Clearing the Misconceptions: Understanding the Police Intervention

Mai Ahmad Fatty

Recent events surrounding the aborted protest at the headquarters of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) have sparked a wave of commentary, much of it driven by speculation and misinformation. To provide clarity, it is important to separate fact from perception and examine the situation from a legal and civic perspective. First, let us address some of the misleading claims circulating: The police did not act to enforce PURA-approved data tariffs. The police did not intervene to shield the commercial interests of GSM companies. The police did not suppress the protest out of a desire to deny citizens their rights. The police did not act to appease the ruling National People’s Party (NPP). Such assertions are unfounded and amount to deliberate disinformation aimed at undermining public trust in law enforcement. The Legal and Practical Context The choice of protest venue raised legitimate concerns. The PURA building also houses a commercial bank and private offices. Any obstruction could have impeded access to these facilities, caused fear among occupants, and disrupted essential services such as ATMs. Additionally, the site is located next to a foreign diplomatic mission, which carries special protections under international law. Any breakdown of order in such proximity could have serious consequences. A fundamental principle of democracy is that the right to protest does not override the rights of others to access public facilities or private businesses. Peaceful assembly is protected, but obstruction of public life is not. Courts worldwide have consistently upheld this distinction. The Police Mandate Based on these principles, the police had legal grounds to intervene when there was a strong likelihood of disruption. However, intervention should always follow recognized standards: Warnings first: Protesters should be given the chance to relocate. Minimal force: Only the force necessary to restore order should be applied. This approach balances competing rights — protecting freedom of expression while safeguarding access to businesses, public services, and roadways. The Broader Implications The protest site was in the heart of a busy commercial district, along Pipeline Road, one of the country’s most vital highways. The risk of major disruption was undeniable. Well-trained police forces around the world often manage such situations by designating alternative protest areas, a step that should have been part of the organizers’ planning. Civil society organizations, such as the E.F. Small Center, have raised legitimate concerns. These voices are essential in a democracy. Yet, the preferred approach is to exhaust dialogue and legal avenues before resorting to the streets. This builds trust and partnership between citizens and law enforcement, while reinforcing respect for the rule of law. The Way Forward The police are tasked with serving and protecting, not oppressing. Protesters, on the other hand, enjoy the right to assemble and speak freely — but always within the boundaries of the law. The guiding principle remains clear: one must either obey the law or be held accountable under it. Ultimately, citizens must recognize that the State and Government are not separate from us — they are us. Peace, law, and order serve everyone’s best interest. Holding public officials accountable must always be done within the framework of legality. May peace prevail in The Gambia. 🇬🇲