Babagalleh Jallow as the NPP Diaspora Coordinator and a founding member of the party who is supporting His Excellency President Adama Barrow’s bid to contest the 2026 Presidential Election its duty- binding to respond to your morally selective advice to President Adama Barrow.
Your recent open letter to His Excellency President Adama Barrow is neither neutral advice nor principled statesmanship. It is a carefully packaged political opinion masquerading as moral authority, and it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions—legal, logical, and ethical.
You boldly declare that President Barrow’s bid for the 2026 Presidential Election is “legally right but morally wrong.” That single sentence exposes the fundamental weakness of your argument: you seek to elevate your personal moral judgment above the supreme law of The Gambia, while conveniently excusing yourself from the same moral standard you demand of others.
Let us start with the law, because in a constitutional democracy, law is not a suggestion—it is the foundation.
Let's base our argument on the point law i mean the Constitution of The Gambia on this matter and later i will talk about morality and your very track records.
The Constitution Is Supreme, Not Personal Morality
And it says
Section 4 of the 1997 Constitution is unequivocal: the Constitution is the supreme law of The Gambia.
There is no constitutional provision that bars President Adama Barrow from contesting the 2026 election. None. Zero.
In law, what is not prohibited is permitted. That is the essence of legality. To argue otherwise is to invite rule by personal conscience instead of rule of law, a dangerous doctrine that Africa knows too well.
If moral opinion were sufficient to override constitutional rights, then no elected office would ever be secure, and elections would be governed by who shouts “morality” the loudest.
You Cannot Weaponize Morality Selectively
You insist President Barrow must abandon his constitutional right in the name of morality. Yet when you yourself were confronted with a moral duty, you chose legality over morality.
President Barrow trusted you and appointed you Executive Secretary of the TRRC—a body tasked with one of the most sensitive national assignments in our history: truth, justice, and reconciliation.
You resigned before the completion of the TRRC’s work to pursue personal interests.
Yes, you resigned legally.
But was it morally right?
Did you pause to consider:
the moral obligation to victims?
the institutional disruption your departure caused?
the national interest in continuity and closure?
You did not.
You relied on the law, not morality, to justify your decision.
So we must ask plainly:
When it was about you, legality was enough.
When it is about President Barrow, legality is suddenly insufficient.
Is that fairness?
Is that consistency?
Is that moral integrity?
Moral Obligation Cannot Be Invented After the Fact
You repeatedly invoke “promises,” “expectations,” and “moral duties” allegedly owed by President Barrow. But in constitutional governance, political promises do not override constitutional text.
Coalition agreements are political instruments, not superior law.
Campaign assurances are not constitutional amendments.
Moral expectations do not extinguish legal rights.
If they did, then every president would be bound forever by the shifting interpretations of past supporters—even when the legal framework remains unchanged.
That is not democracy. That is political blackmail.
Comparing Barrow to Jammeh Is Intellectually Dishonest
You invoke Yahya Jammeh to frighten the public. This is deeply irresponsible.
Jammeh abused power illegally, manipulated the Constitution, ruled by decree, jailed and killed citizens, and rejected electoral defeat.
President Barrow:
operates under constitutional limits,
submits to elections,
respects court decisions,
and governs in an open political environment.
To suggest that exercising a clear constitutional right is the first step toward dictatorship is not caution—it is fear-mongering.
.Democracy Is About Choice, Not Moral Gatekeeping
The Gambian people are not children who need political elites to decide who may or may not contest elections.
If President Barrow is unworthy, vote him out.
If Gambians believe he deserves another term, that is their sovereign right.
Democracy does not mean limiting choices to satisfy the moral comfort of former officials who can no longer command public support.
The Real Issue: Politics, Not Morality
Let us be honest.
Many who suddenly oppose President Barrow’s candidacy are:
former insiders who lost influence,
failed aspirants who cannot win elections,
and self-appointed moral arbiters who cannot persuade voters.
Unable to defeat him at the ballot box, they now seek to disqualify him through moral arguments that have no legal standing.
That is not patriotism. That is political expediency.
Final Question to You, Babagalleh Jallow
You ask President Barrow to sacrifice his legal right for morality.
So we ask you:
Were you morally right to abandon the TRRC before its work was completed?
Were you fair to President Barrow who trusted you?
Were you fair to the Gambian people who expected continuity and closure?
Morality that is selective is not morality.
Principle that bends for self-interest is not principle.
President Adama Barrow’s bid for 2026 is constitutional, lawful, democratic, and legitimate. The rest is opinion—yours included.
And in a democracy, opinions do not override the Constitution.
Yaya Dampha NPP Diaspora Coordinator