We simply wanted the IEC to accept prima facie evidence of what should be done and what we will no longer accept as a political party in elections.
Section 91 paragraph (b) of the Elections Act has made it very clear that “No candidate or political party shall, during an election campaign period,  abuse or engage in improper use of property of the Government for political propaganda purposes.”
We shall no longer accept Ministers, Governors, Chiefs, and Councils of Elders forming entourage, guarded by security personnel moving from village to village with state vehicles to campaign for National Assembly members because of the fact that the practice  is  against the law. The IEC should implement this provision.
Section 93 of the Act states that, “The Commission shall, during an election campaign period, ensure that equal time is given to each candidate and national party on the public radio and television.”            
We wanted the IEC to tell us how 48 Candidates for each party would divide air time in 14 days and whether the radio station is covering the whole Country.
Section 94 states that “Every Candidate and Political Party shall enjoy the right to use private radio stations and television stations under contract”
It adds that “A private radio station or television station shall during the election Campaign period, guarantee to each candidate and political party , in accordance with the principle stated in subsection 1 a minimum air time of five minutes”
We wanted the IEC to give guarantees that the law will be enforced to the letter.
The IEC is going into the National Assembly elections with its hands tied. It was the first to appoint a consultant to advise it on electoral reform. The recommendations are now collecting dust not because the IEC had not made an effort but because of the inaction of its state partners. The IEC announced that the constituency boundaries are unequal and needed to be divided. It even identified constituencies that needed demarcation or delineation. PDOIS cautioned it that the APRC leadership pioneered the amendment of section 50 to create a Constituency Boundaries Commission to usurp the power of the IEC and torpedo the demarcations made under the Johnson Chairmanship. We emphasized that it has put the powers to demarcate Constituencies under lock and key by linking it to constitutional amendments of section 88 which could only be done by National Assembly members.
Furthermore, amendment of section 18 of the Elections Act bound the hands of the Commission not to investigate into the validity of documents during registration of voters. Other amendments legitimized attestations to determine citizenship which provided a smokescreen for fraudulent registration of voters. We monitored the registration exercise. PDOIS activists appointed to monitor the exercise filed election petitions. Most of the petitions succeeded. We called on the IEC to name and shame those who attested to forms in a fraudulent manner to serve as a deterrent to others. The IEC has paid a deaf ear to our call.
It is therefore necessary for PDOIS to take an Independent stand to promote electoral reform with or without the IEC.
The Way Forward
It is very clear that the ball is in the court of the IEC and the APRC ruling party. Our immediate objective is to ensure that there is a relatively level ground for multi party contest in the forthcoming National Assembly elections. We will consult our partners and pin down the IEC and the government to talks to ensure Commitment to the immediate concerns for the 29 March polls. We would then work with our partners to prepare a calendar for comprehensive electoral reform which would entail the establishment of a term limit for the presidency, the restoration of a second round of voting, the elimination of the 65 years age limit for Candidature, the establishment of the boundaries commission with immediate effect or the restoration of the powers of the IEC to demarcate Constituencies , the introduction of proportional representation for one third of the seats in the National assembly to promote female representation and eliminate the nomination of National Assembly members by the President, the opening of the electronic  media to divergent views and dissenting opinions not only during the Campaign period but at all times. The list goes on and on.
We want to make it clear that March 2012 election shall mark a turning point in the operation of PDOIS. The APRC knows very well that we can take it to task as we have already laid the foundation to ensure that it yields to electoral reform. The Grand BAY Decision of 1996 is still in favour of PDOIS and must be respected by the Government. It has no choice. PDOIS will utilise this leverage to help build a viable opposition and multiparty system before 2016. We want the building of a viable multi party system to be the starting point of our struggle to win the hearts and minds of the people to provide them with the state administration they have always yearned for. This is why we sacrificed two National Assembly seats in 2005 to join NADD. We wanted NADD to ensure the building of a viable opposition and multi party system and then be dissolved after empowering each party to seek a mandate on the basis of its own merit. Even if NADD did not win the Presidential elections, our objective was to pursue the Grand Bay decision of 1996 to the letter before the National Assembly Elections of 2007. However NADD became divided and our moral authority became weakened since many felt that PDOIS was engaged in a power struggle. The situation now is different. PDOIS has given way for other parties to contest the Presidential elections of 2011 with the hope of creating a Democratic state under which a genuine multi party system could thrive. Even though the United Front did not win, PDOIS has re-conquered its moral authority. We can now make demands for electoral reform and pursue the Grand Bay decision to its logical conclusion if the IEC or the ruling party seeks to obstruct the road to reform.
Hence the way forward for PDOIS is clear. Abuse of its position of power by the ruling party and inadequate finance are major obstacles to genuine multi party contest and a viable opposition. We will consult other parties in order to reach a consensus on the ground rules that must be observed before we could consider the ground relatively level to contest elections and negotiate with the IEC and the ruling party for their observance.
Secondly, PDOIS will discuss funding of electoral processes and campaign with its partners so that every cost  that goes with  ensuring the security of the vote, such as monitoring polling stations  by polling agents and the counting of tokens by counting agents, should either be handled by the state or by the UN and other multilateral partners. The feeding, transportation and incidentals of such agents should not be the responsibility of opposition parties that are not funded by tax money. We will also discuss how to make the environment free for those with the intention to donate to parties in particular or the opposition in general to do so without fear of any repercussion. We want these two obstacles to be behind us before the end of February 2012. The accomplishment of the first phase will take us to the second phase.
If the first phase is in place, PDOIS is advocating for strategic participation in the 29 March National Assembly elections so that the opposition could control a minimum of 14 seats in order to be able to block any negative amendment of the Constitution and further aim for a maximum of at least 27 seats to be able to control the National Assembly.
Secondly, we are willing to negotiate safe seats with the other opposition parties so that those candidates who are best suited to win the 14 Seats would be given priority and support by all parties. The others who could win the 27 seats would follow suit and those candidates who are better poised to give a stiff contest in all other constituencies should then be identified and given support. PDOIS has scaled down the maximum seats it would contest, if the ground is relatively level, to 7 seats and prepare itself for 2016/2017. In order to convince our partners of the integrity of our recommendation, PDOIS is even willing to forgo the candidature of Halifa Sallah in the coming elections to prove that our mission is not to reposition PDOIS but to reposition the opposition to have the clout of numbers that could serve as a legitimate check against impunity and bad governance.
Our vision is clear and our mission is viable and necessary.  Our means to pursue our mission are democratic and suitable for a country of our type.
We want the people to reflect on the sacrifices PDOIS has made to be convinced that there is nothing we cannot do to make the Gambian people sovereign architects of their destiny. However, we have nothing to gain by resorting to forms of change which creates an environment of permanent civil strive and discord this country. We are conscious of the fact that the Gambia is sitting in the middle of a delicate geo- political enclave between Northern and Southern Senegal. War is already raging in the South. There is no doubt that any Government that emerges in Senegal will be obliged to put the solution of the Casamance crisis at the top of its agenda. There is no doubt that any war in the Gambia would fuel instability from Northern Senegal to Guinea Bissau.
The objective of the opposition in the Gambia should be to take over the Gambia in one piece and manage it in one piece. Our focus should be on the inadequacy of resources of the opposition and the absence of a level ground for genuine multi party contest.
PDOIS members should bear in mind that if we have an IEC which is fully in control, and a ruling party which is fully committed to the rule of law, or is properly checked by the opposition, we would not have fraudulent ID Cards, Birth Certificates, Attestations and voters’ cards. Those who are not Gambians would find legal ways of acquiring citizenship instead of interfering with the electoral system. Hence the problem is the system which refuses to open legal avenues for the acquisition of citizenship but continue to promote fraudulent registration exercise. We should not sink to narrow nationalism and ethno- linguistic diatribes that would pit the opposition against those who are not Gambians. We should point out the folly of parents staying in the Gambia for decades without being shown the means to naturalise but are encouraged  possess voters’ cards only to end up having their children declared as non citizens after being born and bred in the Gambia. The opposition should concentrate in exposing such absurdities so that such stateless persons would become an allies to the forces that would put an end to their statelessness. The opposition  should further  counsel the Senegalese Government immediately after the Senegalese elections to find Federal solutions to the problem of  Casamance by creating regional autonomy and administration that would be able to guarantee the type of prosperity and liberty that would be able to attract most refugees from Casamance to go back  to enjoy enlarged liberty and prosperity. A stable, free and prosperous Casamance , Guinea Bissau and Guinea would put an end to any avenue for fraudulent electoral practices in the Gambia
PDOIS’ will promote a programme of consultation to promote electoral reform. If it fails to get the cooperation of the IEC and the ruling party  it will rely on the decision taken at the 20th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR Grand Bay, Mauritius, October 1996 to take the Government to the ECOWAS Community Court . The decision the APRC government vowed to respect reads:  
 110th Annual Activity Report: 1996— 1997;
44/90 Peoples’ Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism/The
Gambia
Report on an amicable resolution
The Facts
1. The complaint alleges that voter registration in the constituencies of Serrekunda West, Serrekunda East and Bakau was defective because those registering were not required by the law to give an address or identification. It argues that there was no control over voter registration since no document had to be shown to the registering officer. The voter may be asked his/her name and citizenship, but there is no requirement to produce an address or compound number. Furthermore, the witness is not required to identify himself. The complainant argued that the absence of a requirement to produce an address or compound number makes it possible for the voter to forge his right to vote in the constituency, or to vote several times.
2. In the rural areas the registration of the voters and the voting procedure itself are controlled by the headman, the registration officer, representatives of different political parties, and village elders. In the urban areas the control is only done by the registration officer who does not know the people. Without the street address or compound number, it is impossible for the registration officer to control the identity of the voter, even though they must sign a form of registration and enclose a photograph, because the signature could be forged and the lack of communication between different constituencies could make it possible for the voter to register in several stations.
3. The complainant argues that the registration by street address/ compound number is possible, since most urban areas in the Gambia have street address or compound number.
4 The complainant argues that, based on its observations of voter registration, there is widespread fraud.
According to the Government
5. The government argued firstly that the case was inadmissible because it could be taken through the courts to the level of the (British) Privy Council.
6. The complainant pointed out that the (Gambian) Elections Act, Section 22(5), states that the judgment of the Gambian Supreme Court shall be final and conclusive; thus, appeal to the Privy Council is impossible.
7. As to the merits, the state originally claimed that the Gambia does hold free and fair elections.
8. In the urban areas a form was signed and address / compound number, occupation, constituency and photo, were included wherever possible. These were checked by the registration officer both at registration and at the elections, providing adequate protection against fraud. Likewise, in the rural areas, personal identification by the village headman took place both at registration and at the elections.
9. The state claimed that it is almost impossible in a developing country like the Gambia to ensure control by street addresses / compound number. Many dwellings in the Gambia, including the urban areas, do not have street addresses / compound numbers, but are registered in the names of the owners. It is therefore impossible to make this requirement absolute.
10. The state further argued that it is impossible to require showing of identity papers at the time of registration and election as a high percentage of the population does not have identification papers. It was not before 1985 that a National Identity Card was introduced and now not more than 50% of the population has been registered.    
 
II. In July 1994 there was a change of government in The Gambia. The present government strongly condemns the claims of the previous government that the streets of Serrekunda were not named with sufficient specificity to permit making a Street address a mandatory requirement for voter registration. The present government calls this claim ‘inexcusable and indefensible.’
12. The present government, by its ‘Admission of Communication No. 44/90 from the Peoples Democratic Organisation for Independence and Socialism-PDOIS’ Against the State of the Gambia’ concedes that the grievances expressed by the complainants are valid and logical. It expressed its intent to change the current system to correct the present ‘anomalies.’
Procedure
13. The communication is dated 19 June 1990 The Commission was seized of the communication at the 8th Session and the government of The Gambia was notified on 6 November 1990. From 1990 to 1995, the Commission proceeded to verify the exhaustion of local remedies.
14. At the l7th session the communication was declared admissible on the basis that exhaustion of local remedies had been unduly prolonged.
15. On 20 April 1995 a letter was sent to the complainants and the Gambian Government, stating that the communication was admissible.
16. The Commission received a letter from the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Justice of The Gambia, conceding that the grievances expressed by the complainants are valid and logical, and that the present electoral law is being reviewed with the objective of curing the present anomalies.
17. On 20 December 1995, the complainant was informed of this response with the specification that if the Secretariat does not receive arguments to the contrary before the 1 February 1996, the Commission would consider the communication to have been resolved amicably.
The Law
Admissibility
18. The PDOIS argued that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary to order Parliament to change defective procedures and laws; thus, recourse to the courts was not an option. The complainant alleged that, while the Elections Act provides for objections to voter lists to be made before a revising officer appointed by the Supervisor of Elections, the fact that the voter lists posted did not include a list of addresses made effective scrutiny impossible. The complaint noted that numerous letters had been addressed to the Supervisor of Elections and the President of the Republic as early as 1987 with no response.
19. The Government noted that in July 1990, the complainant did file a Notice of Objection and sent it to the Commissioner of Western Division. The document was forwarded to the Revising Court. No action appeared to have been taken by the court.
20. On the basis of these facts the communication was declared admissible.
Merits
21. Article 13 of The African Charter reads:
Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provision of the law.
22. In 1994 there was a change of government in The Gambia. The present government recognizes that it has inherited the previous government’s rights and obligations under international treaties.
23. The present government has a different view of voter registration. It concedes that the grievances expressed by the complainants are valid and logical. It describes that it is in the process of establishing an independent electoral commission and has commissioned a team of experts to review the present electoral law.
24. The African Commission welcomes the acceptance of the complainant’s contentions and the government’s stated determination to review the current electoral law, in order to ensure that elections are regular, free and fair.
For these reasons, the Commission holds that the above communication has reached an amicable resolution.
Taken at the 20th Ordinary Session, Grand Bay, Mauritius and October 1996.
 
Members and supporters of PDOIS should contact each other to find out which of the seven constituencies we have identified as priorities and continue their normal debate on the discussion paper put forth by the Central Committee as if they are engaged in a normal election campaign. All opposition party supporters are also advised to engage the electorate on the basis of the positions of their leadership.We shall begin consultation right away.
 The old way no longer suffices. A new way is demanded by our times and circumstances. PDOIS wants a Gambian electoral system in 2016 that would have the second round of voting which should enable each party to contest on the basis of its merit and then form an Alliance in the second round with the party that could best build the democratic foundation of the country for posterity. History will be the scribe and posterity will be the judge.