Most, if not all of the countries in turmoil around the world are suffering from the relics of unrestrained behaviors of their own. Such societies undergo groundings for their eventual annihilation, long before the ultimate happens. Such inadvertent planning takes various forms. The people, especially the young, will have been exposed to all forms of meanness. Greediness, selfishness, disregard for authority, by taking the law into their hands, are the order of the day in such societies. And all these are manifested in disguise of self-protection, like we have been seeing in the recent past, in this country.

The last few months have seen a lot of demolition of houses and, apparently, for various reasons. The pictures from the aftermath of the demolition exercises depict humiliation, destitution and misery.

The ills of such inhumane practices do not only deflate the spirit of the individual victims, but they have far-reaching consequences on the nation as a whole. Apart from the fact that they tarnish the image of its government, such pictures wrongly portray problems of inherent haughtiness. They tell the outside world that we have sheltering problems; issues that are absolutely non-existent in this country. There is also the legal connotation about it. The relevance of the rule of law is, in effect, being questioned.

This piece is by no means an attempt to pass any judgment; it is an attempt to remind the general public that the Republic of The Gambia is governed by laws. It will hurt no one if we employ the habit of seeking court injunctions if we want to take certain actions that come along with drastic consequences on for victims. Whether they might be right or wrong, again, it is not for the Daily Observer to say so.

The question is: why do we have to fight before we seek the help of the court? Can you imagine what the world would be like if everybody was at liberty to take the law in their hands whenever they felt that they were right?

The fact is that occupying a place for a long time must be in agreement with the owner; either a tacit agreement or a concrete one. Talking about tacit agreement, if you demonstrated your sincere desire of unwillingness to have someone in your property, there is more than 90% chance that they would honour your demand. But if you pretended that nothing was wrong when they occupied it, in effect you were giving them the permission to carry-on. And, like you would expect, when it comes to vacate, especially if you the landlord wanted an instant vacation, you would be calling for trouble.

In any case, is it not more decent to seek court injunctions before pulling down a shelter on a whole family? This will just promote peace and tranquility. That is our point.