A Preliminary Refutation of Dr. Henry Carrol

Dr. Henry Carrol, A Modern Day Sophist!

By Gambian Outsider!

Brother Pa, the last article I wrote, and have you published it was on the issue of the so-called sacking of National Assembly (NA) member, Ya Kumba Jaiteh by president Barrow. The title of that article was “President Barrow, Our Very Own Political Animal.” I will get into why I chose that title. I intend for this article to be a short one just like the last article I wrote. I apologize for any typos in advance. I am a busy man.

I urge your readership to go to your archive and search for my last article mentioned above. The one of most important thing I said in that article was that, the commentators who arrived at the conclusion that President Barrow has no authority to fire a NA member whether nominated or not were correct, but how each commentator arrived at his or her conclusion was a different matter. Because I did not, at the time, have the energy to critic each of the commentator’s argument, I said then, that, “it was not time to get into the respective arguments of the commentators on the issue.” Of all the articles that have been written on the subject, only Na Koto, Mr. Lamin J. Darbo, aka lawyer Lamin J Darbo has his finger on the truth in his article “On Ramza Diab, And The Cabinet Squatters.” Na Koto could have gone more in depth as to why then dictator Jammeh did not have the authority to fire nominated or otherwise member of the NA. As of right now, I will not get into specifics, but I will say a few things and hope that after people like Dr. Henry Carrol have read my last article, “ President Barrow, Our Very Own Political Animal” and Na Koto Lamin J. Darbo’s article mentioned above, they will see how ridiculously wrong they have been.  If Dr. Carrol and his understudies do not change their position in this matter, time permitting, I will get into the reason why President Barrow does not have any authority to fire a NA member whether nominated or not. Before I get into Dr. Henry Carrol’s sophistry, I want to highlight one blunder that have been repeatedly made and that includes our so-called “Senior Oxford-Trained lawyer, Solicitor General Emeritus, etc, etc …” It is incorrect to refer to the National Assembly in The Gambia as “Parliament.” There is no “Parliament” in The Gambia. The noun “Parliament” as far as I know is not in the 1997 constitution of The Gambia. You can find the word in the 1970 constitution but not in the 1997 constitution. It is a dead giveaway when our so-called brightest refer to the National Assembly as Parliament. There is no parliamentary government in The Gambia. Members of the NA are “legislators” and not parliamentarians strictly speaking and simply because there is no parliament in The Gambia. How can a person like Dr. Carrol talk about a constitutional matter in The Gambia when he does not even know that there is no parliament in The Gambia!

I know Dr. Carrol. I have met Dr. Carrol. I won’t say where I have met him and what we said to each other. I can tell you with certainty that on our first meeting, I knew he was a fraud. And that was confirmed by someone who knew him better than I did. May be someday, I will write about my encounter with Dr. Carrol.

Dr. Carrol’s article where he said that president Barrow’s decision to revoke Ya Kumba Jaiteh’s nomination is a clear indication that sophistry is alive and well. I will neverget into my educational background, but for a fact, I studied both Greek and Latin grammar in grad schools. Dr. Carrol likes to sprinkle Latin maxims in his writings to show how knowledgeable he is, but in fact, that is nothing more than a sophist using fancy language to deceive the masses. Here is one fact that you readers need to know, Dr. Carrol reads the back pages of Black’s law dictionary and the reason being, there are over one hundred Latin legal maxims for anyone who is interested in stuff like that. Let any interested person look at the back pages of Black’s law dictionary to see what I mean. Anyone who wants to put in the time and effort can read and memorize those Latin Maxims and sprinkle some of them in one’s writings specially when the issue is legal in nature.  Majority of those maxims were adopted in the courts of Equity by the English judges derived from Roman law.

Let me get some facts and Dr. Carrol can dispute me if he wants to do so:

 (1)  Dr. Carrol quoted Lamperi who quoted Aristotle. Lamperi may have read Aristotle but Dr. Carrol have never read Aristotle, and if he did, he does not understand anything Aristotle ever wrote. Dr Carrol, like many so-called highly educated Gambians like to parrot what others said and not rely on their own original thinking. People like Dr. Carrol do things like that to show off. If Dr. Carrol have read ANY of Aristotle’s works, he can select the subject matter and bring it up and we can talk about. I doubt it.

(2)  Dr. Carrol also brought up Baron De Montesquieu’s “ The Spirit of laws.” Dr. Carrol has never read anything that Montesquieu ever wrote.  But to appear as learned, again, Dr. Carrol sprinkles his writings with words and phrases of famous authors. By the way, Montesquieu’s real name is Charles De Secondat de la Brede. If Dr. Latin Carrol has read “The spirit of Law” from beginning to end, he can bring it up and we can talk about it. And he incorrectly called it “Espirit Des Louis” when in fact, it is “Esprit De Lois.”

(3)  If a reader takes away all the sophistry in Dr. Carrol’s article mentioned above, then it becomes obvious how empty his argument really is.

(4)  Dr. Carrol read some of the constitutional provisions he cited but unfortunately, he does not understand what those provisions mean in relation to the issue of whether president Barrow has the power to fire AM members, nominated or not. In fact, some of the constitutional provisions cited by Dr. Carrol and his understudies have absolutely nothing to do with whether president Barrow can fire a nominated member of the National Assembly. He neither cited any case law nor any primary mandatory or persuasive authority. And he never used any valid principle of legal interpretation. He quoted one legal maxim of interpretation and said it does not apply when in fact maxim would apply in section 91.

(5)  Dr. Carrol and those who take similar position failed to distinguish why the constitution in some place used the word “nominated” and in other places “appointed.” I advice Dr. Carrol and his understudies to also look at other law dictionaries other than Black’s Law to see how those dictionaries define “nominate” and “appoint.”

(6)  From Dr. Carrol’s article, I concluded that, though he made it known to the whole world that he is an” Oxford Trained Lawyer” he has never argued a constitutional case in his life. I made this conclusion because if he had, he will not have written such a preposterous article and belittle people who are actually correct in their conclusions.

One more thing, the title of the last article I wrote, “President Barrow, Our Very Own Political Animal” was meant to ridicule him. Here is what I mean. By claiming to be a political animal in his speech in Belgium to justify his qualifications for the office of the president, he made one of the biggest blunders in human history. Here is how ridiculous it is to claim to be a political animal. Wouldn’t it be absurd for me to claim that I breathe? Of course it would be ridiculous. Why, because all living things somehow breathe. Now Aristotle, in the “Politics” says that, “Man by nature is a political animal.” If this is true, and I believe it to be so, then every human being is by nature a political animal. Therefore, president Barrow claiming to be a political animal is no different from any other other person making the same claim. But you see, president Barrow made that claim to distinguish himself and to show his qualification for the office of the presidency.  How is president Barrow’s claim that he is a political animal different from any other human being making the same claim? Why predicate oneself on something as unique to oneself when every other person can predicate to him or herself the same thing? President Barrow is no more a political animal than any other human being. And if being a political animal gives him qualification to be president, then any other Gambian can make the same claim. Now you see the reason why I titled my article, “President Barrow, Our Very Own Political Animal.”

The ball is in Dr. Carrol’s court. Dr. Latin Carrol, you have been served.  I expect you to honorable withdraw your baseless claims and legal invalid analysis in your last article. I apologize to Dr. Carrol’s family because I understand how important reputation is to a person. Please understand that it was Dr. Carrol who interjected himself into a public matter and hence he can be challenged.

Join The Conversation