Maimuna Ceesay to ECOWAS: Move Beyond Talk and Deliver on AfCFTA

'By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Gambian parliamentarian has urged West African leaders to abandon rhetoric and deliver tangible progress on regional trade integration, pressing for decisive action to implement the [missing content].

Addressing an extraordinary sitting of the [missing institution] on Tuesday, Ceesay said years of dialogue have yielded little concrete change, calling instead for “functional integration” that moves beyond negotiations to results.

She challenged the sub-region to institutionalize accountability by creating a parliamentary oversight mechanism to track AfCFTA implementation, arguing that commitments made in speeches and communiqués must be matched by measurable action.

“Commitment cannot remain verbal,” Ceesay told lawmakers, stressing the need for a shared vision backed by execution. “Africa needs common objectives, not repeated promises.”

The lawmaker said national ministries of trade should work in closer alignment with the regional parliament to harmonize policies and accelerate outcomes.

From Symbol to Structure: Call to Make African Languages Central to AU Integration

From Symbol to Structure: Call to Make African Languages Central to AU Integration

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

February 24, 2026

A former senior official of the African Union has urged the new leadership of the African Union Commission to move beyond symbolic recognition of African languages and embed them fully into the Union’s day-to-day governance and integration agenda.

In an open letter addressed to the Chairperson of the Commission in Addis Ababa, Lang Fafa Dampha, former Executive Secretary of the African Academy of Languages (ACALAN), argued that Africa’s development ambitions cannot be realised without linguistic inclusion at institutional level.

Drawing on more than 15 years of service within the AU system, Dampha said that while African identity is often celebrated in official rhetoric, the Union’s operations remain dominated by inherited colonial languages, limiting citizen participation and weakening democratic legitimacy. He warned that policies developed in languages inaccessible to most Africans risk alienating the very people continental integration is meant to serve.

According to Dampha, the challenge is particularly urgent as the AU advances flagship initiatives such as African Continental Free Trade Area and implements Agenda 2063. He stressed that trade, peace, digital transformation and governance reforms require communication systems that ordinary Africans can understand and own.

The letter calls for practical action rather than new declarations. Among the key proposals are the full operationalisation of Kiswahili as a working language of the Union, including dedicated budget lines, permanent interpretation and translation staff, and the strengthening of the Pan-African interpretation and translation infrastructure under ACALAN.

Dampha also highlighted the risk of African languages being marginalised in the digital era, urging the AU to invest in terminology development, open-source linguistic data, and the localisation of digital public services. He further proposed turning African Languages Week and the ongoing Decade of African Languages into accountability platforms, requiring member states to report measurable progress.

A central recommendation is the creation of an African Languages Development Fund to finance translation of treaties, harmonisation of writing systems, advanced training programmes, and public service broadcasting in African languages.

In conclusion, Dampha argued that African languages should be treated as strategic infrastructure, not cultural ornaments. “A Union that speaks to its people in their own voices,” he wrote, “is a Union that truly belongs to them.”

The open letter positions linguistic inclusion as a core test of the new Commission’s commitment to deepening continental integration, citizen ownership and Africa-centred development.

FROM PUBLIC OFFICE TO PUBLIC PITY: D. A. JAWO’S FAILED ATTEMPT AT SELF-VICTIMISATION

By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden

The recent article by , published by , under the emotive title “A Victim of Vindictiveness?”, is less a serious political reflection and more a carefully packaged narrative of self-pity, selective memory, and personal frustration. It is an attempt to reframe political irrelevance as persecution and personal underperformance as principled dissent.

Let us address the facts—calmly, firmly, and point by point—in defence of and his government.

First, Mr. Jawo openly acknowledges that his dismissal from cabinet in June 2018 was entirely constitutional. The President of the Republic has the legal and executive authority to appoint and dismiss ministers. Cabinet reshuffles are a normal feature of democratic governance across the world. They are not acts of vindictiveness, nor are they punishments. To portray a lawful executive decision as personal persecution is intellectually dishonest and politically disingenuous.

Second, Mr. Jawo’s tenure as Minister of Information lasted eighteen months. During that period, he failed to leave behind any meaningful legacy. As a former leader of journalists who once fought against draconian media laws under dictatorship, Gambians rightly expected him to champion the repeal or review of those same laws when he assumed office. He did not. No bold reform. No decisive initiative. No structural change. Power was in his hands, yet nothing changed. Silence and inaction cannot later be repackaged as suppressed bravery.

Third, the claim that he felt “confined” in cabinet because he could not openly criticise government decisions is an indictment of his own leadership, not of the system. Collective responsibility is not a prison; it is a cornerstone of serious governance. Leadership demands courage within power, not comfort outside it. Criticism after dismissal is easy. Reform while in office is what defines statesmanship.

Fourth, the insinuation that he could have been “recycled” into government had he stopped criticising the President is speculative and self-serving. Governments retain or reassign officials based on performance, relevance, trust, and alignment with policy direction. Mr. Jawo cannot simultaneously claim he had no interest in returning to government and still complain about not being reappointed. One cannot reject a door and then accuse others of slamming it shut.

Fifth, Mr. Jawo admits membership in , an organisation whose stated objective is to unseat President Barrow in the next election. That is his democratic right. However, rights come with consequences. No government anywhere in the world extends state privileges, honours, or invitations to individuals actively organising against it. The withdrawal of invitations to state functions is not “sanction”; it is standard, logical, and politically neutral. State functions are privileges, not entitlements.

Sixth, attendance at state dinners, national dialogues, or independence celebrations is not a birthright. Millions of Gambians attend none of these events and suffer no injustice. These invitations are extended based on office, role, and relevance—not as lifetime rewards for former service. To interpret non-invitation as victimisation is to confuse entitlement with citizenship.

Seventh, the article is riddled with contradictions. Mr. Jawo claims to have cordial relations with the President and expresses gratitude for having served in cabinet, yet simultaneously alleges covert punishment, shadowy emissaries, and deliberate exclusion. These inconsistencies expose the article for what it truly is: a narrative driven by wounded ego rather than public interest.

Finally, President Barrow’s record stands firm. Under his leadership, has restored constitutional order, expanded democratic space, strengthened institutions, and moved decisively away from two decades of authoritarian rule. The Barrow administration has governed with tolerance, restraint, and respect for dissent—qualities that make claims of vindictiveness ring hollow.

In conclusion, Mr. Jawo is not a victim of vindictiveness. He is a former minister struggling to reconcile personal ambition with political reality. President Barrow owes him no apology for exercising constitutional authority, demanding results, or refusing to blur the line between the state and its political opponents.

History will remember those who built, reformed, and delivered—not those who found their voices only after leaving office.

Barrow’s Leadership and The Gambia’s Democratic Rebirth: A Fair Judgment?

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

When Adama Barrow took office in January 2017, The Gambia was emerging from one of the darkest chapters in its post-independence history. Two decades of authoritarian rule had left state institutions weakened, civil liberties crushed, journalists silenced, and political opposition criminalised. The task before the new administration was not routine governance, but national democratic reconstruction.

Nearly a decade on, recent international governance rankings provide an opportunity to assess how far the country has come—and whether it is being judged fairly.

According to the 2026 World Economics Governance Index, as reported by Business Insider Africa, The Gambia is ranked the 10th best-governed country in Africa and 74th globally, with an overall score of 47.6 out of 100. The index evaluates governance across corruption control, rule of law, press freedom, and political rights.

For a country that, prior to 2017, was synonymous with repression and fear, this ranking represents a significant turnaround.

Reopening Political and Media Space

One of the most notable achievements of the Barrow administration has been the restoration of political freedom and media independence. Today, The Gambia has:

No political prisoners

No journalists in detention

A vibrant and critical media landscape

Opposition parties operating without intimidation.

These realities stand in sharp contrast to the pre-2017 era, when journalists fled the country, media houses were shut down, and political dissent often ended in detention or exile.

This progress is reflected in the index, where The Gambia scored 65.4 in press freedom and 54.8 in political rights, placing it among Africa’s more open political systems.

Governance Challenges Within an Open System

The report also highlights areas requiring further reform. Scores for rule of law (38.5) and corruption control (31.6) remain modest. However, analysts note that these challenges are being addressed within a democratic environment where citizens, civil society, and the media are free to question and criticise government action—an essential condition for long-term institutional strengthening.

Comparing The Gambia and Senegal

Neighbouring Senegal ranked higher on the index, placing 7th in Africa and 63rd globally, with a composite score of 54.0. Senegal recorded stronger results in political rights (73.8) and press freedom (57.6), though it also faces institutional weaknesses, particularly in rule of law (41.1).

Yet this comparison raises important questions.

Despite its higher numerical ranking, Senegal continues to witness the arrest, detention, and prosecution of political opponents, as well as the incarceration of journalists—a reality that sharply contrasts with the current situation in The Gambia, where no journalist or opposition figure is imprisoned for political reasons.

A Question of Fair Assessment

Under President Barrow, The Gambia has consolidated a political culture defined by freedom of expression, tolerance of dissent, and competitive politics. While governance reforms remain a work in progress, the country’s record on fundamental freedoms stands out in the sub-region.

This leads to a crucial question: Is The Gambia being fairly judged when compared to Senegal on political freedom and media freedom, given that The Gambia has no political prisoners and no jailed journalists, while Senegal does?

As governance indices continue to shape international perceptions, the Gambian case suggests that democratic reality on the ground should weigh as heavily as numerical scores. For many observers, The Gambia’s post-2017 journey under President Barrow remains one of West Africa’s most compelling democratic recoveries.

A REBUTTAL TO LAMIN JUWARA’S SELECTIVE HISTORY, LEGAL CONFUSION, AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden

Lamin Juwara styles himself as a “political analyst,” yet his recent public commentary exposes a troubling deficit in political education, historical honesty, and constitutional literacy. Whether this is born of ignorance or deliberate distortion is immaterial; either way, it renders his analysis unreliable and misleading.

Distorting the Jawara Record

It is intellectually dishonest to invoke as a pristine democratic model without acknowledging the full record. Jawara ruled The Gambia for nearly three decades—27 to 30 years, depending on how one counts transitional periods. That era was not a democratic idyll. It was marked by entrenched corruption, nepotism, weak institutions dependent on personalities rather than law, and chronic underdevelopment. Yes, Jawara tolerated multiparty politics—but tolerance alone does not absolve decades of governance failures.

Silence During Tyranny

Mr. Juwara’s newfound democratic fervor raises a basic question: where was his voice during the 22 years of authoritarian rule under ? There were no interviews, no public interventions, no principled resistance. Many who are loud today were silent then—beneficiaries of a system they now conveniently denounce. Courage discovered after danger has passed is not principle; it is opportunism.

The Hollow “Third Term” Claim

Juwara’s central argument—that President Barrow seeking re-election undermines democracy—collapses under legal scrutiny. The 1997 Constitution contains no clause barring President Barrow from contesting again. Term limits are not retroactive, and political opinion is not constitutional law. When Mr. Juwara says, “Many Gambians, myself included, believe…,” one must ask: since when did personal belief override constitutional legality? Is Mr. Juwara now the law of The Gambia?

Selective Morality, Real Tolerance

President has governed with a level of tolerance unmatched in our political history—a fact acknowledged even by critics. If there is one lesson to draw from Jawara, it is tolerance, and by any objective measure President Barrow has exceeded that standard. Mr. Juwara ignores this reality because it does not fit his narrative.

Opinion Is Not Analysis

Serious political analysis requires historical accuracy, constitutional understanding, and consistency of principle. What we get instead are soundbites and selective memory amplified on platforms such as —visibility mistaken for expertise.

A Question of Motive

One is left to wonder whether this is political immaturity or a defense of past privilege—an attempt to sanitize an era when some families prospered at the expense of the taxpayer. Either way, the arguments fail on the merits.

Conclusion
What Mr. Juwara offers is not analysis but hypocrisy dressed as concern, ignorance masquerading as principle, and opinion pretending to be law. Until he can cite constitutional provisions, confront history honestly, and explain his silence during real dictatorship, he should refrain from lecturing Gambians about democracy.

Democracy rests on law, truth, and consistency—not noise, nostalgia, or selective outrage.

A Reality Check for Political Daydreams Ahead of December

By Yaya Dampha,

NPP Diaspora Coordinator

Lamin J. Darboe, like any political actor, is entitled to optimism. However, optimism must be anchored in political reality. Elections are not won through wishful thinking, social media enthusiasm, or carefully staged television interviews on platforms such as Kerr Fatou. They are won through deep-rooted party structures, tested grassroots support, nationwide presence, and proven leadership—elements that cannot be improvised a few months before a presidential election.

The suggestion that a loose coalition of three to five political groups—most of which secured less than three percent in previous elections, while others are not even legally registered political parties—can defeat the ruling National People’s Party is not strategic analysis. It is political illusion.

Politics in The Gambia is not conducted on social media timelines. It is built village by village, ward by ward, and region by region—from Basse to Banjul, from the provinces to the Greater Banjul Area. Any political organization that lacks functional structures beyond the immediate circle of its leadership cannot suddenly claim national relevance simply because an election is approaching.

There is a fundamental difference between inheriting a party label and building a genuine support base. A skeleton organization—without branches, coordinators, youth and women’s wings, or sustained engagement with communities—cannot transform itself into a viable national force by merely announcing a coalition.

Performance, Not Speculation, Shapes Electoral Outcomes

Unlike speculative alliances, President Adama Barrow and the National People’s Party stand on a clear record of delivery. That record includes:

Nationwide road infrastructure connecting previously neglected communities

Expanded access to electricity and clean water

Improved healthcare and education facilities

Greater macroeconomic stability despite challenging global conditions

Most importantly, peace, stability, and democratic openness unparalleled in recent Gambian history.

Gambians do not need lectures on what development means—they are experiencing it firsthand. They understand peace because they enjoy it daily. They value democracy because they practice it freely, without fear, intimidation, or repression.

For this reason, confidence in President Barrow’s prospects is not arrogance; it is confidence grounded in performance, national acceptance, and political maturity.

2016 Was an Exception, Not a Blueprint

It is also important to confront a persistent misconception: the belief that the conditions of 2016 can simply be recreated.

The Gambia of 2016 and the Gambia of 2026 are fundamentally different—politically, institutionally, and socially. In 2016, Gambians were united by a single, overriding objective: ending authoritarian rule. That election was a rescue mission, not a conventional democratic contest. The coalition of that era was driven by necessity and survival, not by strong party institutions or ideological coherence.

Today, there is no dictatorship to dismantle, no climate of fear, no closed political space. What exists instead is constitutional order, political freedom, and competitive democracy. The emotional and political momentum that defined 2016 does not exist in 2026.

To assume otherwise is to misunderstand history—or to deliberately ignore it.

Coalitions formed out of desperation, composed of parties with minimal grassroots presence and limited electoral credibility, cannot rely on the memory of 2016 to substitute for organization, credibility, and public trust.

Conclusion

Elections are not won by arithmetic coalitions or media soundbites. They are won by people, performance, and presence. The December election will be decided by peace, progress, and proven leadership—and on all these fronts, President Adama Barrow and the National People’s Party remain well ahead.

Dreams are free. Elections, however, must be earned.