Both favorable and adverse reactions have attended our choice of President Jammeh as Man of the year 2007.Not surprisingly , the criticisms from abroad especially on the internet and online newspapers, have tended to be more strident than those at home which , for the most part, are more muted. We find a great deal of what is being said against us and against the Editor of this magazine especially with regard motives to be ill-informed not only about the Editor and this magazine but also about the traditions and the reasons for naming man of the year . This award the world over is simply a journalistic tradition, not based on any moral judgments or on merit but rather on impact or influence events of the preceding year.
This is what Sajar Taal, for instance, did not know when he stopped the publication of our news release which named Pa Sallah Jeng, ex-mayor of Banjul , as our man of the year in 2005. This is what our critics for our choice of Jammeh as man of the year 2007 also do not know.
In Jammeh’s case, who can actually dispute the fact that his HIV/AIDS cure has made him have the most influence events of 2007? Who else in this country has done, said or achieved as much as him, to influence events in the country? And in addition to his HIV /AIDS cure, there are various development projects which have taken place or are underway, in education, health and other fields of national Endeavour.
Now let us remind ourselves that our constitution states at section 25 (1)(a) that “Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media” In section 207(1), our constitution further states that The freedom and independence of the press and other information media are hereby guaranteed, subject to laws which are reasonably required in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public order, public mortality and for the purpose of protecting the reputations, rights and freedom of others.
Therefore, it can be seen that naming man of the year by a magazine does not fall under the qualified list of what our constitution prohibits. Therefore, this leaves the matter as an open ended question which a paper or magazine can deal with as it deems fit and proper. We have published in this edition at pages 15-16, the Time magazine complete list of man of the year to help throw more light on why our choice of president Jammeh as our man of the year 2007 should not be seen as a wrong choice, as our various detractors would make one believe.
The Time list is relevant, for it places the choice in a journalistic context rather than a general context. It was this US magazine which first started to publish man of the year, as far back as 1927. The practice has continued to date so that since then some 80 man of the year have been named by the magazine. The latest to be named by the Time magazine is Vladimir Putin, the Russian President.
Putins choice, which is made for better or worse, is that of a person who is considered, despite other failings, to have the most influence on the events of the year preceding. This makes it clear that unlike awards for sports, scholarship, entertainment education or the arts, some other factors besides merit, are taken into account to determine his choice as man of the year. It is this fact which puts the award in a journalistic context. It makes the award unique for; in no other context is man of the years used except in the practice of magazines and newspaper editors.

In making the choice, magazines and newspaper can make different decisions and there can actually be as many man of the year as there are publications. However, most newspapers and magazine do not engage in the practice.
Those which do, have the whole force of the law to back them since their making the choice is an aspect of freedom of expression. In other worlds, magazines and journalists must be free and should in no way be hindered or deterred by the likelihood of adverse public or interest group reactions, or fear of these reactions, to make their choices. For those seeing themselves as fighters for freedom of and human rights, they should know that there is inherent in their opposition and criticisms a dangerous inclinations to the very dictatorial tendencies and practices, in respect of the press right to publish as guaranteed by our constitution and international law, which they are fighting against.
The right of the press to express views and opinion, or the public right to do so, is sacrosanct. It is often stated, I disagree with what you say, but I will give my life to defend you right to say it. This right of freedom of expression is what gives fuel to the engine for human progress and development. Mankind would not have progressed as much. As it did if there were no dissident views or standpoints at some crucial time in our history. We can say it is because we differed in views, opinion and ideas that progress was made possible in this world.
It is this point which all should know and accept in the choice of a magazine man of the year. For better or worse, the choice is made, but it is not based on value judgments or on morality. Rather, the choice is more in line with journalistic concepts and practices regarding the impact or the most influence, the person or persons have on events of the past years.
It is in this way that New swatch magazine could name Babangida their man of the year in 1986. Subsequently. Of course, fingers were pointed to the Babangide regime when the editor of New swatch. Dele Giwa, was killed by letter bomb, and deferred to him by a motor cycle rider. Indeed, though it does not include Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa or Che Guevara, the list of Time Magazine man of the year has included such unlikely grouping of names as those of Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin-twice (the soviet un ion well know dictator). Charles de Gaulle and yes, Adolf Hitler, the murderous leader of Nazi Germany Anwar Sadat and Bill Clinton.
So really, at the back of our minds when we chose President Jammeh as our 2007 man of the year , is the kind of impact his break through in the use of traditional herbs as a cure for HIV/AIDS and for other hitherto incurable ailment his putting to an end in The Gambia, the fears arising from the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS; the great deal of time and effort he, despite being the country’s president, put into the whole programme as well as the plans he has made to create physical and managerial structures. In parallel with the practice of modem medicine, to make use of traditional herbal medicine at an HIV/AIDS centre-and how all these have influenced events in this country in 2007- are what made our choice so compelling and so appropriate. In addition, despite many other failing, especially in the fields do human rights with the various other atrocities and wrongs committed during his time as head of government, and to all of which we still stand opposed, we also note and accept that there had at the same time been development. Thus our choice was made in terms of professional journalistic practice, without any direction or expectation from any quarter. .

.