The current state of the construction industry in The Gambia is deeply concerning. Just last night, I revisited old bills of quantities from projects I supervised years ago. Comparing those figures to today’s material prices reveals a truly disheartening reality: the cost of construction has skyrocketed.
There isn’t a single construction material that hasn’t significantly appreciated in price over the past few years. What once cost less than three million Dalasi to build a simple bungalow or self-contained house now easily exceeds five million Dalasi, based on current market prices. This drastic increase makes building in The Gambia incredibly expensive.
Even more disturbing than the price surge is the deterioration in the quality of many construction materials.This trend is a recipe for disaster. I recall being labeled a “difficult consultant” by many Gambian contractors in the past. This was because I frequently ordered the demolition of substandard work or the removal of materials that didn’t meet required specifications. My strict adherence to quality was, and still is, crucial for ensuring structural integrity and safety.
The current situation in the building and construction industry is dire and demands urgent attention to prevent future catastrophes. I strongly urge all project consultants and contractors to meticulously adhere to contract specifications. Furthermore, contracting institutions must prioritise transparency in their bidding and evaluation processes to ensure that only competent and qualified contractors are awarded projects. This collective effort is essential in safeguarding the future of construction in The Gambia.
Hon Yahya Sanyang Esq
National Assembly Member for Latrikunda Sabiji
Shoot to kill’ is unlawful
Dear Editor,
The relevant authorities such as the National Assembly, the Ministry of Justice, the National Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Defence should advise the CDS to align his decisions and actions with the Constitution and laws of The Gambia.
The Constitution under Section 18 guarantees the sanctity of life. It states that no one should be deprived of his life intentionally except where one is sentenced to a death penalty by the courts.
The section went further in subsection 4(a) to provide various scenarios where the deprivation of life would not constitute a violation of the section. These are,
a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence property;
b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection of mutiny;
d) in order to prevent the commission by that person of a criminal offence, or;
e) if he or she dies as a result of a lawful act of war.
But the intention of this subsection is not that in each of these cases that life could be automatically taken. Rather, it expects restraint first of all by calling for the, “use of force to such extent as is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances of the case…”.
Therefore, the primary intention of the Constitution is to uphold the sanctity of life so as to protect it by all means.
Indeed, armed robbers use violence to deprive people of their property and even their life. They use violence to resist arrest and escape. That’s established.
But that is not enough for the CDS to give an open direct order of shoot to kill. All efforts must be made to disable and apprehend armed robbers. The CDS is quoted as telling soldiers that:
“If you see that he is visibly holding a weapon that turn could turn against you, shoot to kill, and there is no regret about that. There is no ambiguity,”
Soldiers are professionals in the field of combat. They should have the knowledge, skills and tools to fight armed robbers with the intention to prevent the deprivation of life. Therefore, the CDS should be seen urging soldiers to take all measures to prevent death except in self-defence. But to give such blanket instruction has the potential to promote arbitrariness and unreasonable and unjustified use of force that could lead to unnecessary deprivation of life.
Even in war, there are laws called the Geneva Conventions that prevent unnecessary deprivation of life, whether they are armed combatants or civilians. Hence soldiers must be informed that they do not have a carte blanche to shoot to kill armed robbers. International human rights law provides that security officers take responsibility for their individual actions even if such actions are ordered by superior officers.
Therefore, which law is the CDS relying on to give such a ‘shoot to kill’ order? The CDS must be reminded that he should give only lawful orders in line with the Constitution and human rights standards. Shoot to kill armed robbers is unlawful.
‘Shoot to Kill’ cannot be a policy nor a deterrent for armed robbery. The military and the police must endeavour first to arrest armed robbers to be prosecuted in courts. The taking of life should be the last resort in circumstances where there is no other better alternative and necessary to protect either the life of the soldier or the victim.
Madi Jobarteh
Kembujeh
