It is at once amusing and annoying to see the Lord Mayor of the KanifingMunicipality, Yankuba Colley, claiming that his infamous remark of sending erring butchers to the State Central Prisons at Mile Two was “understood out of context”. That is the standard reaction when public officials slip on banana skin. To his credit, he did not say he was quoted out of context.

In his rebuttal, the public relations and human resources manager of the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) Pa Kalifa Sanyang, is quoted as saying: “It is rather unfortunate that the Lord Mayor’s comments were apparently understood out of context. He is very much aware of his role as Mayor and is equally conscious of his mandate and limitations.”

Clearly, the Lord Mayor is not “conscious of his limitations” in the context given. It took Lawyer Assan Martin to remind him of his mandate and limitations. If Lawyer Martin had not challenged his untenable comments, the Lord Mayor would not have had the presence of mind to take back his words, or make them to be ‘understood in context’, as his image maker would have us believe. One does wonder also how PRO Sanyang knows and could state categorically the conscious or sub-conscious state of Mayor Colley’s mind, which is subjective.

Contrary to what the spokesperson of the KMC have stated, Mayor Colley appeared to be out to browbeat the general public into subservience. Given his elevated status, Mayor Colley ought to know that coercion is antithetical to democratic values. He ought to know that he could have made his point without attempting to instill fear in the butchers. It is no longer fashionable to rule by intimidation.

As the Lord Mayor of KMC, he should have seized the opportunity of that GRTS interview to explain to the butchers why it was necessary for them to bring down meat prices, especially during the Ramadan. He should not have over-reached himself by saying that he would send any butcher who failed to reduce meat to Mile Two. He should simply have said that culprits would be taken before the law for justice to take its course.

Instead of his shallow rebuttal, we call on the Lord Mayor to issue a public apology to the general public for his threatening comments that are legally unfounded and unbefitting to his status.

More importantly, he has to learn from this unfortunate incident to express himself simply and clearly in the future, without resorting to metaphorical statements that could be “understood out of context”. Public officials who are not able to say simply what they have in mind are usually their own worst enemies. A word is enough for the wise.

‘Lord, make my words sweet and reasonable. Some day I may have to eat them.’

Paddy Ashdown

Former president Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara is said to have flown to ColoradoState in the United States of America to attend the Democratic Convention, sources hinted this paper.

Sir Dawda, according to privileged information, left Banjul last Tuesday. The National Democratic Institute invited the former Gambian president to attend the Democratic Convention, where Mr Barack Obama will be officially declared as the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party in the 2008 presidential race.

According to our sources, Lady Njameh accompanied D.K Jawara, as the ex-Gambian leader is fondly called.

Since his return to The Gambia, after a short exile in the United Kingdom following the overthrow of his government in 1994, Sir Dawda has kept a low profile at his Faraja residence.

The US Embassy in Banjul, on Thursday, organised a solemn reception at the Ambassador’s residence, in celebration off the 232nd  Independence Day of the United States of America. Barry Wells, the American ambassador to The Gambia, welcomed the many distinguished guests who came to celebrate with America .

Among the officials who attended the reception were Dr Omar Touray, secretary of state for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of The Gambia , ex-president Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, security chiefs, members of the diplomatic corps, as well as representatives of the media fraternity, and religious leaders, among other dig nitaries. Also enjoying the pleasant atmosphere at the event were representatives of the American community in The Gambia.

Ambassador Wells stated that celebrating the 232nd anniversary is a special occasion, but that every Independence Day for America represents a "special day", noting that each year Americans celebrate July 4 as the National Independence Day.

According to him, it was on this day in 1776 that the Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson, Bejamin Franklin and John Adam s- signed the Declaration of Independence. "Although it was in 1783 that the United Unites actually gained its independence, the date of adoption of the Declaration of Independence seven years earlier was established as our National Day," he recalled.

He emphasised the special meaning of celebrating independence in America, which was achieved after many centuries of suffering and struggle. According to the ambassador, Independence Day is significant because its marks not only the independence of the United States, but also because it is a time to reflect upon the fundamental ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal, that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that these rights are to be upheld by a democratic form of government.

Getting back to history, the American plenipotentiary reminded the gathering of the painful past of slavery, which was, according to him, unfortunately the first link between The Gambia and the United States. "But … we have faced the negative aspects of our history head on, and rather than forgetting them, we have confronted them," he indicated.

Considering that America is still struggling to maintain this unique achievement and is hoping to achieve a better future for its citizens, its neighbours and the rest of the world, he then noted: "Today we have our second African-American Secretary of State, and our first African-American presidential nominee.While both our nations have progressed so far, The Gambia, like the United States still has work to do. Equal opportunity for women, protection of children, press freedom and support for human rights for all, remain goals that we must continue to pursue."

For his part, Dr Omar Touray, the secretary of state for Foreign Affairs, congratulated the US government and Americans, through Ambassador Wells, on their independence anniversary. Dr Touray used the opportunity to highlight a series of joint-programmes undertaken by the two governments, under the framework of bilateral relations. He also assured the US government of The Gambia’s commitment in the war against terrorism, which has devastated so many innocent lives around the world, amid a sophisticated terror network.

The strength to rectify oneself is what differentiates a wise man from an ordinary human being. On a recent edition, precisely last Monday’s, we carried an editorial, captioned:

"The press and the police." That piece, in its genuine intent, sought to express, in its clearest term, the relationship between two of the most important partners in a democratic dispensation. While we acknowledged the role of both institutions in ensuring the sustenance of the flow of information, to prevent proliferation of a bad press, we tried to highlight the strength and weaknesses in the relationship.

However, an after thought of that editorial piece reveals some level of unfair play against the newly appointed Inspected General of Police, Ensa Badjie. We must emphasize, however, that our intention was not to draw comparison, but to emphasize the need for the strengthening of our partnership.

We wish to convey our sincere apology for any inconvenience this might have caused the police department. The Daily Observer further reassures all stakeholders in national development that we shall continue to remain steadfast in our quest to propagate our policy in line with the popular idea of re-branding Africa, which requires a press base that promotes the interest of the continent, especially The Gambia, our beloved country.

Ahmed Sékou Touré (var. Ahmen Seku Ture) (1922-1984) was an African political leader and president of the Republic of Guinea from 1958 to his death in 1984. Touré was one of the primary Guinean nationalists involved in the liberation of the country from France.

Origins

Sékou Touré was born on January 9, 1922 into a poor family in the west African country of Guinea, while a colonial possession of France. His date of birth has never been formally established; there remains a contention that he was born in 1918 at Faranah. He was a member of the Mandinka ethnic group[1] and was the great-grandson of the famous Samory Touré[2], who had resisted French rule until his capture.

Early life

Sékou's early life was characterized by challenges of authority, including during his education. Sékou was obliged to work to take care of himself. He began working for the Postal Services (PTT), and quickly became involved in Labor Union activity. During his youth and after becoming president, Sékou Touré studied the works of communist philosophers, especially those of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

Politics

Sékou's first work in a political group was in the Postal Workers Union (PTT). In 1945, he was one of the founders of their labour Union, becoming the general secretary of the postal workers' union in 1945. In 1952, he became the leader of the Guinean Democratic Party which was local section of the RDA (African Democratic Rally, French:

Rassemblement Démocratique Africain) , a party agitating for the decolonization of Africa. In 1956 he organized the Union Générale des Travailleurs d'Afrique Noir, French West Africa's first general trade union, and was involved in element of the French Communist Party and the French CGT union. He was a leader of the RDA, working closely with a future rival, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, who later became the president of the Côte d'Ivoire. In 1956 he was elected Guinea's deputy to the French national assembly and mayor of Conakry, positions he used to launch pointed criticisms of the colonial regime

Touré is remembered as a charismatic figure and while his legacy as president is often distained in his home country, he remains an icon of liberation in the wider African community. Touré served for some time as a representative of African groups in France, where he worked to negotiate for the independence of France's African colonies.

In 1958 Touré's RDA section in Guinea pushed for a "No" in the French Union referendum sponsored by the French government, and was the only one of France's African colonies to vote for immediate independence rather than continued association with France. Guinea became the only French colony to leave the French Community. In the event the rest of Francophone Africa gained its independence only two years later in 1960, but the French were extremely vindictive against Guinea: withdrawing abruptly, taking files, destroying infrastructure, and breaking political and economic ties.

As President of Guinea

In his home country, Sékou Touré was a strong president. Opposition to single party rule grew slowly, and by the late 1960s those who opposed his government faced fear of detention camps and secret police. His detractors often had two choices--say nothing or go abroad. From 1965 to 1975 he ended all his relations with France, the former colonial power. Sékou Touré argued that Africa had lost much during colonization, and that Africa ought to retaliate by cutting off ties to former colonial nations. Only in 1978, as Guinea's ties with the Soviet Union soured, president of France Valéry Giscard d'Estaing first visited Guinea as a sign of reconciliation.

Throughout his dispute with France, Guinea maintained good relations with several socialist countries. However, Sékou's attitude toward France was not generally well received, and some African countries ended diplomatic relations with Guinea over the incident. Despite this, Sékou's move won the support of many anti-colonialist and Pan-African groups and leaders.

Touré's primary ally in the region was President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. After Nkrumah was overthrown in a 1966 coup, Touré offered him a refuge in Guinea and made him co-president. [4] As a leader of the Pan-Africanist movement, he consistently spoke out against colonial powers, and befriended leaders from the African diaspora such as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, to whom he offered asylum (and who took the two leaders names, as Kwame Ture).[5] He, with Nkrumah, helped in the formation of the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, and aided forces fighting Portuguese colonialism in neighboring Guinea-Bissau (for which the Portuguese launched an attack upon Conakry).

Relations with the United States fluctuated during the course of Touré's reign. While Touré was unimpressed with Eisenhower administration's approach to Africa, he came to consider President John F. Kennedy a friend and an ally. He even came to state that Kennedy was his "only true friend in the outside world". He was impressed by Kennedy's interest in African development and commitment to civil rights in the United States. Touré blamed Guinean labor unrest in 1962 on Soviet interference and turned to the United States.

Relations with Washington soured, however, after Kennedy's death. When a Guinean delegation was imprisoned in Ghana, after the overthrow of Nkrumah, Touré blamed Washington. He feared that the Central Intelligence Agency was plotting against his own regime. Over time, Touré's increasing paranoia led him to arrest large numbers of suspected political opponents and imprison them in camps, such as the notorious Camp Boiro National Guard Barracks.

Tens of thousands of Guinean dissidents sought refuge in exile. Once Guinea's reprochment with France began in the late 1970s, another section of his support, Marxists, began to oppose his government's increasing move to capitalist liberalisation. In 1978 he formally renounced Marxism and reestablished trade with the West. Running again for president unopposed, Touré was reelected in 1982.

Touré died in the city of Cleveland in the United States while undergoing heart surgery on March 26, 1984.

Hero or tyrant?

Ahmed Sékou Touré remains a polarising figure even today. During his presidency Touré was seen from abroad as a charismatic leader who was respected among Guineans, and loved by many. This remains a point of debate among Guineans, as in elections he did not have meaningful opposition, and a number of opposition politicians were jailed. His early actions to reject the French and then to appropriate wealth and farmland from traditional landlords angered many powerful forces, but the increasing failure of his government to provide either economic opportunities of democratic rights angered more. While still revered in much of Africa and in the Pan-African movement, many Guineans, and activists of the Left and Right in Europe, have become critical of Touré's failure to institute meaningful democracy or free media.

Editor

I must thank Mr Femi Peters, the campaign manager of UDP and Mr Henry Gomez the secretary general of the GPDP for accepting the move made by Lamin Waa Juwara.  These two gentlemen prove to The Gambian populace that Waa Juwara’s action to defect to the ruling government is part of his constitutional right.

This is the beauty of democracy; that is to be accorded one his/her constitutional and democratic rights.  The two top brass of this parties, UDP and GPDP, ought to be commended for their candid and mature opinion on Waa Juwara’s switch of allegiance to the APRC.

I want to salute the duo and never to relent in their move as the saying goes “a harmful truth is better than a useful lie”.  Juwara by joining the APRC party opted for progression not retrogression and again I am pleased to know Juwara himself recognises that.

Lamin Kijera

Abuko

Captain Thomas Isidore NoÎl Sankara (December 21, 1949 – October 15, 1987) was the leader of Burkina Faso (formerly known as Upper Volta) from 1983 to 1987. He came to power in a coup masterminded by Blaise CompaorÈ. Noted for his personal charisma, he was praised for promoting health and women's rights, but also antagonized many vested interests in the country[2]. He was overthrown and assassinated in a coup d'Ètat led by Blaise CompaorÈ on October 15, 1987, sometimes believed to have been at the instruction of France.

Thomas Sankara was the son of Marguerite Sankara (died March 6, 2000) and Sambo Joseph Sankara (1919 – August 4, 2006), a gendarme.[3] Born into a Roman Catholic family, "Thom'Sank" was a Silmi-Mossi, an ethnic group that originated with marriage between Mossi men and women of the pastoralist Fulani people, the Silmi-Mossi are among the least advantaged in the Mossi caste system. He attended primary school in Gaoua and high school in Bobo-Dioulasso, the country's second city.

His father fought in the French army during World War II and was detained by the Nazis. Sankara's family wanted him to become a Catholic priest. According to some sources,[4] he never lost his Catholic faith despite his Marxist tendencies. Fittingly for a country with a large Muslim population, he was also familiar with the Qur'an.

Military career.

After basic military training in secondary school in 1966, Sankara began his military career at the age of 19, and a year later he was sent to Madagascar for officer training at Antsirabe where he witnessed popular uprisings in 1971 and 1972. Returning to Upper Volta in 1972, in 1974 he fought in a border war between Upper Volta and Mali.

He became a popular figure in the capital of Ouagadougou. The fact that he was a decent guitarist (he played in a band named "Tout-‡-Coup Jazz") and liked motorbikes may have contributed to his charisma.

In 1976 he became commander of the Commando Training Centre in PÙ. In the same year he met Blaise CompaorÈ in Morocco. During the presidency of Colonel Saye Zerbo a group of young officers formed a secret organisation "Communist Officers' Group" (Regroupement des officiers communistes, or ROC) the best-known members being Henri Zongo, Jean-Baptiste Boukary Lingani, CompaorÈ and Sankara.

Government posts

Sankara was appointed Secretary of State for Information in the military government in September 1981, journeying to his first cabinet meeting on a bicycle, but he resigned on April 21, 1982 in opposition to what he saw as the regime's anti-labour drift, declaring "Misfortune to those who gag the people!" ("Malheur ‡ ceux qui baillonnent le peuple!")

After another coup (November 7, 1982) brought to power Major-Doctor Jean-Baptiste OuÈdraogo, Sankara became prime minister in January 1983, but he was dismissed (May 17) and placed under house arrest after a visit by the French president's son and African affairs adviser Jean-Christophe Mitterrand. Henri Zongo and Jean-Baptiste Boukary Lingani were also placed under arrest; this caused a popular uprising.

President

A coup d'Ètat organised by Blaise CompaorÈ made Sankara President on August 4(1), 1983, at the age of 33. The coup d'Ètat was supported by Libya which was, at the time, on the verge of war with France in Chad(2) (see History of Chad).

Sankara saw himself as a revolutionary and was inspired by the examples of Cuba and Ghana's military leader, Flight Lt. Jerry Rawlings. As President, he promoted the "Democratic and Popular Revolution" (RÈvolution dÈmocratique et populaire, or RDP).

The ideology of the Revolution was defined by Sankara as anti-imperialist in a speech of October 2, 1983, the Discours d'orientation politique (DOP), written by his close associate ValËre SomÈ. His policy was oriented toward fighting corruption, promoting reforestation, averting famine, and making education and health real priorities.

Abolition of chiefs' privileges

The government suppressed many of the powers held by tribal chiefs such as their right to receive tribute payment and obligatory labour. The CDRs (ComitÈs de DÈfense de la RÈvolution), were formed as popular mass organizations and armed. In some areas they deteriorated into gangs of armed thugs. Sankara's government also initiated a form of military conscription with the SERNAPO (Service National et Populaire). Both were a counterweight to the power of the army.

In 1984, on the first anniversary of his accession, he renamed the country Burkina Faso, meaning "the land of upright people" in Mossi and Djula, the two major languages of the country. He also gave it a new flag and wrote a new national anthem (Une Seule Nuit).

Women's rights

Sankara's government included a large number of women. Improving women's status was one of Sankara's explicit goals, an unprecedented policy priority in West Africa. His government banned female circumcision, condemned polygamy, and promoted contraception. The BurkinabÈ government was also the first[citation needed] African government to publicly recognize that AIDS is a major threat to Africa.

Sankara had a high sense of advertising; he had some spectacular initiatives that contributed to his popularity and brought some attention from the international press on the BurkinabÈ revolution:

• He sold most of the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers;

• He formed an all-women motorcycle personal guard.

• In Ouagadougou Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).

Second Agacher strip war

In 1985 Burkina Faso organised a general population census. During the census some Fula camps in Mali were visited by mistake by BurkinabÈ census agents. The Malian government claimed that it was an act of sovereignty on the Agacher strip and on Christmas Day 1985, tensions with Mali erupted in a war that lasted five days and killed about 100 people (most victims were civilians killed by a bomb dropped on the marketplace in Ouahigouya by a Malian MiG plane). The conflict is known as the "Christmas war" in Burkina Faso.

Assassination

On October 15, 1987 Sankara was killed with twelve other officials in a coup d'Ètat organised by his former colleague Blaise CompaorÈ. Deterioration in relations with neighbouring countries was one of the reasons given by CompaorÈ for his action. After the coup and although Sankara was known to be dead, some CDRs mounted an armed resistance to the army for several days.

Sankara was quickly buried in an unmarked grave. A week prior to his death Sankara addressed people and said that "while revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas."

Chronicle of an organised tragedy

A great combatant for African dignity, integrity and human liberation, Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, was assassinated. Widely recognised as pivotal to his death, his incumbent, Blaise CompaorÈ, meanwhile, has been in power for over 20 years. Frequently compared with such dictators as Mobutu at home, his legitimacy resting solely on orchestrating the military coup that murdered Sankara.

By revisiting this tragic episode in African political history, The Big Read recounts the assassination of one of Africa’s most important independence leaders, and assesses the legacy for his country and continent.

The tragic fate of Thomas Sankara is tied to the struggle for a social democracy. The ‘Africa mafia’, the businesspeople and their collaborators who control Africa, did not like the struggle. Therefore, he had to be exterminated. They found armed hands among the local ranks. The killing machine splurged into motion.

Reflecting on the causes of a dark Thursday

‘In favour of the meandering direction of history, this autocrat heaved himself up to the head of our revolution to choke it from the inside. This high treason was illustrated by his derision of all the organisational principles, the various denials of the noble objectives of the RDP [Rassemblement DÈmocratique et Populaire: ‘democratic and popular rally’], the personalisation of power, the mystical vision. As for bringing solutions to the concrete problems of the masses, everything engendered demobilisation at the heart of the militant people.’ – Extract from the Proclamation of 15 October 1987

‘People of Burkina Faso…the tragic moments that we lived through on 15 October belong to the exceptional events that often make up the history of the peoples. As revolutionaries, we must have the courage to assume our responsibilities.

We did so through the proclamation of the Popular Front. We will continue…with determination, for the triumph of the objectives of the August revolution. This brutal denouement shocks us all as human beings, and me more than most, for having been his comrade in arms, moreover, his friend. For us too, he remains a revolutionary comrade who got things wrong.’ – Extract from the message to the nation delivered by the president of the Popular Front, comrade captain Blaise CompaorÈ, 19 October 1987

On Thursday 15 October 1987, the democratic and popular revolution in Burkina Faso was brutally arrested on the strike of 4pm.

After the onslaught of the kalashnikovs, which lasted all the evening, the signed Proclamation of the Popular Front fell down like thick rain mixed with hail, surprising the RDP militants as much as those uninterested in and distanced from the revolution.

For a while, it had been known that there was a serious crisis in the national revolutionary council. Its principal leaders, formerly united, no longer agreed about orientation and strategy for action. Increasingly, the four historic leaders, Thomas Sankara, Blaise CompaorÈ, Boukary Lingani and Henri Zongo, appeared to be ‘too many’ to lead the revolutionary movement.

But the serious crisis that shook the RDP leaders remains mainly concealed from the grass-roots militants, to the extent that they will be surprised by the magnitude and the brutality of the October denouement.

Additionally, many sincere militants still regret the outcome of the 15 October, as it has been presented, telling themselves there had been no lack of opportunity for debates about ideas to avoid this tragic event. But those responsible for the coup ran a significant risk by giving Thomas Sankara a voice, because he was such a convincing speaker that he may have emerged victorious.

His same capacity for persuasion led to certain decisions, which have retrospectively been judged as wilful or spontaneous, whereas in his time, he did not receive such constant criticisms. And this same personality trait of the late president saved the skin of more than one soul, whom close collaborators wanted to sacrifice, over-and-over, on the alter of the counter-revolution.

In fact, we can ascertain that the interventions of 15 October and the subsequent adjustments were precisely because the comrades who had started the RDP with Thomas Sankara were already exhausted. They had neither the strength nor the heart to continue. As there were influential enemies within and outside of the revolution, they had no difficulty in rallying to their side a whole world of people to counterbalance the RDP.

The invented reasoning of ‘betraying the initial path’ was rapidly conjured up.

Now, captain Thomas Sankara was the first to realise the need to democratise, which he professed in his speech of August 1987 in Bobo Dioulasso: ‘Burkina Faso needs a people of conviction, not a vanquished people subjugated to their fate.’

He thus began the genuine rectification of the RDP, otherwise marked by the release of several political and common law prisoners. The wrongly sanctioned would be able to restart their careers.

But this policy, initiated by Thomas Sankara, was quickly short-circuited by the events of 15 October, and claimed by the Popular Front. The image of Sankara as closed and hostile to openings had to stick.

Things accelerated after the speech of reconciliation on August 87 in Bobo Dioulasso, when Sankara said: ‘in recent years, we have sometimes made errors. They must not re-occur in the scared land of Burkina Faso…we must prefer to take one step together with the people rather than ten steps without the people’.

After this speech, it was necessary for his opponents to take power. Leaving Thomas Sankara time to initiate democratisation of the RDP would deprive them of a justified pretext for the plot.

The political crisis that had prevailed for some time, as is customary, benefited the military, and from then on, arms had to speak to unlock it. Such have the tactics of politicians in Bukina Faso always been. Thomas Sankara opposed this, asserting that the soldier must ‘live amongst the people’, and preaching ‘a quarter of chicken per day per soldier’.

During regular meetings with their chief, he constantly made this complaint. To which the chief in question responded that he did not see a problem, except that ‘Sankara is opposed to us’. The soldiers replied: ‘why don’t we remove him?’ By force of repetition, he was finally removed on 15 October 1987.

What happened on that day?

According to Gilbert DiendÈrÈ’s book, ‘on 15 October, with the meeting of the officers, elements in the palace accused the soldiers of PÙ of organising a coup. The atmosphere was heated…we went our separate ways without reaching an agreement…we knew that Sankara had a council meeting at 4pm and we decided to wait for him there…shortly after 4pm, Sankara’s Peugeot 205 and his guard’s car arrived at the pavilion. A second security car went to park a bit further on. We encircled the cars. Sankara was in sports gear. As always, he held his weapon, an automatic gun, in his hand. He immediately shot and killed one of our people. At this time, all the men broke loose, everyone fired and the situation got out of control…after the events, I telephoned the house of Blaise to inform him. When he arrived, he was extremely disappointed and dissatisfied, above all, when he established there had been 13 deaths’.

So the coup was apparently made without the knowledge of Blaise CompaorÈ! He declared ‘when I arrived at the council, after the shooting and that I saw the body of Thomas lying in the ground, I failed to have a very violent reaction towards his killers. That would undoubtedly have been a monster carnage, which I would certainly not have got out of alive. But when the soldiers provided me the details of the business, I was disappointed and disgusted…when I asked my men why they had arrested Sankara without informing me, they answered me that if they had done so, I would have refused them. And it is true. I knew that my political camp was strong. Thomas did not control the state any longer. I did not need to enact a coup d’Ètat. But, my men became frightened when they learned, after midday, that we would be arrested in 24 hours’.

However, the truth is that on that day, Thomas Sankara was in a work meeting with some of his collaborators in a room at the council. Always in the council, 70 metres away, there was a white [Peugeot] 504 with seven people. A vehicle arrives at the meeting. The few elements of the guard in front of the room do not worry, because the passengers of the vehicle are their colleagues.

The vehicle pulls over; the passengers open fire immediately. A police officer and two drivers are shot dead. They collapse. Thomas Sankara is in the room when he hears the shooting. He stands up, his gun in the hand and said to his collaborators ‘stay, stay, they want me!’ Just after crossing the door, he is shot. He collapses. Do they stop there? No. The attackers entered the room and killed his collaborators.

In short, let us suppose – and it is difficult – that the thesis that captain Blaise wanted to impose on the fait accompli were true. Would that however exonerate him? Would he not have been indirectly at the root of the tragic events of 15 October? Is he not the main beneficiary of the plot?

The man, even if he had never been really thirsty for power, as he claims, leaves any observer of political life in Burkina Faso sceptical all the same. Effectively, after 15 October, he proved that the power cannot be shared. The entire cohort of intellectuals that constituted the insurrectionary committee that psychologically prepared for 15 October with a series of filthy leaflets and intrigues of the lowest order will learn this at their own expense. Commander Boukary Lingani and captain Henri Zongo will learn at theirs.

Today, 20 years later, what should we remember?

Beyond the rhetoric, Sankara died because of his patriotic and progressive convictions, but also because he prevented some of his civilian and military comrades and soldiers from eating luxuriously and spending handsomely, to the detriment of the people.

When he arrived, his country was a ‘mournful synthesis of the sufferings of all humanity’, held the world record on infant mortality, and had permanently negative trade and agricultural balances and extremely high public debts. He wanted to make his country a land of dignity and freedom.

Thus courageously, he redefined the sum total of all the possible and the thinkable ways in which the development of a country among the most denuded in world could be envisaged.

On the evidence that underdevelopment and dependency could not be resolved without the integration of the marginalised, he engaged his country in progressive social transformation.

Sankara’s revolution was simple: work more, spend less and spend better, produce more, be concerned with the priority needs of the country. He said ‘our revolution is and must be permanent; the collective action of the revolutionaries to transform reality and improve the concrete situation of the popular masses our country. Our revolution will only have a value, if, looking back, we will be able to say that the people of Burkina are a little happier because they have clean drinking water, sufficient food, good health, education, decent housing and more freedom, more democracy, more dignity. Our revolution will have a right to exist if it can answer these questions concretely.’

Within a few years, he had achieved a qualitative jump for his country. But he remained aware that the essential questions of his people were those of his whole continent and of all the exploited and oppressed people. Pan-Africanist and anti- globalisation activist, he knew how to be the voice of the voiceless.

One afternoon, bullets of the assassins shot Sankara dead. He fell, but had had time to sow the seeds and sprinkle them with his blood, time to break a link in the chain and free the oppressed youth of Africa.

He was a precursor of an alternative policy to the dependency and enslavement that the global economic institutions continue to impose by their model of development based on indebtedness.

Most importantly he has contributed to the understanding of his people and all the oppressed that a credible alternative cannot come from outside to save them. It is only by relying on themselves and their intrinsic capacity that they may ‘dare to invent the future’ and find the keys of their development and freedom.

Today, in each of our movements for social, political and cultural advancement, Sankara, the man, lives on in us. He will remain forever in the collective consciousness. He will be an example to those struggling for the liberation of humankind.



GRILA, the Group for Research and Initiatives for the Liberation of Africa, a grassroots collective in Montreal, is leading the international legal charge concerning the case of Thomas Sankara, recently winning a key case at the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations.

According to GRILA, the impunity of those involved in assassinations in Africa is finally being called into question. The Sankara case could set new precedents in an issue of profound importance to a continent with a history of unresolved assassinations of national leaders and political activists.

Jooneed Khan, a reporter on international affairs for Montreal's La Presse, has been covering the case of Thomas Sankara for a number of years. He is one of the few journalists working at a major media outlet to cover this story.
* * *
Stefan Christoff: Explain your accounting of the history surrounding the revolution of Burkina Faso and the assassination of Thomas Sankara. What is the historical and contemporary importance of these events to African politics?

Jooneed Khan: Sankara became president of Upper Volta, shortly after changing the name to Burkina Faso, which translates to the land of people with dignity. At that time, when apartheid in South Africa was still holding sway, Sankara represented a new hope for African development. He advocated simple principles like self-reliance, rooted in the belief that Burkina Faso could not develop if the nation continued to rely on outside support, that the first resource to tap is the internal energies of the country, the energy of the people.

Sankara was also very strongly anti-corruption, cutting back a great deal on government expenses. At one point Sankara was traveling to work on a bicycle, later on giving in to the demands of some within the government cabinet Sankara accepted that government officials use cars. However the government then used very small cars, not the traditional Mercedes that made the African elite known very often known in those days as the new tribe of "wabenzi," [a reference to their preference for the Mercedes Benz car].

In 1987 Sankara was assassinated by a companion in the revolution named Blaise CompaorÈ, who carried out a coup d'Ètat seizing power, remaining in power for 20 years [until today]. Often we discuss the importance of democracy in Africa, however recently Burkina Faso has been elected to serve a two year term on the Security Council of the United Nations, together with Vietnam, Libya along with the permanent members.

Africa has a long history of national leaders who have been murdered, massacred, or overthrown in one way or another. Beginning with Patrice Lumumba in Congo, in Ghana Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown and died in exile in Egypt, Eduardo Mondlane of Mozambique. Many anti-Apartheid workers, activists in South Africa were assassinated, some by hit-men, some with letter bombs. You could say that Thomas Sankara is one of the last in that long list of great African martyrs.

You have been following the case of Thomas Sankara in relation to the work of a local organization here in Montreal which as been active on the case in recent years. Can you explain Sankara’s case in relation to Montreal?

There is a small NGO in Montreal named GRILA [of the Group for Research and Initiatives for the Liberation of Africa], which was formed in the 1980’s during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, after the fall of apartheid it continued working, as it was clear that the end of apartheid had not liberated Africa; there were still many battles to be fought. GRILA looked to Sankara as a model for African Development and picked up the case aiming to have light thrown on the circumstances of the death, to commemorate Sankara’s assassination every year.

In 1997, ten years after the assassination GRILA managed to lodge a formal complaint with the authorities in Burkina Faso, asking for Sankara’s assassination to be investigated, and it managed to secure the legal move just a few days before the deadline, the local statute of limitation, beyond which the matter could not be raised. There is a limit of 10 years under Burkina Faso law in which one can access legal recourse, after which time the point becomes moot.

GRILA lodged the complaint just prior to the deadline with the support of Sankara’s family, who was living in exile in France successfully raising the matter, which of course irritated authorities in Burkina Faso. The response that they received that this was a military affair, since Sankara had been an army officer and could not be dealt with in civilian courts but within the military courts.

Within these legal proceedings GRILA had the support of twenty-two volunteer lawyers from around the world, in Canada, in Europe and Africa. After failing within the Burkina Faso legal system GRILA took the matter to the UN Committee on Human Rights and they succeeded last year in obtaining a formal denunciation of the Burkina Faso regime of Blaise CompaorÈ. The denunciation dictated that the government had to throw light on the circumstances of the death of Sankara, had to identify the grave clearly and properly, and also had to pay some form of financial compensation to Sankara’s widow and two sons.

Apparently when Sankara died the death certificate bore the inscription, "died of natural causes", apparently the authorities have now removed the word "natural" from the death certificate, and offered somewhere near ninety thousands dollars as compensation to the family, which of course the family and GRILA have considered very inadequate.

Until now the grave of Sankara has still not been identified, while the circumstances of the death have not been elucidated and all the obstruction of justice that has taken place around this case has not been looked into. So GRILA is pursuing the case, they are waiting for the UN Committee on Human Rights to react to the Burkina Faso response.

Can you explain the contemporary importance of the case of Thomas Sankara on a global scale?

What's interesting concerning the Sankara case is that the principle involved is the fight against impunity in Africa because there are so many crimes and violations which continue to be committed and go unpunished. The international criminal court on Rwanda concerning the genocide that took place is just a drop in the bucket concerning crimes in Africa. This is an attempt from the international community and the UN to bring the criminals in Rwanda to justice. However, there are many, many other cases in Africa.

Currently Darfur is a very fashionable cause among many people in the West who want to go to protect the people of Darfur. At the same time according to the United Nations itself, five to six hundred thousand civilians die each year in the eastern Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, deaths stemming from a war that is closely tied to the struggle for natural resources by international corporations. This is often forgotten, one of the many forgotten genocides that is going on as we talk in Africa.

GRILA has picked up the case of Thomas Sankara as another example of impunity, wanting those responsible to be brought to account. These are all interesting factors which have kept me interested in the Sankara case. As the Sankara case has evolved I have tried every now and then to try to asses the situation and do a story in order to keep it alive in the eyes of the public.

Hundreds of thousands of people gathered at campaign events, with the DPP candidate speaking in Taipei and the KMT's candidate in Tainan, the Daily Observer can reveal.

Supporters of Democratic Progressive Party candidate Frank Hsieh hold placards at a campaign rally in Taipei on Sunday.

According to reports monitored from Taipei Times, senior members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) led their supporters in giant rallies across the country yesterday, canvassing votes on Super Sunday for their respective presidential tickets as the election race entered its final week.

The DPP marked the anniversary of Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law, which was on Friday, with a motorcade, including a truck carrying a giant golden index finger pointing to the sky and an 8m-tall wooden "Trojan horse."

The motorcade for DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh and his running mate Su Tseng-chang included the Trojan horse as a symbol of the dangers posed by the "cross-strait common market" proposed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou, the DPP said.

If such a market were to be established, Hsieh said "men would not be able to find a job," "women would not be able to find a husband" and "soldiers would do their military service in Heilongjiang" in China.

Tens of thousands of DPP supporters gathered at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall to launch the rally, chanting "Taiwan, jiayou," an expression of encouragement, and "Frank Hsieh for president."

The DPP called the rally "1 million people high-five, come-back win."

Hsieh urged the public to unite to "protect your rice bowls by opposing the `one China' market" and "check power by opposing one-party rule."

The public needs to work together to "join the UN and oppose Chinese dictatorship," he said.

Hsieh also called on Ma to offer a clear account of why he had once said the future of the nation should be decided by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, but now says otherwise.

"I want to know what he means. China has 1.3 billion people and Taiwan has 23 million. How can they make a joint decision?" he said. "If Taiwan's future is jointly decided by both sides of the Strait, we will end up like Tibet. We must stop Ma's ridiculous proposition."

Supporters of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh participate in his ``Million People High Five, Comeback Win'' campaign rally in Taipei City yesterday.

To mark the anniversary of China's "Anti-Secession" Law, which was enacted on March 14, 2005, DPP supporters gathered at 300 points across the country at 3:14pm, giving each other high-fives and wearing baseball caps backwards.

While Hsieh attended the rally in Taipei, Su attended a rally in Banciao, Taipei County, Vice President Annette Lu was in Taoyuan County to lead supporters, Premier Chang Chun-hsiung was in Taichung City, President Chen Shui-bian was in Tainan County, Kaohsiung City Mayor Chen Chu was in Kaohsiung and former DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun was in Ilan County. Hundreds of thousands of supporters rallied nationwide.

In a speech at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall, Hsieh said he was opposed to the "one China market" and urged the KMT to immediately abandon the platform.

If elected, Hsieh promised to put the interests of the nation and the public first and to fight for the nation's security and dignity.

One supporter from the US, who gave his last name as Herbert and has lived here for seven years with his Taiwanese wife, said that he backed Hsieh although he could not vote.

"If he loses, I'm going to go back to America. I believe Taiwan will become part of China," he said. "I want to stay here for the rest of my life."

It has been good to read Saihou Sanyang’s extremely informative essay on the above topic, the essay taking a full 4-pages of the Daily Observer this week. Mr. Sanyang ended with an Einstein-style formula for Good Governance:

“My formula for Democratic Good Governance (DGG):

DGG(cds + vcs + ips) over t

Where

DGG means democratic good governance.

cds means capable democratic state.

vcs means vigorous civil society,

t means time. and

ips means innovative private sector (QED).”

This formula scares me abit because it looks as if it could be applied to split the atom, but infact it is simpler than that. Or is it? Maybe getting good democratic governance is much tougher than splitting the atom! All our religious texts and constitutions going back to the beginning of time are about trying to find a formula for governance that could make most people happy.

Maybe again therein lies the rub. Maybe  we cannot make most people happy. Most people would probably always be grumpy with whatever system of governance we have in place. Maybe what we should look for is a system which most people find tolerable, a system in which the rulers are not so oppressive and corrupt as to lead to rebellion and revolution.

I think the secret of governments that call themselves “democratic” is knowing how far they can go in oppressing the people. It is not a sense of good democratic principles that makes a George Bush a good democrat, it is just a commonsense fear of how far the people can be pushed. It was the rebellion of the American people that, for example, led to the “loss” of the Vietnam War - and might equally lead to an American retreat from Iraq.

As for Mr. Saihou Sanyang’s formula, being a simple man, I would replace it with a simpler one: (B+ P=S)xI where B=Bread, P=Peace , S=Stability and I=Indefinitely which all means that: if you give the people bread and peace you can govern for as long as you wish. If people are hungry and fearful, beware a revolution.