QUESTION OF THE DAY
Asked this question Halifa Sallah indicated that confrontation may sound like conflict if interpreted in literal terms. According to him, this is done in a legal sense when two witnesses give divergent views on the same matter. Ex-Captain Cham has indicated that I told him that I will give a thought to his offer of ministerial post overnight.
“I said that all I told him was that I will give a reply because I was already decided in making my rejection in writing in an open letter that will stand the test of time. History has now proven that I was wise to do what I did, otherwise it would have been his word against mine. I would like to tender this letter to the Commission to prove that he fabricated evidence.
“Secondly, he claimed that he gave me a deadline to express my decision of ministerial post. Anybody who knows Halifa Sallah would know that since Mamat Cham was an agent of Jammeh I would have nothing to communicate with him but would rather communicate with his superiors. He would not have had the daring mind to establish conditionalities when talking to me. This was also a fabrication.
“He also indicated that I went to the State House but missed the appointed time to give my reply and told us that we were late. This is a fabrication of monumental proportion. The first and last time I saw and spoke to Mamat Cham was when he came and claimed that he was sent by the council to offer me a ministerial post. In the same vein, Sam Sarr, went to the State House to deliver my letter rejecting the ministerial post and stating five principles, among which is non participation in a government that is incapable of eradicating poverty and tyranny and one that is not derived from the consent of the people.
“He did not even pass the gate not to talk about talking to Mamat Cham. Once he insisted to deliver the letter hand to hand to the leader of the council those at the gate refused and insisted that the most they could do is to receive the letter and forward it as he wished.
“He sought for Captain Kanteh’s number and called him to inform him about the letter. Hence the lead counsel’s final leading question that after the PDOIS failed to come at the appointed time what happened next, shows the danger of relying on fabricated evidence to pursue the truth. This is why it is necessary for the two of us to appear before the Commission for confrontation in legal terms to get to the truth,” Sallah pointed out.
According to Sallah, he has still not received any reply from the Commission and may have to start a column detailing what Foroyaa wrote from Day 1 of the coup up to the time when the council conceded to establish the National Consultative Committee to draft a transitional programme and question whether the Commission is really interested in the truth.