Rtd.Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s Selective Outrage and Intellectual Dishonesty.

A Response to Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr: Selective Outrage and Intellectual Dishonesty. Alagi Yorro Jallow

Fatoumatta: Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s latest attempt to vilify my defense of President Adama Barrow’s ceremonial attire lacks both historical grounding and intellectual honesty. His exaggerated critique—a blend of misplaced mockery and selective outrage—deliberately distorts the role of the Commander-in-Chief while conveniently ignoring well-established traditions. It is neither unprecedented nor unusual for civilian heads of state to don military attire in ceremonial settings. Leaders across Africa and beyond—including Tanzania’s Samia Suluhu Hassan, Senegal’s Macky Sall, and Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings—have all worn military regalia in official capacities without sparking misplaced controversy. Such attire symbolizes the authority vested in the head of state, reinforcing their position as the symbolic leader of the national defense forces. Sarr’s reaction, however, is not rooted in a genuine concern for military professionalism but in personal animosity and political opportunism. His history of contradiction—from his book Coup d’État in The Gambia, which he later retracted under pressure, to his erratic use of pseudonyms like "Ebou Kolley" and "Arac Pacobi"—reflects a pattern of intellectual dishonesty. His attempted transformation from Jammeh enabler to self-styled commentator is riddled with inconsistencies that undermine his credibility.

Moreover, his exaggerated framing of President Barrow’s appearance as "cosplay" exposes not only a failure to engage in substantive discussion but a deliberate effort to trivialize established governance norms. Presidents do not wear military regalia to “play soldier.” They do so in recognition of their constitutional authority, a practice embedded in traditions across multiple political systems. Fatoumatta: Rather than offering a thoughtful critique, Sarr’s response devolves into theatrical disdain, laced with personal attacks that have no bearing on the actual issue at hand. If he were genuinely interested in governance, he would acknowledge that presidential symbolism extends beyond uniforms and is rooted in historical precedence. But such an acknowledgment would require intellectual consistency—something he has demonstrated time and again to be beyond his reach.

As for his accusations, it is ironic that a man whose credibility was so tarnished he was denied the opportunity to testify at the Truth Commission would attempt to lecture others on integrity. His selective outrage, aimed more at personal grievances than objective discourse, is not only misplaced but a reflection of his longstanding struggle to reconcile his contradictions. A meaningful discussion on governance requires depth, historical awareness, and logical coherence. If Lt. Colonel Sarr is truly interested in engaging in such discourse, he must first reckon with his own conflicted record before attempting to lecture others on political symbolism. Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s erratic criticisms and selective outrage epitomize a pattern of intellectual inconsistency that has long defined his public posture. His history of contradiction—of fabricating, retracting, and maneuvering to regain favor—stands as testament to a credibility crisis that no amount of theatrical prose can conceal. Real discourse demands integrity, historical awareness, and intellectual honesty. It is not shaped by resentment nor sustained by petty attacks. When someone like Sarr, whose own credibility was deemed too compromised to testify before the Truth Commission, attempts to lecture others on governance, one is reminded that opportunism often masquerades as wisdom. Fatoumatta: The presidency is not a spectacle, nor is national symbolism a trivial pursuit for political theatrics. It is grounded in tradition, reinforced by constitutional authority, and wielded as a representation of leadership. Sarr’s dismissal of this reality—driven more by personal vendetta than genuine critique, reflects the desperation of a man who has long lost the intellectual weight to engage in serious debate. History will not remember the loudest voices, but the most principled ones. And in this discourse, the contrast is clear.