Editorial: DEFENDING REFORM, NOT BOYCOTT: WHY DR. ISMAILA CEESAY IS RIGHT ON MEDIA REGULATION

Editorial – JarranewsTV

The outrage expressed by against is not only exaggerated—it is fundamentally misplaced, legally weak, and inconsistent with how democratic governance and policy development function.

Let us deal with facts, not emotions.

A validation workshop is not a decree—it is a consultative platform. The Ministry of Information did exactly what is expected in a democracy: invite stakeholders, including the , to review and refine a proposed Media Regulatory Act. That is participation, not exclusion. If some stakeholders chose to boycott, that is their decision—but it cannot be twisted into evidence of “exclusion” or “dictatorship.”

A boycott is not engagement. It is abdication.

If media leaders had genuine concerns, the mature and professional course of action was clear: attend the forum, table objections, submit written position papers, and propose amendments to protect press freedom. Instead, a silent boycott was organized. That is not advocacy—it is avoidance.

The so-called “hot mic” comment attributed to Dr. Ceesay has also been deliberately weaponized. Saying “that’s fine if they boycott” is not evidence of hostility; it reflects a simple reality: government cannot compel participation in consultations. Stakeholders have both agency and responsibility. Refusing to engage and then alleging exclusion is a contradiction that weakens the credibility of such claims.

The assertion that the Minister is sidelining stakeholders collapses under scrutiny. The very existence of a validation process disproves that narrative. One cannot invite stakeholders to shape a law and simultaneously be accused of excluding them—unless the criticism is driven more by politics than by facts.

More importantly, the debate around media regulation in The Gambia must be grounded in reality—not romanticism.

Across democratic societies, media regulation is standard practice. Accreditation, ethical standards, and accountability mechanisms are not tools of repression—they are safeguards. In today’s digital environment, where bloggers, social media personalities, and self-proclaimed “citizen journalists” can publish unverified claims to wide audiences within seconds, the risks are evident: defamation, invasion of privacy, misinformation, and one-sided reporting.

A regulatory framework is not an attack on press freedom—it is a protection of public interest, truth, and professional integrity.

Equally concerning is the growing politicization of the media space. When newsrooms and activist platforms abandon objectivity and adopt entrenched political positions, they cease to function as watchdogs and instead become participants in the political arena. That is precisely why a well-structured regulatory framework—developed through consultation—is necessary.

The personal attack on Dr. Ismaila Ceesay as an “enemy of progress” is reckless and unproductive. Disagreement over policy does not justify character attacks. In any functioning democracy, public officials must be judged by their processes and outcomes—not by selectively interpreted audio clips or emotionally charged rhetoric.

The truth is straightforward: Dr. Ismaila Ceesay opened the door for dialogue. Some stakeholders chose not to walk through it.

You cannot boycott the table and then complain about the outcome.

If there is any real threat to media development in The Gambia today, it is not consultation—it is the refusal to engage in it.

ALLEGED SEXUAL OFFENCE INVOLVING MINOR: Kemeseng Kexx Sanneh IN POLICE CUSTODY

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

JarranewsTV has been reliably informed that Mr. Kemeseng Sanneh, widely known as “Kexx,” has been taken into police custody in connection with an alleged sexual offence involving a minor.
According to information confirmed by the Gambia Police Force, the case involves a 17-year-old schoolgirl who reportedly became pregnant and has since given birth.
In an official statement released on April 10, 2026, police at the Kairaba Police Station disclosed that they are actively investigating the matter. The suspect, identified as Kemeseng Sanneh, alias “Kexx,” remains in custody as inquiries continue.
Authorities have indicated that further updates will be provided as the investigation progresses.
JarranewsTV will continue to follow this developing story and provide timely updates as more information becomes available.

Defending The Rule of Law: Why Attorney General Dawda Jallow Is Right

 

By Yaya Dampha 

In  every functioning democracy, public debate and scrutiny of government officials are both necessary and healthy. However, there is a clear line between constructive criticism and the growing culture of intimidation and political pressure aimed at forcing public officials out of office whenever controversy arises. The recent calls by some opposition figures and self styled media activists demanding the resignation of attorney general and minister of justice dawda a. Jallow must therefore be viewed with caution and a sense of fairness.

Minister jallow’s position is both constitutionally sound and politically responsible. As he clearly stated during his press briefing, he serves at the pleasure of president adama barrow. In any democratic system, ministers are appointed by the president and remain in office until they decide to resign or until the appointing authority decides otherwise. This principle is not unique to the gambia; it is the foundation of executive governance in democratic states across the commonwealth and beyond.

To suggest that a minister should resign simply because critics demand it is to undermine the very structure of democratic accountability. Governments cannot function if public officials are constantly harassed or intimidated into leaving their positions over every controversy or perceived failure.

More importantly, the notion that a justice ministry must win every case in court is both unrealistic and legally flawed. No justice department anywhere in the world wins one hundred percent of its cases. The role of the ministry of justice is to prosecute matters before the courts based on available evidence, but the ultimate decision lies with an independent judiciary. That independence is precisely what gambians fought for during the years of authoritarian rule.

If the courts acquit an accused person, it does not automatically mean that the prosecution failed in its duty or that the justice ministry is incompetent. It simply means that the court, after evaluating the evidence presented, determined that the threshold required for conviction had not been met. That is how the rule of law functions in a democratic society.

Minister jallow also rightly reminded the public of an important legal distinction that many critics deliberately ignore: an acquittal does not necessarily equate to innocence. It simply means that the evidence presented before the court was insufficient to meet the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is a cornerstone principle of criminal justice systems throughout the world.

Those who claim to be investigative journalists must also ask themselves an honest question: where is their investigative work on the issues they now loudly criticize? Journalism has always played a crucial role in uncovering truth, even during the most difficult times in our country’s history.

As a reporter for foroyaa newspaper during the dictatorship of former president yahya jammeh, i personally undertook investigations into some of the most sensitive cases of that era. Following the march 22, 2006 alleged coup plot, the government claimed that daba marenah and five other officers escaped during a prison transfer after their vehicle reportedly crashed into a ditch and nearly somersaulted on the way to janjanbureh prison. I took it upon myself as a journalist to investigate the matter and present the facts to my editor in chief.

The same investigative commitment guided my reporting on the disappearance of chief ebrima manneh and the case of ousman “rambo” jatta. These were not easy assignments, especially under a repressive system where journalists faced intimidation and persecution.

If such investigations could be conducted during a dictatorship, what prevents today’s journalists from doing the same in a democratic gambia where press freedom is significantly greater?

Rather than calling for resignations at every turn, journalists and activists should dedicate their energy to uncovering facts and presenting evidence that contributes meaningfully to public understanding.

Public officials, like every professional in society, are not immune to mistakes or challenges in the execution of their duties. In our daily lives, how many of us perform our jobs without ever encountering setbacks or failures? Doctors lose patients, lawyers lose cases, engineers face structural problems, and journalists occasionally publish stories that later require correction.

Acknowledging this reality does not mean celebrating failure. It simply means recognizing that governance and justice are complex processes where outcomes are not always guaranteed.

Attorney general dawda a. Jallow deserves to be judged  based on the broader performance of the justice system under his leadership, not on the emotional reactions surrounding individual cases. The ministry of justice operates within a legal framework that respects judicial independence, evidence based prosecution, and constitutional authority.

What the gambia needs today is not political hysteria but mature democratic engagement. The rule of law must remain guided by facts, legal principles, and institutional processes—not by the loudest voices on social media or partisan pressure groups.

Minister jallow’s refusal to be intimidated into resigning is therefore not arrogance; it is a reaffirmation of constitutional order and the independence of public office.

In a democracy, accountability matters—but so too does fairness.

Foreign Expertise Is Not Outsourcing Justice: Why The Gambia’s Transitional Justice Must Prioritize Credibility Over Sentiment

By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator

With due respect to Alagi Yorro Jallow= Mbading's reflection on the government’s appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor for Jammeh-era crimes, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion. The realities of post-dictatorship justice across the world clearly show that engaging foreign prosecutors is neither a confession of institutional weakness nor a surrender of national sovereignty. In many instances, it is a deliberate and strategic decision aimed at ensuring impartiality, credibility, and technical competence in highly sensitive prosecutions.

Mbading  history provides many examples.   Countries emerging from dictatorship or conflict have frequently relied on international prosecutors or hybrid justice mechanisms to deal with crimes of national trauma. Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cambodia all incorporated foreign judges and prosecutors in their post-conflict justice systems. These countries were not lacking in capable legal professionals. Rather, they recognized that transitional justice demands extraordinary neutrality and global credibility—especially when prosecuting crimes tied to former regimes and powerful institutions.

The issue in The Gambia is not the absence of competent Gambians. On the contrary, Gambian legal professionals have distinguished themselves globally. Gambians have served at the Rwanda Tribunal in Arusha, the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and in several other international judicial bodies. These achievements demonstrate the intellectual and professional capacity of Gambian jurists. But this very reality also reinforces the principle that justice today is a collaborative global effort. Just as Gambians have been invited by other nations to prosecute sensitive cases abroad, The Gambia can equally invite foreign expertise to support prosecutions of historic national importance.

We must also acknowledge the social realities of a small country like ours. Gambian society is tightly interconnected—families, communities, and professional networks are deeply intertwined. Many individuals involved in Jammeh-era cases may have personal, political, or social ties with those within the justice system. In such an environment, the perception of bias can easily undermine public confidence in the process. An independent foreign prosecutor can therefore serve as a neutral professional buffer, helping to reassure victims, the accused, and the public that justice will be administered fairly and without local pressures from badinyaa, siñoyaa and  teriyaa. Remember Balafaa beh lonĝŋõlenoma.

Furthermore, the crimes arising from the Jammeh era are not ordinary criminal matters. They involve allegations of torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and potentially crimes against humanity. Such cases require specialized expertise in international criminal law, complex investigative procedures, command responsibility doctrine, cross-border evidence gathering, witness protection systems, and forensic documentation. Even countries with far stronger judicial infrastructures sometimes bring in international prosecutors when dealing with crimes of this magnitude.

Another important dimension is international credibility. Jammeh-era prosecutions will inevitably attract scrutiny from international human rights organizations, foreign governments, and global legal institutions. Having a prosecutor with international experience can strengthen the perception that these trials meet global legal standards and are insulated from political influence or domestic rivalries.

It is also important to remember that while the victims of Jammeh-era abuses are mainly Gambians, there were also non-Gambian victims who suffered during that dark period. Because these crimes affected both Gambian citizens and foreign nationals, the accountability process naturally carries an international dimension. Engaging foreign expertise therefore does not dilute Gambian justice; it strengthens the legitimacy and universality of the process.

For these reasons, the appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor should not be framed as “outsourcing justice.” Justice remains fundamentally Gambian. The crimes were committed on Gambian soil, the victims are predominantly Gambian, the courts are Gambian, and the laws under which prosecutions will proceed are Gambian laws. The presence of a foreign prosecutor is simply a professional reinforcement designed to ensure that the prosecutions are conducted to the highest possible standard.

Ultimately, the central objective should be clear: to successfully prosecute Jammeh-era crimes and deliver justice to victims. The debate should not revolve around the nationality of the prosecutor but rather around the credibility, competence, and effectiveness of the process.

The victims—mainly Gambians and also some non-Gambians—deserve a justice process that is fair, credible, and capable of delivering accountability without failure. In matters of transitional justice, success is not measured by symbolism but by results. History will judge The Gambia not by who led the prosecution, but by whether justice was ultimately done.

THE DILEMMA OF OUTSOURCING JUSTICE: CAN THE GAMBIA TRUST ITS OWN TO DELIVER ACCOUNTABILITY?

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

Fatoumatta: As the government appoints a British Special Prosecutor for Jammeh‑era crimes, the nation confronts a deeper question: is foreign expertise a necessity—or a confession of institutional weakness?

The Gambia turns to a British barrister to lead Jammeh‑era prosecutions, reopening the debate on sovereignty, capacity, and the unfinished work of transitional justice. Alagi Yorro Jallow examines the tension between Gambianization and the urgent need to win cases that history cannot afford to lose.

The dilemma of outsourcing justice lies between embracing Gambianization and ensuring the capacity to win cases. It’s the capacity paradox: while Gambian talent is abundant, the confidence to fully harness it remains elusive.  Nations do not merely prosecute crimes; they perform justice. Every decision about who leads a prosecution becomes a statement about sovereignty, confidence, and national memory. The Government’s appointment of British barrister Martin Hackett as Special Prosecutor for Jammeh‑era crimes is therefore not a routine administrative act. It is a defining moment in our transitional justice journey—one that forces us to confront the tension between outsourcing expertise and Gambianizing justice.

In January 2026, I argued in “Outsourcing Justice—Why The Gambia Must Trust Its Own to Prosecute Jammeh‑Era Crimes” that a nation emerging from dictatorship must reclaim its own justice. Now, the central dilemma is clear: can The Gambia secure justice for Jammeh-era crimes when prosecutions are led by a foreigner rather than its own citizens? The issue is no longer theoretical—it defines the current architecture of our justice system.

Fatoumatta: The Gambia is not short of legal brilliance. Our record speaks for itself. Gambians have prosecuted at the Rwanda Tribunal. A Gambian served as Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. Gambian judges sit on international tribunals. The TRRC’s Lead Counsel—himself a Gambian—demonstrated world‑class prosecutorial skill before a global audience. These are not patriotic exaggerations; they are verifiable achievements.

Yet the government’s decision suggests a deeper anxiety: Gambian expertise is celebrated abroad but doubted at home. The collapse of the Ousainou Bojang prosecution exposed the fragility of our institutions—undertrained investigators, weak prosecutorial preparation, procedural missteps, and a justice system unprepared for high‑stakes litigation. The lesson was stark: the issue is not Gambian intellect; it is Gambian institutional capacity.

Fatoumatta: The Barrow administration now stands at a crossroads where two imperatives collide. On one hand lies the principle of Gambianization—national ownership, sovereignty, and the moral symbolism of Gambians prosecuting their own history. On the other hand lies the performance imperative—the need to win cases that carry global scrutiny and historical weight.

Jammeh‑era prosecutions involve cross‑border investigations, complex chains of command, crimes against humanity, extradition negotiations, witness protection, and forensic evidence. These are not ordinary cases. They demand a prosecutorial machinery that The Gambia has not fully built. Thus, the appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor becomes a form of insurance—an attempt to avoid the national humiliation of failed prosecutions. But insurance has a cost.

Outsourcing justice carries profound risks. It weakens national ownership of the transitional justice process, which is not a consultancy project but a national ritual. Victims want Gambians leading the reckoning, not observing it from the sidelines. It also reinforces the colonial reflex—the old belief that legitimacy comes from abroad. And it weakens public trust: if the state does not trust Gambian prosecutors, why should citizens trust the state? These risks are not symbolic; they shape the legitimacy of the entire TRRC process. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done by the nation that suffered.

Fatoumatta: To be fair, the government’s reasoning is not without merit. The stakes are enormous: the credibility of the TRRC, the expectations of victims, the international community’s scrutiny, and the historical weight of prosecuting a former head of state. A failed prosecution would be catastrophic. A foreign prosecutor, therefore, becomes a stabilizing force—an attempt to guarantee competence where institutions remain fragile. But even necessity must be managed with wisdom.

The question is not whether foreign expertise is useful. It is how it is deployed. A sustainable model requires Gambian leadership at the top, supported by foreign technical advisers embedded within teams. Joint prosecution units, skill transfer, and a clear succession plan to hand over leadership to Gambians must be central to the architecture. This is how Rwanda rebuilt its judiciary, how Sierra Leone managed its hybrid court, and how Liberia handled its war‑crimes investigations. Foreign expertise should be scaffolding—not a replacement.

The Ousainou Bojang case revealed that justice collapses long before it reaches the courtroom. If The Gambia wants to successfully prosecute Jammeh‑era crimes, it must strengthen its investigative capacity, professionalize the police, invest in forensic science, empower the DPP’s office, insulate prosecutors from political interference, and reform the prosecutorial arm of the Gambia Police Force. Without these reforms, even the best foreign prosecutor will be building on sand.

Fatoumatta: Justice must return home. The appointment of Martin Hackett is a moment of truth. It exposes our institutional weaknesses, our political anxieties, and our unresolved debate about national competence. But it also offers an opportunity. If handled wisely, this will be the last time The Gambia outsources its justice. If mishandled, it will deepen the dependency we have spent decades trying to escape. A nation that survived 22 years of repression must reclaim its justice with its own hands. Foreign expertise may strengthen the process, but the soul of justice must remain Gambian. The victims deserve nothing less. History demands nothing less. And the future will judge us by whether we trusted ourselves enough to lead our own reckoning.

EDITORIAL: Do Not Mock the Dead: The Burden of Selective Activism

The tragedy surrounding the killing of the police officers in The Gambia continues to stir emotions across the country. It should. These were sons, fathers, brothers, and public servants whose lives ended violently while serving their nation. Their families deserve truth, dignity, and closure. They deserve justice pursued calmly and responsibly through the courts of law.

This is why the reflection by Alagi Yorro Jallow on the danger of selective outrage deserves serious attention. His warning is not an attack on activism itself, but rather a reminder that activism must be grounded in principle, consistency, and moral courage. When outrage appears only when it is politically convenient, it stops being activism and begins to resemble opportunism.

Perhaps the saddest irony in today’s loud social media activism is that many of the loudest voices now presenting themselves as moral guardians of justice are closely linked to the very structures that sustained authoritarianism in the past. In many cases, their own parents were prominent figures within the APRC youth wing structures during the Jammeh era — structures widely known for intimidation, harassment, and unconstitutional political activities that undermined democratic freedoms.

Those same networks produced individuals who were later rewarded with powerful positions as regional governors, local government chairpersons, and influential political operatives. They were the machinery that helped entrench fear and silence dissent during some of the darkest moments in the country’s recent history.

History cannot simply be erased.

This does not mean that children must carry the guilt of their parents. Every generation has the right to choose its own path and define its own values. However, when individuals whose families once benefited from authoritarian power suddenly present themselves as uncompromising champions of justice without acknowledging that history, it raises legitimate questions about the sincerity of their outrage.

True moral authority is built on honesty and consistency. It requires acknowledging past injustices, not selectively remembering them.

The danger of selective activism is that it transforms national tragedies into political tools. Instead of seeking truth, it seeks advantage. Instead of encouraging reflection, it fuels division. And instead of honoring victims, it risks exploiting their suffering.

The killing of the police officers is not a political slogan. It is a human tragedy. The justice system has already begun its work: a trial was held, a verdict delivered, and an appeal process initiated. That is how the rule of law functions in any democratic society. Justice is not determined by social media campaigns or emotional pressure — it is determined by evidence, procedure, and the impartial judgment of the courts.

This is precisely why responsible voices must urge restraint. The families of the fallen officers should not be forced to watch their loved ones’ deaths turned into daily political theatre. They deserve space to grieve and confidence that the legal process will pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Alagi Yorro Jallow’s reminder is therefore deeply important: a nation that practices selective empathy risks losing its moral compass. If we cry loudly for some victims while ignoring others, we weaken the very foundation of justice we claim to defend.

The lesson for Gambians today is simple but profound. Activism must be principled, not performative. Justice must be patient, not rushed by public noise. And national tragedies must never be exploited for political gain.

To do so would not only betray the values of justice and accountability.

It would also dishonor the memory of the dead.