Look, this is not about whether or not the law is retroactive. It is about logic, common sense and what is best for Senegal. And anyone who cares for truth would admit that it is in the best interest of Senegal and by extension Africa that Senegal’s president Abdoulie Wade drop his bid for that country’s presidency  – no doubt a third bid even if the law did not say-so.

Despite the prolonged unrest in its southern region of Casamance, Senegal is undoubtedly one of the most peaceful countries in Africa. However, we have seen how Mr Wade’s insistence on standing for presidency for a third term placed one of Africa’s most stable democracies on edge. For several months now, the capital is rocked by violent riots – deadly ones at that.

Wade was a major opposition in Senegal for the better of his life. Thanks to some of his then-fellow opposition, who rallied behind him in a second round of voting, he defeated Abdou Joof, Senegal’s second president since independence, to assume office. This was in the year 2000.

But one year after he took power, president Wade amended that country’s constitution to impose a two-term limit for the presidency. This was a laudable move. Then, following the completion of his first term in 2007, he also reduced the presidential term to five years from seven.

After his re-election in 2007, president Wade promised to abide by the constitution and stick to the two-term limit, meaning he would not stand for election in the 2012 poll.
 
However, Wade made a u-turn to his promise, declaring his candidature for the 2012 presidential elections. His argument is that the two-term limit did not apply to him because he was first elected in 2000 - before the constitutional amendment officially took effect.

This is contrary to the firm-held position of the opposition and civil society in Senegal who maintained that Wade’s move is unconstitutional. But Wade is maintaining that he is eligible because the law is not retroactive. As a legally trained person, he no doubt is right. He has a point.

But at this crucial point in time, Wade should not see to be bound by only the law to know whether or not he is eligible to contest for the presidency. Rather, he should be guided by logic, common sense and the blatant reality that he had served two terms.
To crown it all, Wade should put first and foremost, the interest of Senegal and the people of Senegalese above his individualist selfish interest.

Infact, we are all witness to his attempt to amend the constitution recently for his own good, by lowering the votes required to win the presidential election from 50 to 25 per cent. He later backed down from the amendment after thousands of young people took to the streets in protest. Lives were lost, some injured and properties destroyed.  

How many more protests is Wade willing to trigger thanks to his selfishness? How many more lives is he ready to take in order to stay in power. This is surely not the Senegal the world knows. This is not the Senegal Wade promised to build. This is not the Senegal Africa is asked to look up to for its democratic maturity.
 
President Wade should bear in mind that the Senegal that it takes him 12 years to build should not be the Senegal that he should allow be destroyed in a matter of days.  

President Wade should clearly see the determination of his people to making sure that he returns the power they have entrusted him with for onward delivery to someone else to continue the work.

This is about people’s power and no leader on earth can resist it. It may take time, but ultimately the power will go to where it belongs – to the people. And the longer one clinches onto it, the more life after power becomes difficult for one. Memories should not be too short for one to forget the recent examples.  

It is about time that the international community talks to president Wade to drop his bid. Ecowas has the greatest say here and they should not wait to be asked to intervene. Neither should AU should sit idly-by and watch Senegal bleed as they did in Libya, Ivory Coast and others places. Its is easier and less expensive to prevent than cure. Take for instance Sudan and Somalia.

The time and resources which could be better invested elsewhere to enhance the lives of Africa’s poverty stricken population are being pumped in those countries, yet no appreciable outcome. A stitch in time saves nine.