By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden
The recent statement issued by Gambians Against Looted Assets (GALA) concerning Police Prosecutor Almameh S. Manga raises grave concerns—not because it demands accountability, but because it fundamentally misunderstands and undermines the very principles of law, justice, and democracy it claims to champion.
Let us be clear from the outset: allegations are not facts. In any democracy governed by the rule of law, allegations—whether amplified by social media, civil society groups, or political actors—do not amount to misconduct unless and until they are proven through lawful processes. This principle is neither negotiable nor outdated; it is the foundation upon which justice systems stand.
Presumption of Innocence Is Non-Negotiable
The Gambian Constitution, like all democratic legal orders, guarantees the presumption of innocence. This protection does not evaporate because the accused is a public officer. On the contrary, it exists precisely to shield citizens and officials alike from mob justice, reputational lynching, and politically motivated persecution.
GALA’s statement dangerously advances the idea that a public officer can be condemned, suspended, or pressured out of office based on “ethical concerns” that have not been established by any court, tribunal, or competent oversight body. That position is legally flawed and democratically reckless.
Ethical breaches, conflicts of interest, or administrative misconduct—if they exist—must be determined by institutions with jurisdiction, following due process, evidence, and fair hearing. They cannot be declared by press statements or advocacy campaigns.
Accountability Requires Law, Not Loudness
GALA argues that anti-corruption is not assessed solely by criminal culpability. While this is superficially true, it is legally incomplete and misleading. Even non-criminal misconduct must be proven, not presumed. Ethics are enforced through rules and procedures, not suspicion and activism.
Calling for “temporary administrative measures” against an officer without any established finding of wrongdoing is, in effect, punitive action disguised as institutional protection. Courts across democratic jurisdictions have consistently held that administrative actions affecting a person’s career or reputation must be reasonable, proportionate, evidence-based, and lawful. Anything else is arbitrary.
Democracy Rejects Trial by Media
Gambia’s painful history under authoritarian rule should have taught us a vital lesson: justice must be institutional, not emotional. Replacing executive tyranny with civil society intimidation is not democratic progress—it is regression.
If those making allegations against Mr Manga genuinely believe that:
A crime has been committed, they should go to court.
A disciplinary breach has occurred, they should petition the appropriate authority.
A conflict of interest exists, they should prove it within the framework of the law.
What must never be accepted is the idea that social media outrage or politically connected civil society pressure can substitute for judicial or administrative findings.
A Question of Credibility
Gambians must also be mindful of recent history. These are the same voices that once accused former Lead Counsel Amie Bensouda of being centrally involved in the looting of Yahya Jammeh’s assets—allegations that were later thoroughly examined and decisively rejected by a parliamentary commission.
No apology followed. No accountability for misleading the public.
Today, the same tactics appear to be directed at a young public officer, one without political insulation. This pattern raises serious concerns about selective outrage and agenda-driven activism, rather than principled accountability.
Defending Institutions Means Defending Their Rules
True institutional integrity is not achieved by sacrificing individuals to public pressure. It is achieved by upholding due process, respecting jurisdiction, and resisting populist shortcuts.
As things stand, Almameh S. Manga has not been convicted, indicted, or disciplined by any competent authority. Until such time as lawful processes determine otherwise, he remains innocent in law and entitled to full constitutional protection.
Conclusion
Accountability without due process is not reform—it is injustice.
Ethics without evidence is not governance—it is intimidation.
Democracy without the presumption of innocence is not democracy at all.
If GALA truly believes in the rule of law, it must submit its claims to the law, not attempt to replace it.
The young officer deserves justice, not scapegoating.
The nation deserves courts, not campaigns.
