|
|
Post by roughrider on Sept 14, 2005 12:36:45 GMT 3
FWDS doing the rounds. Sample this:
The draft constitution at a glance resembles Kibaki on a wheelchair, on closer look it seems twisted like the mouth of Kiraitu and has everything to do with the character, conduct and associations of Chris Murungaru.
Author Unknown
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Sept 14, 2005 12:37:48 GMT 3
Another:
Pamoja Tuangamize Mandizi!
Dear Friend,
We all do know that 70% of the proposed constitution might be ok; but that doesn't mean that we should also gulp down our throats the remaining 30% venom!
That is equals to NO.
Truly, a right multiplied by a wrong is actually a WRONG!, neither does any two wrongs make a right!
Do you support killing of innocent unborn children? = NO
Do you support gay/lesbian marriages? = NO
Do you support enshrining religious courts in our constitution? = NO, we never asked for them in the 1st place!
Do you support a constitution that if passed, you cannot challenge it in court? = NO
Did you suggest that non-performing MPs should be recalled? YES, but does that feature in the draft? = NO
Did you suggest for a constitution which will be impossible to amend in the future? NO
Would you like Kenya to go the banana republic? = NO
Then, in order to safeguard the future of your children and that of your country, just stick to "NO" vote during the referendum.
The letter "O" in the "NO" stands for Orange. Forget about bananas...that's monkey business!!!
Please pass this on to your beloved citizens. We stand a chance to be counted on this one.
Way forward;
Let the CKRC act be amended by parliament to allow for the draft constitution being re-represented to all stakeholders for a compromise. Two cannot walk together unless they agree! Our country is just about to be torn into two!!! We cannot possibly have a constitution that is acceptable to only 52% of the populace and unacceptable to the other 48% - - - This is a recipe for civil strife. And when a referendum is re-done, let all possible contentious issues be itemized so as the voter will have the freedom to express his/her freedom of either yes or no - - - right now we are all been muzzled to either say yes (though you will not necessary agree with all the contents) or no (though you will not necessary disagree with all the contents) - - - this is hypocrisy of the highest order, that's why you must say NO!
Pamoja Tuangamize Mandizi!
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 14, 2005 12:57:30 GMT 3
Another: Pamoja Tuangamize Mandizi! Dear Friend, We all do know that 70% of the proposed constitution might be ok; but that doesn't mean that we should also gulp down our throats the remaining 30% venom! That is equals to NO. Truly, a right multiplied by a wrong is actually a WRONG!, neither does any two wrongs make a right! Do you support killing of innocent unborn children? = NO Do you support gay/lesbian marriages? = NO Do you support enshrining religious courts in our constitution? = NO, we never asked for them in the 1st place! Do you support a constitution that if passed, you cannot challenge it in court? = NO Did you suggest that non-performing MPs should be recalled? YES, but does that feature in the draft? = NO Did you suggest for a constitution which will be impossible to amend in the future? NO Would you like Kenya to go the banana republic? = NO Then, in order to safeguard the future of your children and that of your country, just stick to "NO" vote during the referendum. The letter "O" in the "NO" stands for Orange. Forget about bananas...that's monkey business!!! Please pass this on to your beloved citizens. We stand a chance to be counted on this one. Way forward; Let the CKRC act be amended by parliament to allow for the draft constitution being re-represented to all stakeholders for a compromise. Two cannot walk together unless they agree! Our country is just about to be torn into two!!! We cannot possibly have a constitution that is acceptable to only 52% of the populace and unacceptable to the other 48% - - - This is a recipe for civil strife. And when a referendum is re-done, let all possible contentious issues be itemized so as the voter will have the freedom to express his/her freedom of either yes or no - - - right now we are all been muzzled to either say yes (though you will not necessary agree with all the contents) or no (though you will not necessary disagree with all the contents) - - - this is hypocrisy of the highest order, that's why you must say NO! Pamoja Tuangamize Mandizi! I support a woman's right to reproductive choice up to and including abortion but i still say no to the wako draft; i believe that there should be no dsicrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people and i still oppose the wako draft i support the cultural and religious rights of muslims and other social minorities, but i still say no to the wako draft; |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 14, 2005 14:03:18 GMT 3
Is it not sad that we can perpetuate a campaign premised on lies? That we can continuously lie about the contents of the proposed constitution, and even worse agree to be used to repeat the lies in the form of a campaign!!
For a group of people purporting to be educated, the least one would expect is an argument similar to that repeated by politicians lying to unsuspecting crowds. What I would have hoped is a reasoned argument why one disagrees with the document, including the consequences of the decision one takes as well as the way forward!
Unfortunately, we are happy to hurl insults, lie and even say NO or YES to something we have not even understood. We are happy to do this since it falls outside the scope of our myopic political agendas, forgetting what the intention of the document is.
I would have hoped that RR would corrected the lies in that mail being circulated around. I would have hoped that the moderator would have actually said that the document does NOT legalise abortion or ALLOW gay marriages! But what the heck, if this lie and that other lie will enable us get the desired result....go for it!!
Sad!
|
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on Sept 14, 2005 14:42:01 GMT 3
I would have hoped that the moderator would have actually said that the document does NOT legalise abortion or ALLOW gay marriages! One would hope that it did - but it doesn't :-(. Alexander |
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Sept 14, 2005 15:28:25 GMT 3
Kamale
Cool down, there is life after the referendum… don’t get so worked up over this. I don’t see lies anywhere, just different interpretations.
As you know, writing a constitution is one thing; interpreting it is quite another. Take this part for instance:
Right to life
35. (1) Every person has the right to life except as may be prescribed in an Act of Parliament.
(2) The life of a person begins at conception.
(3) Abortion is not permitted except as may be provided for by an Act of Parliament.
Now you tell me, does this allow for abortion or NOT. This reminds me of insurance contracts that provide cover on page one and then disclaim all such cover in the fine print conveniently tucked in the footnotes.
Even the prezzy thinks that the provincial admin is in the constitution - others think NOT.
Speaking of which, does anyone realise that in fact there are 57 such Acts that determine exactly what is meant by this constitution? ….X will happen except as an Act will show…. Y is not accepted except where an Act agrees…. FIFTY SEVEN *in times!
Kenyans like we always say are very intelligent. If this is truly the constitution THEY WROTE then don’t you worry, Kamale, they will ratify it. If not then they will reject it.
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Sept 14, 2005 15:47:52 GMT 3
And by the way Kamale,
I thought you said there was a blue print somewhere for YES and that 'still waters run deep'. I did not imagine hurriedly convened panic meetings were part of that carefully crafted strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 14, 2005 16:25:14 GMT 3
Kamale Cool down, there is life after the referendum… don’t get so worked up over this. I don’t see lies anywhere, just different interpretations. As you know, writing a constitution is one thing; interpreting it is quite another. Take this part for instance: Right to life35. (1) Every person has the right to life except as may be prescribed in an Act of Parliament. (2) The life of a person begins at conception. (3) Abortion is not permitted except as may be provided for by an Act of Parliament. Now you tell me, does this allow for abortion or NOT. This reminds me of insurance contracts that provide cover on page one and then disclaim all such cover in the fine print conveniently tucked in the footnotes. Even the prezzy thinks that the provincial admin is in the constitution - others think NOT. Speaking of which, does anyone realise that in fact there are 57 such Acts that determine exactly what is meant by this constitution? ….X will happen except as an Act will show…. Y is not accepted except where an Act agrees…. FIFTY SEVEN *in times! Kenyans like we always say are very intelligent. If this is truly the constitution THEY WROTE then don’t you worry, Kamale, they will ratify it. If not then they will reject it. Exactly my point RR!! We are not reading this document properly!!! Are you suggesting that the qualifications are not necessary? TASK: Can you read any other constitution that does not have such qualifications and then let me know? "Abortion is not permitted except as may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament"- this is a necessary qualification as there would be instances where it will be necessary. You must, and should take abortion to refer to the ending of an unborn life. Hence if such a qualification was not necessary, mothers would die at childbirth because the constitution bars them!!! Remember that no right is absolute! |
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 14, 2005 17:07:55 GMT 3
like many other kenyans, i also dragged myself through the wako draft. at this point i do not want to add to the critiques offered by erudite minds like shermit lamba, james orengo, tom kagwe, abubakar zein, john mutakha kangu, okoth-ogendo,alex wa ujerumani, kavetsa adagala, abdul mote, roughrider, adongo ogony and many others.
in fact, i feel that one of most obvious and odious subterfuges of the yes side is they they schemed to change the parameters of the constitutional debate from its moral, philosophical and value based moorings to a technocratic nitpicking of this or that section of the allegedly "improved" wako draft.
for me the key to the mushrooming and nationwide NO Rejectionist Front goes to the fundamental outrage at the heart of the Kibaki led, Kiraitu engineered Yes Agenda:
when former president moi attempted to expel the kenyan people from the katiba making process by suggesting importing six " constitutional experts" kenyans were so angry that they mercilessly battered the uhuru project at the 2002 polls which was not so much a referendum on kenyatta junior's suitability or otherwise for the highest seat in the land but for the perception that the gatundu south mp was such an important component in kanu's plans to perpetuate its rule via an undemocratic constitutional order.
the yes men and the bag men of today's yes campaign- the kivutha kibwanas, mirugi kariukis and kiraitu murungis were just yesterday feted and lauded because they insisted on the wanjiku led, wananchi driven path to a new katiba for the kenya tuitakayo. the wananchi showed how people driven this demand was by giving kibaki seventy percent of the vote and narc a crushing majority in parliament.
but this was all predicated on the promulgamation of a people driven democratic constitution within the first 100 days in office of the incoming regime.
we all witnessed what happened instead:
delay after delay after delay; walk outs and arm twisting; sulking; dilly dallying and ultimately doctoring the bomas draft first at naivasha, next at kilifi, followed by leisure lodge before ramming it down our throats via the agency of intimidated and bribed legislaters.
what an irony! the same people who roasted the former president for suggesting six experts are today applauding a secret cabal consisting of wako, kiraitu, kathurima and a few others who pored over the bomas draft excising provisions that would have guided us to a true parliamentary democracy and inserting provisions to buttress a civilian dictator.
i hear facile comments about "two centres of power" and "unelected prime ministers" and my mouth is agape with wonderment.
surely those who utter these statements think the average mwananchi is a bit shallow.
why?
because in a true parliamentary democracy, POWER is NOT personalized, in the sense of being invested in this or that individual, rather power is INSTITUTIONALIZED, so that to take the canadian example, it is not so much that the incumbent, Paul Martin is weak or strong- but rather that institution, that office is weak or strong.
and anybody who has lived for a week in a parliamentary democracy- be it india, israel, the uk, canada, australia etc will laugh outright at the suggestion that "prime ministers are unelected". the reverse is actually true. they first have to win their seats and the parties they lead have to win the elections. in the canadian context they become leaders of their parties after democratic conventions.
this week we saw the japanese prime minister come back to power with a renewed mandate after a landslide at the polls. the flipside of this is that after elections in places like israel, the uk etc the leader of the party that hoped to form the government is frequently forced to step down if they are unable to convince the electorate that their party is the one that should govern.
so as we talk about some of these things, let us ground ourselves in FACTS, rather than conjecture.
it is a testimony to our ideological and political poverty of thought that today in september 2005 you find intelligent lawyers like kiraitu murungi resorting to crude willie orton like ethnic based fear mongering by suggesting to the agikuyu, the meru, the embu, the tigania, tharaka, chuka and affiliated mount kenya slopes communities that this referendum is about a choice between kibaki and raila- who can miss the tribal coded language. memo to the lawyer who sprung me from kamiti and gave me my first copy of the nairobi law monthly( the premiere copy):
[glow=red,2,300]remember mama ngina tried that tribal card in gatundu in december 2002 when she basically told central province voters that a vote for kibaki was a vote for raila[/glow].
how quickly times change, ama namna gani wananchi wenzangu?
Onyango Oloo
Toronto
|
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Sept 14, 2005 19:32:39 GMT 3
Wise words those.
I believe that Oloo has just upped the ante.
What are the REAL issues that we are really voting on? It certainly isn’t the dotting of ‘i’s or the low grade, primary-school-debate that Kiraitu and co. are foisting on us: machungwa na ndizi, ni kipi kilicho bora?
I am humbled by this forceful reminder of the fundamental bigger issues at hand. We have hitherto been reduced, by cunning design and also inadvertently to the frivolity of an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ contest, when the real issue at stake in this country is in fact the country itself. The constitution we want is truly completely and undeniably about the Kenya we want.
What or who is Kenya? What does she do? Where does she sleep? What does she eat? Who are her friends and enemies? What are her dislikes and likes?
These, in my view, and based on a close reading of Oloo’s intervention are the REAL questions that we are answering.
The choice about the future of Kenya cannot therefore be limited to that shoddy cut-and-paste con-job that is being thrust into our faces. That is a false choice.
We must be allowed to make a real choice, to sit and talk as brothers, to agree and disagree and agree once more on the future of Kenya… this we had started before the charlatans came calling with an insidious agenda, driven by tribalism, hate, greed and dishonesty. They contrived to hijack a genuine mwananchi revolution, a genuine mwananchi redefinition of Kenya.
The reactionaries, the demagogues, the cantankerous, the last vestiges of colonial and imperialist mentality, the narrow-minded sectarian cabals of all colour and shape that cloud our judgement and stall our progress must be shut out completely.
To build a new Kenya we must bring down the old. We cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg. This means we must throw out the Kilifi draft and all that it represents.
We must say NO to this draft, this false choice and then begin the tedious, but patriotic and ultimately fulfilling task of building the KENYA TUITAKAYO.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 15, 2005 18:11:55 GMT 3
According to my reading, the two of you are driven by a need to 'teach' Kibaki and his cohorts a lesson as opposed to saying No to the document because it is bad! This is utterly dishonest if the driver to NO is a perception of what you see as people driven or not!
For example if the Wako document prescribes a presidential system, why only see it in the light of Kibaki and his Mt. Kenya cohorts? If you feel that the presidential system is not good, the you as OO or RR must be allowed to say NO, but you must also allow MM or KK to say yes if his preference is a presidential system!
I sometimes wonder when I listed to all the No campaigners. When you narrow the debate to issues away from politics, the argument us either too generalised or simply rejecting the process and not the document. I listened to a challenge to Mutula and Farah XYZ of Ford People by Mirugi Kariuki to name one section of the constitution that creates an imperial presidency - or even instances where the president's power has been increased in the new constitution against the present one and none could cite an example they could defend! Similar challenge was thrown at Orengo on KTN on why the NO campaign, but is 'excuse' was that the process was all wrong!!!
In my view, unless and until we allow those that disagree with the views you two espouse out here top have their say, we can never say that we are growing democracy in Kenya. But the fact that Kenyans can sit up and listen to Gideon Moi lecture Kenyans on governance, and even some of you agree with him......
But that is democracy that at some point in time, there actually can be a convergence of minds between Oloo and Gideon Moi!
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 15, 2005 18:34:03 GMT 3
first of all, i am on record as defending gideon moi when police in the narc era tried to disrupt his meetings.
secondly, the fact that a marxist-leninist like onyango oloo can find himself on the same side as a right-wing neo-colonial scion of the comprador bourgeoisie should tell you the the extent of the unpopularity of the nak clique, so you should know that the knife you are holding cuts on both sides. during the apartheid era, i notice here in canada that the anti-apartheid contingent extended from a true blue tory like brian mulroney as well as members of the canadian communist party.
thirdly, kamale, you have just expressed a view contrary to mine on this forum, and you know at least on jukwaa there is no fear of dissenting, conflicting or opposite viewpoints.
fourthly, it is not just about the process kamale, it is about the content. by their own admission, the yes side admit they have unilaterally(sp) hived off upto 20% of the content of the bomas draft. i will just recycle what my good friend adongo said on these forums not too long ago: if someone tells you should be happy that you are still retaining 80% of your body after your head has been cut off will you be happy?
fifthly, it is incredible how myopic the yes side is in terms of buttressing the executive powers of the presidency. why is there an assumption that the next kenyan president will be a mgikuyu, mmeru, mmembu or from the other mount kenya communities? what will happen if a truly tribal but non-gema president comes to power and decides to "punish" the slopes people for their current arrogance? some of us are opposing the wako draft because we are very much aware of the history of genocidal attacks against the agikuyu by past colonial and neo-colonial regimes. why are members of this and affiliated communities allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by short sighted ethnic chauvinists who will be more certainly dead from natural causes within the next fifteen to twenty years?
sixthly, one should realize something about marxist-leninists. we will support the broad democratic sentiments even as we look forward to future class struggles. when some of us composed ditties for kibaki in december 2002, it is not as if we had forgotten that this was the same man who had pushed for kenya to be a dejure one party state and had compared kanu to a mugumo tree that could not be razed to the ground with a a razor blade. today oloo and gideon mo and uhuru kenyatta may be on the same side; tomorrow oloo will join the maasai and the dawida in demanding that these land grabbers return all the stolen lands- i have more in common with an ahoi from central province than with a fat cat from any of the country's ethnic groups.
Onyango Oloo
Toronto
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 15, 2005 19:07:21 GMT 3
fourthly, it is not just about the process kamale, it is about the content. by their own admission, the yes side admit they have unilaterally(sp) hived off upto 20% of the content of the bomas draft. i will just recycle what my good friend adongo said on these forums not too long ago: if someone tells you should be happy that you are still retaining 80% of your body after your head has been cut off will you be happy? Onyango Oloo Toronto You will notice that I have chopped off all else you wrote because my point of interest is the document and its content. For some reason people are talking about so 80/20 ratios which no one seems to know how they were calculated! Do you have a basis of determining on a scale of 100 the 20 wrong things with this document - assuming of course that you can identify the other 80!! We should not hide behind meaningless figures. We must agree to look at those sections that are bad in the constitution and exactly what is needed of them. My reading of all the issues the No proponents have raised is that none of the issues fall within the list in Section 281(1) which would make it very difficult to amend as it requires a referendum. All the so called contentious issues can be passed by parliament by way of consensus - but it is easier to lie that it will be virtually impossible to amend the constitution once passed. What am I suggesting Oloo? Let us debate the document - not politics, tribe or party! |
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 15, 2005 19:23:19 GMT 3
You will notice that I have chopped off all else you wrote because my point of interest is the document and its content. For some reason people are talking about so 80/20 ratios which no one seems to know how they were calculated! Do you have a basis of determining on a scale of 100 the 20 wrong things with this document - assuming of course that you can identify the other 80!! We should not hide behind meaningless figures. We must agree to look at those sections that are bad in the constitution and exactly what is needed of them. My reading of all the issues the No proponents have raised is that none of the issues fall within the list in Section 281(1) which would make it very difficult to amend as it requires a referendum. All the so called contentious issues can be passed by parliament by way of consensus - but it is easier to lie that it will be virtually impossible to amend the constitution once passed. What am I suggesting Oloo? Let us debate the document - not politics, tribe or party! What is even more interesting Kamale is this new found willingness to amend the contentious issues in the Wako Draft. I have a simple question for you. Why is that we can do this and yet some of the folks now on the Yes side could not extend the same courtesy to the Bomas Draft? I remember pointing out, almost a year and a half ago that the American constitution has been modified hundreds of times and that some of us who saw the Bomas Draft as having loopholes nevertheless backed its promulgmation in the understanding that it was a living document subject to change. It is pure opportunism to now turn around with this generous and gracious "offer" to "correct" the anomalies in the Wako Draft when the Bomas Draft, which is a less flawed document and has definitely more legitimacy and credibility was completely shunned, precisely by people who thought in tribal terms- thinking that the PM was about Raila and Luos. If you want to refer to tribal sentiments at least be honest Kamale. I am not the person who invented the notorious "andu aitu" phrase in July or August 2003- it was John Michuki. And I have noticed your silence on Kiraitu's assertion that the referendum is a face off between Kibaki and Raila. What kind of garbage is that Kamale? Is it not an insult to millions of Kenyans- including people who are very much opposed to Raila to insinuate that somehow they are automatons guided via the Langata MP's remote control? Onyango Oloo Toronto |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 16, 2005 11:24:39 GMT 3
Once again you are happy to divert attention!
For your information, I do not think I need to respond to nonesense from Kiraitu or Mwiraria when they see this as a fight between Raila and Kibaki, in the same way I do not think I should respond to the likes of Kajwang' and Balala when they say that Kibaki should quit once 'they' won the referendum. As far as I am concerned both groups are saying the same thing. But that is politics which I wish not to discuss when talking about a constitution!
First and foremost, to correct you, there have only been 27 amendments, and the basis of changing the US constitution makes the Wako document appear asa prostitute ready to be defiled.
That aside, the same calls being made to 'correct' the Wako draft were made during the clamour to pass the Bomas draft when a similar gracious offer was made by Raila and a commissioner of the CRKC!! It is not any different Oloo, as both offers are not any different only the people offering them! The issue is a matter of trust.
Perhaps you need to see this entire thing beyond the politicians, then and only then will you have an objective view of the entire document. I am still happy to discuss the document...and not the underlying politics!
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Sept 16, 2005 15:56:27 GMT 3
kamale:
your desperate sleight of hand did not pass unnoticed. this "document" this "constitution" that you want to "discuss" allegedly "beyond politicians" and their politics, is a still born deformity conceived by politicians and their politics.
the wako draft is a "triumph" of the same kiraitu who you now want to substract from kibaki, kathurima, nyachae, muthaura, karume, michuki, tuju, awori and all the politicians who bear current and historical responsibility for hijacking the kenyan constitutional review process.
we therefore cannot isolate the wako draft from the sordid political and historical context that gave rise to it- the same way we can not discuss the bomas draf away from the historical and political context that gave rise to it.
the opponents of bomas and wanjiku who were defeated at bomas-from where they retreated sulking like skunks in a funk- see the wako draft as the constitution they wanted for the kenya they want.
unfortunately, the national constitutional conference was one of the most transparent and inclusive public processes that kenyans have ever witnessed- daily press reports, regular ckrc updates etc. we do not need to guess what kibaki, nyachae, tuju, kiraitu, muite, raila, kajwang etc said in the lead up to launching of the bomas draft- after all there is a website which has many of these proceedings recorded verbatim and these can be cross referenced with the daily coverage by the country's print and electronic media.
that is why i feel it is such a grievous insult to the collective intelligence of kenyans for the kamales and their ilk to now suggest that let us "discuss the constitution away from politics". kwani what was bomas I, II and III all about?
who was responsible for the political histrionics that attempted to hijack the bomas process? i recall the melodramatic prima donna star turns of kivutha kibwana; i remember the soap opera sensationalist walk out led by none other than kiraitu murungi.
almost exactly two years ago, on sunday, september 13, 2003, the nak side actually hired three hoodlums to go over to the ngong road residence of the chair of the DEVOLUTION committee, dr crispin odhiambo mbai and SNUFF HIM OUT at three o'clock in the afternoon. we know what has happened to those proposals on devolution and to the killers of mbai. kenyans have not forgotten that murderous desperation- for some of us it was the first indication of a determination by the nak side to ensure that the bomas process never saw completion. and i am not the only person who has made this sentiments publicly as you know.
you see kamale, the arrogance of the nak side that you so passionately defend online is more galling considering how much popular support nak and narc had at the outset of their public mandate- a mandate that was largely anchored in a solemn pledge to deliver a DEMOCRATIC constitution within the first 100 days in power. after holding up the process for almost two and a half years of trying to pummel kenyans into submission, kibaki, wako, kiraitu, awori, tuju, kirwa, ngilu, kibwana, mirugi, muite, karume, nyachae, murungaru, michuki, mwiraria, dzoro, kituyi, kombo and others now want to ignore their own submissions to bomas and more importantly the wishes of their own constituents; opting instead, to ram through an illegitimate document patched together in leisurely seclusion and foisted on a very sensitized and politically aware kenyan public as the "constitution" they never wanted.
let us see what is the popular verdict on november 21, 2005. you have said that "still waters run deep". i say that november is not that far off....
Onyango Oloo
Toronto
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 16, 2005 17:41:21 GMT 3
I presume you are an intelligent person and your NO view is well informed and not influenced. Do grant me the same intelligence tafadhali whether I say Yest or not.
As I said, I am happy to discuss the content of the document and not the underlying politics or legality of the process. The fact that the banner in this your website urges us to vote NO is sufficient proof of your resignation that irrespective of the legality of the process, we shall go to the referendum.
Under the circumstance debate the document or we just let go.
Shukrani.
|
|
