NPP DIASPORA COORDINATOR RESPONSE TO FENDA DARBOE

By Yaya Dampha NPP Diaspora Coordinator 

Fenda, your passionate concerns about President Barrow’s intention to seek a third term would have carried moral and political weight had they not been anchored in selective memory, selective outrage, and selective principles. But the truths you conveniently ignore are louder than the statement you issued.

Let’s start with the law, since you claim the “constitution” is being abused.

1. There Is NO Law in The Gambia That Bars President Barrow From Seeking a Third, Fourth, or Tenth Term

Your entire argument collapses on the foundation of legality.

The 1997 Constitution is unambiguous: there are no presidential term limits, because the 2017 Draft Constitution—which your own father championed—was rejected in parliament.

So how can a president be condemned for acting within the law, while your own father seeks a sixth attempt at the presidency, also within the law?

You cannot demand constitutional obedience only when it suits your family’s political ambitions.

2. If “Leadership Is Not Possession,” Why Is Your Father Seeking a 6th Flagbearership at Almost 80+?

You speak of leaders “clinging to power”—but your own father has clung to the UDP leadership for over two decades, losing five consecutive presidential elections, refusing to hand over the baton, and presiding over the most fragmented opposition party in Gambian history.

If Barrow running for a third term is “unsettling,” then what do we call:

Ousainou Darboe seeking flagbearership for the 6th time?

The party splitting three times under his watch?

Young, competent UDP leaders fleeing because there is no space to grow?

Talib Bensouda forming his own movement?

Lamin J. Darboe forming his own party?

You speak of “making room for new voices”—yet your father has silenced every rising voice around him, insisting on being UDP’s only presidential candidate until nature decides otherwise.

If your words are sincere, then the first place to preach this gospel of renewal is your own home.

3. You Mention “The Will of The People”—But the People Rejected Your Father by 200,000 Votes

In 2021, when your father finally faced President Barrow head-on, the electorate delivered a message that could not be misinterpreted:

A nearly 200,000 vote defeat.

Not slim.

Not ambiguous.

Not questionable.

But overwhelming—the will of the people in its clearest form.

So if respecting “the will of the people” is the standard, then your father should have retired in 2021, accepted that Gambians chose Barrow twice, and opened the UDP for younger, stronger, more electable leaders.

Instead, he is preparing for a sixth attempt, at nearly 80, with no strategy except nostalgia.

Where is your outrage about that?

4. You Invoke Morality, but Ignore Political Bullying Against Barrow

You lament that Barrow “fears what comes after he leaves,” yet you forget the years when:

He was mocked as an “accidental president,”

Insulted, belittled, and disrespected by the same people who rode on his popularity to gain relevance,

And then rejected them when he became his own man.

Your father was in prison when Barrow won in 2016, yet when Barrow governed independently, he was treated as a traitor—as if he owed his presidency to your family name.

That is not moral leadership.

That is political entitlement.

5. Democracy Means Choice—Not Selective Condemnation

The constitution allows Barrow to run.

The constitution allows Darboe to run.

The constitution allows Gambians to choose.

If Barrow is truly unpopular, the ballot box—not family press statements—will decide.

And if UDP truly wants change and renewal, then Darboe must lead by example and step aside, not insist on a lifetime monopoly over the yellow flag.

FINAL WORD

You speak of power being “borrowed” from the people. You are right.

But the same people who can reject Barrow can also reject your father.

And they already have—five times.

So before condemning Barrow for running legally, constitutionally, and with broad support, perhaps the better question is:

What is stopping YOU from telling your father—who has lost five elections, fractured his party three times, and is approaching 80+—to finally allow the youth of UDP to lead?

If third terms are undemocratic, then six attempts are not leadership.

They are obsession.

And if BarrowMustGo because he seeks reelection, then by your own logic—

DarboeMustStepDown.

Yaya Dampha 

RESPONSE TO TOMBONG SAIDY AND MEMBERS OF THE UDP ON THE BORRY MATTER

 

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden

The attempt by Mr. Tombong Saidy and some members of the UDP to equate the reckless and dangerous incitement to violence issued by Lawyer Borry S. Touray with the political statement made by Hon. Demba Sabally is not only dishonest, but also dangerously misleading to the public.

These two statements are not equal, and they are not comparable, either in law, in meaning, or in consequence.

Lawyer Borry Touray was not responding to any political metaphor or campaign rhetoric. He openly called on the youth to take the law into their own hands, to confront the state, and create disorder. That is a textbook definition of incitement to violence. In every democratic society, encouraging citizens to rise against public order, to disobey the law violently, or to provoke chaos is a criminal offence. There is no democracy in the world where such statements are harmless or protected as “free speech”. 

By contrast, Hon. Demba Sabally’s statement — made in direct response to UDP’s own declaration that the 2026 election is “do or die” — was not a call to violence. It was political rhetoric expressing commitment, sacrifice, and determination in the face of an aggressive political narrative already introduced by the UDP leadership. It was metaphorical, not operational. It contained no instruction, no mobilisation for violence, and no encouragement of lawlessness.

To suggest that both statements are the same is either intellectually dishonest or politically desperate.

Mr. Saidy claims the law is being applied selectively. But selective application would mean similar wrongdoing being treated differently. Where is the video of Hon. Sabally instructing citizens to riot? Where is the recording of him calling on youths to dismantle law and order? Where is the statement in which he urges violence? There is none — because it does not exist.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to incite violence.

Freedom of speech does not grant the right to provoke unrest.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to destroy the peace of a nation.

When a lawyer — who should be a custodian of the law — publicly encourages anarchy, it is not political expression; it is a threat to national stability. The state has not only the right but the duty to act.

The UDP and its allies must stop confusing political defence with moral confusion. Defending incitement today is defending chaos tomorrow. History shows us exactly where this road leads: instability, suffering, and national regression.

Democracy is not damaged when the law is enforced.

Democracy is damaged when lawlessness is defended.  Democracy is destroyed when incitement is normalised. Just like how some of you are portraying it.

Justice is not selective when it is applied correctly. It only appears “selective” to those who believe political loyalty should grant immunity.

The law is not a party card.

 The Constitution does not wear party colours.

 Public safety is not subject to political negotiation.

The Gambia has suffered enough instability in its history. We will not return to the days when reckless statements set communities on fire and leaders pretended innocence afterward or you all thinking in the same myopic manner. 

Let it be crystal clear:

 Political speech is protected.

 Incitement is a crime.

 Law is law.

 And no one is above it.

If Mr. Saidy and the UDP truly believe in democracy, they should be the first to defend peace, legality, and responsibility — not excuse recklessness because it comes from someone wearing the same political badge.

History will not judge us by party loyalty.

 It will judge us by whether we stood on the side of law, peace, and truth.

In Defence of Democracy: Supporting Alagi Yorro Jallow and the Rule of Law in The Gambia

By Yaya Dampha NPP Diaspora Coordinator 

Alagi Yorro Jallow’s article is not merely an opinion piece; it is a timely civic warning.  It confronts an uncomfortable truth that many prefer to evade: democracy cannot survive when incitement is disguised as activism and recklessness is paraded as courage.  

Lawyer Borry Touray’s inflammatory remarks do not belong to the realm of legitimate political expression.  They venture dangerously into the territory of provocation, where words are intended not to persuade but to ignite.

Freedom of expression is not a license to undermine national peace.  No society, whether African or Western, tolerates direct calls to violence.  In every credible democracy, incitement is a crime — not a political right.  Words that encourage bloodshed, especially in a fragile political environment, are not heroic; they are destructive.  They do not advance democracy; they endanger it.

Alagi Yorro Jallow correctly reminds us that free speech has limits when it threatens life, stability, and constitutional order.  The Gambian Constitution, like all serious legal frameworks, protects liberty while criminalizing violence and incitement.  The law is not partisan.  It does not wear party colours.  It protects citizens — not egos, not ambitions, and not reckless rhetoric.

The Gambia Police Force therefore deserves commendation, not criticism, for charging Borry Touray with incitement to violence.  This action is not political persecution; it is constitutional policing.  The police acted to preserve peace, prevent chaos, and uphold the rule of law.  A democratic state that fails to respond to dangerous speech becomes complicit in the violence that follows.

Selective outrage is the cancer of political morality.  Those who shout the loudest today were often whispering — or silent — during the worst years of dictatorship.  During Yahya Jammeh’s reign, when the constitution was trampled, tribes were insulted, and citizens disappeared, many who now perform bravery were nowhere to be found.  Silence then cannot be rebranded as righteousness now.

As African wisdom teaches: “You cannot divorce your husband and claim your virginity.”  One cannot be absent when courage is required and later claim purity through recklessness.  One cannot ignore tyranny and later posture as a defender of democracy through incitement.  History keeps receipts.

Alagi Yorro Jallow is also right to condemn all forms of incitement, regardless of source.  Whether it comes from the opposition or the government, from ministers or lawyers, tribalists or populists — it must be rejected.  Political loyalty must never be greater than loyalty to peace.  A nation burns not only from the fire of bad leaders, but also from the silence of their followers.

Those who incite violence are not patriots.  They are arsonists in borrowed uniforms.  They exploit frustration, hunger for attention, and wrap recklessness in liberation language.  But bravery is not noise.  Courage is not volume.  Leadership is not incitement.

The Gambia has suffered enough.  This generation must refuse to inherit chaos wrapped in political slogans.  Democracy is defended not by the loudest voice, but by the clearest conscience.  The rule of law is not oppression; it is protection.  Accountability is not punishment; it is preservation of peace.

Alagi Yorro Jallow deserves applause for saying what many think but fear to say: Cowardice in dictatorship cannot be redeemed by recklessness in democracy.  Incitement is not activism.  Hypocrisy is not patriotism.  And silence in tyranny cannot be washed away by noise in freedom.

The Gambia’s future depends not on who shouts the loudest, but on who stands for justice when shouting is not fashionable.  Let the law stand.  Let peace prevail.  Let hypocrisy be named.  And let democracy be defended — not with violence, but with principle.

Rebutal: SANNA MANJANG’S PROSECUTION IS LAW, NOT POLITICS

By Yaya Dampha

 NPP Diaspora Coordinator, Sweden

The ongoing prosecution of Sanna Manjang has reignited intense public debate. While no reasonable Gambian contests the necessity of accountability for crimes committed during the Jammeh-era, it is equally important that public discussion be grounded in law, not conjecture. Unfortunately, recent commentary has injected legal inaccuracies and political speculation into what is, in reality, a straightforward matter of criminal justice.

Several claims being circulated deserve correction.

Sanna Manjang Is Not a Serving Member of the Gambia Armed Forces

The suggestion that Sanna Manjang remains an active member of the Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) is legally false.

Under the Gambia Armed Forces Act (GAFA) 1985, any soldier who is absent without lawful authority for more than 30 days is formally recorded as Absent Without Leave (AWOL). After three months, the individual is deemed a deserter. Importantly, under military law, prolonged desertion—especially extending over years—results in the automatic loss of military status. Sanna Manjang has not been in active service for over two decades. In law, he is no longer a member of the armed forces and therefore cannot be treated as such.

There is no legal basis for presenting a person in military uniform when he is no longer a legal member of the institution.

Civilian Courts Have Lawful Jurisdiction

Even if Sanna Manjang were a serving soldier (which he is not), the claim that only a court-martial could hear his case is incorrect.

Military law governs internal offences such as desertion, insubordination, or disciplinary breaches. However, crimes such as murder, torture, enforced disappearance, arson, and aggravated assault fall squarely under civil jurisdiction—regardless of whether the accused is a soldier or civilian.

Uniform does not confer immunity.

 Military rank does not shield criminal liability.

 Human-rights violations are not subject to military privilege.

The High Court of The Gambia therefore retains full jurisdiction.

Prosecution of One Suspect Is Not “Selective Justice”

It has also been argued that prosecuting Sanna Manjang while other Junglers remain uncharged amounts to selective justice. This misunderstands how criminal prosecutions work.

Prosecutorial decisions rest on:

availability of witnesses,

sufficiency of evidence,

admissibility standards,

and custody status of suspects.

Courts do not wait for multiple defendants to be arrested before proceeding against one who is already in custody and sufficiently implicated. No legal standard anywhere in the world requires that crimes be prosecuted in “batches.”

Justice is not rendered invalid because it is first.

Living Freely Does Not Mean Legal Innocence

The fact that some former Junglers remain at liberty does not render this prosecution illegitimate. It means only that investigations, evidence-gathering, and jurisdictional obstacles differ case by case. Prosecution is not a popularity contest or a public spectacle; it is a legal process driven by evidence, timing, and access to suspects.

To halt a legitimate trial simply because others have not yet been charged would institutionalize impunity rather than cure it.

The TRRC Was Not a Court — and Does Not Replace One

Another misunderstood point is the role of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). The TRRC was:

not a judicial body,

issued no convictions,

rendered no binding verdicts.

It produced findings and recommendations only.

Criminal prosecution comes after truth commissions—not before. The courts are not enforcing TRRC conclusions; they are applying the Criminal Code of The Gambia using evidence and witness testimony subjected to judicial scrutiny.

This Is Not Electoral Politics—It Is Delayed Justice

To label this prosecution “election-driven” trivializes years of survivors’ suffering and ignores the reality of systemic delay in post-dictatorship accountability.

Justice delayed by two decades is not political—it is overdue.

Timing does not invalidate legitimacy.

Conclusion

This is not a show trial.

 This is not political theater.

 This is lawful prosecution.

Sanna Manjang stands before a civilian court because:

he is lawfully a civilian,

his alleged crimes are civilian offences,

and the court holds jurisdiction.

The real threat to justice is not prosecution.

 It is public confusion fueled by false legal claims.

Gambians deserve truth based on law—not speculation.

Justice must proceed—not retreat.

Former ‘Jungler’ Sanna Manjang in Custody as Army Confirms Arrest

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter, Banju

The Gambia Armed Forces (GAF) has confirmed that Sanna Manjang, a former member of the feared paramilitary unit known as the “Junglers,” is currently in custody, following reports of recent arrests linked to security operations in the country.

GAF spokesperson Malick Sanyang verified Manjang’s detention but said details regarding other individuals reportedly arrested remain unclear, including their identities and nationalities.

“It is my understanding that the referenced Sanna Manjang is indeed in custody, but the others allegedly rounded up have not yet been confirmed to be Gambians,” Sanyang said. He added that Gambian authorities are working closely with regional counterparts to ensure proper procedures are followed.

“There is close collaboration with our counterparts and the necessary steps are being taken in a timely manner,” he said. “Further details will be released as developments unfold. We urge the public to remain patient as this matter is being treated with the seriousness it deserves. A more detailed statement will be issued soon.”

Manjang reportedly fled The Gambia after the fall of the Yahya Jammeh administration. He has been implicated in several alleged human rights abuses highlighted in reports by the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC).

Meanwhile, a senior security officer disclosed that former president Yahya Jammeh and individuals described as his close associates are believed to be aware of alleged plans by Manjang and others to carry out coordinated attacks on strategic installations, including Banjul International Airport, Kanilai military camp, and Yundum Barracks. According to the officer, some of the alleged plotters contacted elements within the army who instead reported the communications to security authorities.

The officer further commended the Government of Senegal and its security services for what he described as their diligence and cooperation in the ongoing security efforts.

Security sources say intensive intelligence-led investigations are continuing, with the possibility of further arrests. Observers also say the latest developments may explain recent claims by the APRC No-To-Alliance faction that former president Jammeh would return to the country this November, claims now widely viewed as increasingly doubtful.

ECOWAS in Action: Guinea-Bissau President Secured in Senegal

JarranewsTV – Dakar, Senegal

Senegal President Takes Part in Emergency ECOWAS Summit on Guinea-Bissau Crisis

The Government of Senegal has confirmed that His Excellency President Bassirou Diomaye Diakhar Faye on Tuesday took part in an extraordinary virtual summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to address the unfolding situation in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau following an attempted military takeover.

In a statement issued by the Ministry of African Integration, Foreign Affairs and Senegalese Abroad, the government said the high-level meeting strongly condemned the use of force to seize power and called for the immediate restoration of constitutional order. The summit also demanded the unconditional release of President Umaro Sissoco Embaló and all individuals currently in detention.

ECOWAS leaders further agreed to establish a mediation committee to oversee the implementation of the resolutions adopted. Senegal has been selected as a member of this ad hoc body, which is expected to travel to Bissau in the coming days to engage directly with stakeholders and assess the situation on the ground.

Addressing the summit, President Faye underscored the importance of upholding constitutional legality, ensuring the safety of civilians, and holding any electoral process in a peaceful and secure environment in line with regional frameworks.

According to the ministry, Senegalese authorities have been in continuous contact with political actors in Guinea-Bissau since the onset of the crisis. Under the direct guidance of the Head of State, discussions focused on securing the release of President Embaló and other political detainees, as well as reopening borders to allow the evacuation and repatriation of foreign nationals, including election observers.

As part of these efforts, the Senegalese government dispatched a chartered aircraft to Bissau to facilitate the operation. The intervention ensured the safe transport of President Umaro Sissoco Embaló to Senegal.

The Government of Senegal reiterated its commitment to work closely with ECOWAS, the African Union, and international partners to promote dialogue, stability, and the swift restoration of constitutional governance and democratic legitimacy in Guinea-Bissau.