a good case about the limitation of man as a naturally frail being physically, mentally and psychologically, Sarr has not only by so doing driven home the fact that man should not be arrogant on account of anything. But by merely reading the ideas of those who have done the thinking for him and many other less gifted people of varying degrees, he has also inadvertently admitted that be that as it may, the fact remains that the human family constitutes people of varying gifts. So, I add, the fault lies in being puffed up with conceit on account of the blessings conferred on one by the Benevolent and not recognising the existence of the fact.

In conclusion let me point out to Sarr that I am not impressed by his reference to a supposed statement by President Jammeh that when it comes to national security, he cares less about the law or the constitution. Let us suppose he said that. But what has that got to do with the issue that brought about this engagement- the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of six journalists, who were at length released. Does Sarr want to tell me that the journalists’ action constitute a threat to national security? If so, then why, considering the amount of sympathy their plight generated both within and without the country, was there not even a single demonstration within the country to agitate for their release. I believe that if the mere publication of a statement that is construed as accusing the government of complicity in the murder of a journalist was enough to call people to arms in a country like The Gambia, then we would have heard of violent demonstrations before and after the imprisonment of the journalists. It will be impractical to resign to a dangerous trend simply because it seems to be the norm in the world, even though one has the means to