Opinion: Their Own Worst Enemy: When the Minority Defines the Majority

By SutayKuta Sanneh UK

They say perception can be more powerful than truth—and for the United Democratic Party (UDP), that perception is becoming its greatest political liability.

For years, the UDP has battled accusations of tribalism—an image its members insist is undeserved. Loyalists are quick to tell anyone who cares to listen that theirs is a party founded on democratic ideals, inclusion, and justice. But politics, like reputation, is not about what one believes to be true; it’s about what others see and hear. And too often, what the public sees and hears from some self-proclaimed UDP supporters is intolerance, arrogance, and a disturbing sense of entitlement that undermines the party’s noble principles.

When perception begins to mirror reality, defending the indefensible becomes impossible. It’s like the story of a man accused of biting another’s finger during a fight. A witness for the prosecution takes the stand and the defence lawyer asks: “did you see my client bite off that man’s finger?” “No”, says the witness. “Aha” probes the smug lawyer, “How then could you be sure he did it?” Well, I did see him spit it out. 

The UDP remains home to some of the most capable and intellectually versatile individuals in Gambian politics—its human capital is unmatched. Yet, in public discourse, it is not these voices of reason and restraint that dominate. Instead, the loudest microphones often belong to the least reflective—the “opinion snipers” -who are more lethal than IDF Snipers- these people mistake hostility for loyalty and aggression for strength. Furthermore, these few have turned the party’s social spaces into echo chambers where dissent is branded betrayal, alternative views are viewed with suspicion of being a planted spy, and independent thought is punishable by social “boycott.”

In such an environment, the UDP risks alienating precisely the kind of thinkers it needs most—those who can help it evolve from a movement of grievance into a movement of governance.

In his soundtrack song, “Coming Harder” Reggae artist Everton Blender once sang, “To liberate yourself, you have to eliminate some.” The British Labour Party understood this lesson when it purged key figures—including former leader Jeremy Corbyn—to rid itself of the stench of antisemitism. Painful as it was, it was a political exorcism necessary for rebirth. If Labour could cut loose its own heavyweights, what has UDP got to lose by decisively distancing itself from those who cost it credibility, cohesion, and elections? 

Press releases calling for “decorum” no longer suffice. This is not a problem of general indiscipline—it is the behaviour of a few whose loudness amplifies smallness. A serious party cannot afford “attack dogs;” it needs thinkers, strategists, and communicators who can battle ideas with intellect, not insults.

Admittedly, the UDP is not alone in its shortcomings. The ruling National People’s Party (NPP) has its own share of bad-mannered loyalists whose politics seem defined more by sycophancy than service. But let’s resist the comfort of whataboutism. The UDP is not in government; it is the main opposition—and opposition carries the burden of hope. Competing with the NPP in a race to the bottom is like diving headfirst into a dry well. We have witnessed this time and time again. He who was the devil yesterday became an angel today, and he who was an angel yesterday becomes the devil today. All depending on which side one falls on, and we are all meant to accept and blindly agree to this logic too.

The tragedy of Gambian politics is not that we have bad leaders—it’s that we keep rewarding bad behaviour. When party leaders pose for photo-ops with individuals whose conduct is morally bankrupt, the message is one of endorsement. And when political opportunists are celebrated rather than censured, they multiply. As Warren Buffett famously said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

We’ve seen the tide go out recently—and too many have been caught without the cover of principle. We saw this recently, when Sabally was exposed by the low tide and sadly he was not the only naked swimmer in the opposition. That’s not a victory for the NPP; it’s a tragedy for our democracy. The crisis of Gambian politics is not about ethnicity or ideology—it is about integrity. Until political parties, especially the UDP, sanitize their internal culture, our politics will remain a carnival of unprincipled men pretending to be patriots.

My brother once said there are three types of people you cannot advise: an arrogant rich man, a woman in love, and a UDP supporter. Perhaps it’s time the UDP proved him wrong—by showing that self-reflection, not defensiveness, is the true mark of maturity.

Because in the end, a party that cannot discipline itself cannot lead a nation.

You see, we should understand that a whole lot of people didn’t “vote” for Barrow and NPP in the 2021 elections, they just “voted against” Darboe and by extension UDP. 

“When perception becomes stronger than truth, reality ceases to matter—and politics becomes theatre for the blind.” 

Former Staff Sergeant Bobb's Rebuttal To Rtd. colonel Samsudeen Sarr

Rebuttal to Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s Misrepresentation of the First Gambian ECOMOG Contingent

Former Gambia National Army Staff Sergeant Ebou Bobb has strongly refuted the recent claims made by retired Colonel Samsudeen Sarr regarding The Gambia’s first contingent to Liberia in 1990, describing them as false, misleading, and fabricated.

“With utmost respect to my brother and comrade, Colonel Sarr, I am both shocked and disappointed by your attempt to rewrite a history you were never part of. You were not on the ground with us in Liberia, and your version of events is based purely on hearsay. As someone who physically served in that mission as a Platoon Sergeant, I can confidently state that your account is factually wrong and misleading the Gambian people.

We did not fly into Liberia by C-130 or helicopter as you claim. We departed from Ghana aboard the ship Tano River and docked at the Liberian seaport under the protection of Prince Johnson’s faction. There were no jet fighters bombarding Charles Taylor’s rebels, as you alleged.

The two gallant soldiers we lost — L/Cpl Lamin Bojang, a medic, and Pte Sama Jawo, my platoon runner and radio operator — were not killed during the harbouring stage but a week after capturing the Freeport. At that time, Liberia had no electricity, no functioning airport, and no safe landing zone for any C-130. The tragic reality was that there was no possible means to transport their remains back home, which left us with no option but to bury them with dignity on Liberian soil.

Furthermore, your claim of any planned coup meeting in Liberia is baseless and false. Such discussions never took place. We were fully committed to our mission, motivated not by politics or personal gain, but by love for our country and pride in carrying The Gambia’s flag as one of the youngest and smallest contingents in the ECOMOG mission.

Colonel Sarr, I urge you to correct your narrative. True history must be preserved by those who lived it, not distorted for recognition or self-promotion. As soldiers, our service was for country first, and our sacrifices speak louder than any attempt to rewrite the record.”

Editorial:Will UDP Ever Win Presidential Elections?

   

The United Democratic Party (UDP), once considered the largest opposition force in The Gambia, has spent the past few years cultivating a political culture that does more harm than good to its image and chances at national leadership. From 2018 to date, the UDP’s approach—both on the ground and online—has been marked not by persuasion, policy, or principles, but by insults, intimidation, and name-calling.

Those who dare to disagree with UDP positions are not seen as fellow citizens exercising democratic rights but are instead branded as traitors, sellouts, or “less Gambian.” Critics are smeared with the most unimaginable accusations, their ethnicity weaponized, their loyalty questioned. The idea that belonging to a party automatically makes one a “true Mandinka” or a “real Gambian” has poisoned discourse and alienated large swathes of the electorate.

Instead of focusing on educating the people, mobilizing on the basis of the party’s manifesto, or proposing credible solutions to the country’s challenges, the UDP has wasted valuable time on personality attacks and empty rhetoric. Party defectors are insulted as “slaves” or accused of “eating vomit” simply for making political choices. This attitude ignores one fundamental reality of democracy: political support is fluid. No party can expect loyalty without accountability, and no party can grow by insulting those who leave.

This toxic politics has consequences. In 2021, the UDP suffered a humiliating defeat, despite boasting of being the strongest opposition. The reason is simple—politics is about winning hearts, not breaking spirits. It is about building coalitions, not burning bridges. It is about offering hope, not threats. And until the UDP recognizes that, it will continue to lose.

  

The old saying is true: there are no permanent friends in politics, only permanent interests. The electorate is not obliged to stand by anyone’s words just to prove loyalty. People support parties and leaders who reflect their aspirations, who show respect, and who can deliver progress. If the UDP fails to shift from divisive rhetoric to constructive politics, the question is not whether it can win, but whether it can even remain relevant in the years ahead.

Bombshell In UDP As Dr. Lamin J. Darbo Resigns from UDP, Citing “Principled Departure

By Jarranews Staff Reporter

Prominent legal scholar and political advocate Dr. Lamin J. Darbo has formally resigned from the United Democratic Party (UDP), citing what he described as a “principled departure” motivated by his commitment to democratic renewal and civic transformation in The Gambia.

In a letter addressed to the party’s Senior Administrative Secretary, Hon. Alhagie S. Darboe, Dr. Darbo outlined his reasons for stepping down, stressing that his political journey was never about personal ambition but about helping build a republic rooted in fairness, accountability, and good governance.

“The UDP’s role in resisting tyranny is well established, and I was honored to lend my voice and intellect to that struggle,” he wrote, recalling his involvement in strategy meetings with party leader Ousainu Darboe and his participation in legal defenses during the high-profile Solo Sandeng electoral reform trials.

However, Dr. Darbo said the party’s internal culture had become increasingly incompatible with his values. He criticized what he saw as a leadership style that “values loyalty over competence, silence over scrutiny, and expediency over principle.”

He also pointed to opaque internal processes, citing the 2021 flagbearer selection in which he was denied even an interview. “A party that cannot govern itself transparently cannot credibly promise and manage national transformation,” he declared.

Dr. Darbo emphasized that his resignation should not be seen as retreat but as a reaffirmation of his “higher civic mission.” He outlined a vision for The Gambia that includes transparent governance, zero tolerance for corruption, equitable access to education and healthcare, greater youth empowerment, and stronger engagement with the Gambian diaspora.

Addressing his colleagues and supporters within the UDP, Dr. Darbo expressed respect and solidarity, while urging the party to return to its founding values. “The UDP has immense potential to remain a vehicle of democratic renewal—but only if it returns to fairness and transparency,” he stated.

To the wider Gambian public, he reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to justice and national progress, concluding with an appeal for unity and dignity:

“May future generations inherit a worthy republic enshrined in the values of fairness and dignity—with malice toward none, with charity for all.”

REBUTTAL TO DISGRACED TOMBONG SAIDY

Here’s a sharp and uncompromising rebuttal to Tombong Saidy’s 

Tombong Saidy, before you parade yourself as a voice of moral authority, remind Gambians why you were disgracefully expelled from the United States — not for diplomacy, not for statesmanship, but for domestic violence. You carry the shame of a former Yahya Jammeh enabler who defended tyranny and fed off a dictatorship that brutalized Gambians for over two decades. You, of all people, are the least qualified to lecture anyone about leadership, responsibility, or morality.

Let’s dismantle your cheap propaganda point by point:

1. On UNGA Attendance

Is it compulsory for a Head of State to attend the UNGA every year? The answer is NO. Many times, Vice Presidents, Foreign Ministers, or other senior officials represent their countries. Did you conveniently forget that under Yahya Jammeh — the dictator you loyally served — Isatou Njie-Saidy, as Vice President, represented The Gambia at the UNGA on multiple occasions? Did you cry “failure of leadership” then? Or were you too busy polishing Jammeh’s boots and covering his crimes?

Even powerful nations such as China, Russia, and India have frequently sent Foreign Ministers or Vice Presidents to represent them. Presence at the UNGA is important, yes, but it is not a litmus test of leadership. The work of diplomacy extends far beyond one stage in New York.

2. On Palestine and Global Responsibility

Your hypocrisy is deafening. You pretend to care about Palestine today, yet you were a senior diplomat of Yahya Jammeh when he weaponized the Palestinian cause for cheap political clout while repressing Gambians at home. Spare us the crocodile tears. President Barrow’s government has already demonstrated concrete leadership on justice and human rights at the ICJ — something your Jammeh regime never dared because it was busy committing crimes against humanity.

3. On Leadership Legacy

You shamelessly invoke Sir Dawda Jawara’s legacy of statesmanship, but you forget that you betrayed everything Jawara stood for by serving a regime that overthrew him. You were part of the machinery that destroyed The Gambia’s global reputation, turned our embassies into dens of corruption, and reduced our passports to tools for drug traffickers and mercenaries. If you had any respect for Jawara’s diplomacy, you would start by apologizing to Gambians for being an accomplice to Jammeh’s 22-year reign of terror.

4. On Domestic Issues

You dare lecture President Barrow about the economy and leadership while ignoring the rot you and your fellow disgraced Jammeh loyalists left behind. You talk about “economic uncertainty” but forget the empty state coffers Jammeh fled with in 2017. You forget the institutional decay, the collapsed infrastructure, and the culture of fear your government entrenched. Barrow is rebuilding step by step, while you — disgraced and rejected — cling to cheap propaganda in hopes of relevance.

---

Tombong, here is the truth:

Your arguments are misleading, misguided, and tainted with hypocrisy. President Barrow’s absence from one UNGA does not erase The Gambia’s voice on global justice, nor does it diminish his government’s ongoing commitment to international diplomacy. What it does expose, however, is your desperation to remain relevant after being discarded in disgrace.

Instead of spewing lies against President Barrow, you should focus on cleaning up the mess you left behind — and maybe, just maybe, finally atone for the shameful chapter you wrote in Gambian diplomacy.

The Gambian people have not forgotten who you are. And no amount of empty rhetoric will wash away your disgrace.

Finally. You better go and solve the mess you and your fellow vultures put Talib Ahmed Bensouda . How about the contracts Talib Ahmed Bensouda gave to you and others without delivering. Shame on You Old Boy.

By Yaya Dampha Coordinator NPP DIASPORA 

-

EU Backs Fresh Drive to Boost “Made in Gambia” Brand

By Madi S. Njie

Banjul, September 19, 2025 – The European Union, through its Youth Empowerment Project (YEP), is stepping up efforts to put Gambian-made products on the global map, with a renewed focus on strengthening homegrown industries and widening export opportunities.

The initiative, managed by the International Trade Centre (ITC) under its Trade and Investment Policy Unit, is sharpening its priorities to make Gambian businesses more competitive, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable.

Over the past week, stakeholders gathered in Banjul for a series of workshops (September 16–19), where experts and policymakers examined reforms on regulations, intellectual property rights, and eco-friendly procurement. Follow-up sessions on investment facilitation are slated for September 22–23.

Five New Priority Areas

EU Trade Consultant Dev Chamroo, who co-facilitated the sessions, unveiled five focus areas:

1. Strengthening legal and regulatory frameworks.

2. Creating a more business-friendly environment.

3. Expanding access to domestic and international markets.

4. Rolling out nationwide advocacy campaigns.

5. Integrating ICT across industries.

He emphasized that with collaboration and the right policies, the Made in Gambia label could become a catalyst for job creation, stronger exports, and a renewed sense of national pride.

Target Sectors

The plan gives prominence to agro-processing (such as cereals, spices, and beverages), creative industries (including fashion, handicrafts, film, textiles, and music), and service sectors like tourism, fintech, and e-commerce. Women- and youth-led enterprises will remain central to the initiative.

Implementation will be spearheaded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment (MoTIE), with the Gambia Investment and Export Promotion Agency (GIEPA) serving as the lead executing body.

Stakeholders’ Voices

At the gathering, Hassoum Ceesay, Director General of the National Centre for Arts and Culture (NCAC), underscored the importance of building capacity and ensuring existing laws are effectively enforced.

Meanwhile, procurement specialist Dr. Kamala Dawar urged the government to adopt Green Public Procurement (GPP) as a tool for both sustainable development and SME empowerment. She noted that in many developing countries, public procurement accounts for as much as 40 percent of GDP—making it a powerful lever to support climate action and inclusive growth.

Although The Gambia’s Public Procurement Act 2022 already embeds sustainability provisions, Dr. Dawar stressed that implementation must be reinforced through transparent systems, monitoring mechanisms, training, and targeted support for small businesses.

“Government spending has the power to reshape the economy and society,” she said. “The challenge is to ensure green procurement is binding, transparent, and inclusive.”

A Call for Donor fatigue Patriotism or Personal Vendetta?

       

A recent article titled “Gambia on the Brink: Donor Partners Must Act Before Democracy Collapses” is not an objective assessment of governance in The Gambia. Rather, it is a bitter vendetta from an individual whose personal ambitions were not fulfilled. This critic once sought appointment into high office within the national broadcaster, and upon being denied such a position, turned to foreign platforms to peddle misinformation about the government.

This rebuttal will address the claims point by point, using the principles of law, governance, and truth.

1. On the Question of Presidential Mandate and Tenure

The critic argues that President Barrow “abandoned his transitional mandate” and is maneuvering for a third term. This is misleading.

The 1997 Gambian Constitution—the supreme law of the land—does not impose term limits on the presidency. President Barrow, like any citizen, has the right to contest elections in accordance with the constitution.

The claim that he personally blocked the 2020 draft constitution is false. The draft was rejected by the National Assembly, not the president. In a democracy, it is the legislature—not one man—that has the authority to pass or reject laws.

Seeking reelection under the current constitution is not illegal, nor is it undemocratic. It is the exercise of constitutional rights, which should be respected.

2. On Corruption Allegations

The sweeping accusations of corruption lack both evidence and context.

The government has established multiple Commissions of Inquiry—including the Janneh Commission, the Local Government Commission, and others—which have exposed corruption and recommended corrective measures. These were not set up by “dictators,” but by President Barrow himself, showing his commitment to transparency.

All recommendations from the commissions and audit reports are being democratically handled. Some cases are under prosecution, others are awaiting final approval from the Attorney General’s office, while in the case of the TRRC, reparations for victims have already begun. Victims are currently being informed of a planned rollout of final compensation. This is proof that the government is implementing reforms through lawful channels, not ignoring them.

COVID-19 funds: The Auditor General’s report identified administrative lapses, but no credible evidence links the president or his family to misappropriation. Where irregularities were found, the government has taken steps to strengthen financial controls.

Allegations of “$40 million projects awarded without due process” are unsubstantiated. All major public procurement processes pass through the GPPA (Gambia Public Procurement Authority), an independent statutory body.

The critic conveniently ignores the progress made in the digitalization of government procurement systems and the strengthening of the National Audit Office—clear markers of institutional growth under Barrow’s leadership.

3. On Institutional Independence

The article claims that Barrow is “dismantling institutions.” The facts show otherwise:

The Auditor General was not “illegally dismissed.” Public officers can be reassigned in accordance with the Constitution and Public Service Commission regulations. His appointment as minister is neither unconstitutional nor evidence of “suppression.”

The Central Bank, National Audit Office, and the Judiciary remain independent bodies established by law. Their reports are published publicly and debated openly in the National Assembly.

Under Barrow, the media space has flourished: dozens of private radio stations, TV outlets, and online platforms—including those used by the critic—operate freely, something unthinkable under Jammeh’s dictatorship.

4. On Human Rights and Protest

The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and assembly, but it also allows the state to regulate public gatherings for security and public order. This is standard in all democracies.

Where protesters were arrested, it was based on violations of the Public Order Act, not political vendetta. Gambian courts remain open for redress, and no citizen is above the law.

Unlike during the Jammeh era, no journalist has been killed, disappeared, or permanently silenced under Barrow’s government. This is a historic shift.

5. On Donor Relations and “Fatigue”

Perhaps the most reckless claim is the call for “donor fatigue” against The Gambia.

No patriotic Gambian who loves their country will advocate for donors to withdraw support from vital projects in health, education, and infrastructure that benefit ordinary citizens.

President Barrow’s government continues to enjoy strong partnerships with the EU, World Bank, IMF, and bilateral partners, who have praised The Gambia’s democratic reforms and economic recovery strategies.

To call for donor sanctions is not advocacy for democracy—it is sabotage against the Gambian people.

6. On the Role of Civil Society and Opposition

The critic pretends to champion civil society and opposition but fails to recognize that:

Civil society organizations freely operate, hold press conferences, and release reports without intimidation.

Opposition parties, including UDP, PDOIS, GDC, and others, are active, hold rallies across the country, and contest elections without hindrance.

The National Assembly is more assertive than ever, summoning ministers and debating critical issues. That is the essence of checks and balances.

Conclusion: Truth over Vendetta

This article is not about democracy—it is about personal frustration. Bitterness over unfulfilled personal ambition cannot justify a campaign of lies against a sitting president who was freely and fairly elected by the Gambian people.

The NPP government under President Barrow stands on the principles of democracy, rule of law, and good governance. Gambians have not forgotten the dictatorship they emerged from in 2016, and they will never allow individuals with grudges to distort reality for selfish ends.

Patriotism means building, not destroying; correcting, not sabotaging. Calling for “donor fatigue” is a betrayal of The Gambia’s progress and an insult to the ordinary people who rely on international partnerships for development.

The Gambian people deserve better than propaganda disguised as journalism.

Yaya Dampha 

Why President Barrow Was Right to Remove Auditor-General Modou Ceesay

By Retired Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr

       

The recent uproar over the removal of Auditor-General Modou Ceesay has been dramatized by critics as a constitutional crisis. In reality, it is not the Constitution that is under assault, but professionalism and decorum. What the nation witnessed was not a breakdown of democratic order, but a textbook case of insubordination cloaked in the language of political martyrdom.

     

At the center of the issue is not Section 158 of the 1997 Constitution—itself unambiguous in giving the President authority to appoint and, when necessary, dismiss the Auditor-General for “inability,” “incompetence,” or “misbehavior.” Rather, the issue is Mr. Ceesay’s reckless decision to abandon discretion, defy professional norms, and drift into opposition politics.

When he publicly accused the President of fabricating a story about his supposed acceptance of the Trade Ministry, Mr. Ceesay crossed a red line. Internal consultations of that nature should have been handled privately, not paraded in the press as a public challenge to the Head of State. Once an Auditor-General brands the President of the Republic a liar in the public arena, the relationship of trust is irreparably broken.

           

The Auditor-General’s Office is not just another government department. It is the guardian of public finance, an institution that depends on integrity, restraint, and mutual trust with the executive. Without that trust, the credibility of the office collapses.

Instead of seeking constructive dialogue, Mr. Ceesay chose confrontation. Worse, he sought refuge in the arms of opposition lawyers and activists, turning himself from a neutral financial watchdog into a partisan combatant in an election season. His decision to retain senior lawyer Lamin J. Darbo—himself a recent aspirant for the UDP presidential candidacy—was hardly a coincidence. It was a political statement, one that transformed the matter from a constitutional query into a partisan campaign.

This raises the uncomfortable but necessary question: was Mr. Ceesay ever functioning as an impartial Auditor-General, or had he long been aligned with the opposition while masquerading as an independent civil servant? His actions suggest the latter.

President Barrow has both the duty to lead and the obligation to defend the integrity of state institutions. The National Audit Office must remain above politics, not dragged into the mud of party rivalries. Allowing its head to openly undermine the presidency, humiliate the Head of State, and politicize the institution would have been a dereliction of that duty.

Critics who shout “constitutional violation” conveniently ignore that misbehavior is a recognized and legitimate ground for dismissal. What greater misbehavior exists than to turn a constitutionally independent office into a weapon for opposition politics while publicly ridiculing the President?

From Abu Denton and M.I. Secka to Karamba Touray under Yahya Jammeh, Gambian Auditor-Generals have discharged their duties with professionalism, tact, and respect for state institutions. None ever dragged the presidency into a public credibility contest. Mr. Ceesay’s conduct is unprecedented—and unacceptable.

This is not about stifling independence; it is about safeguarding the dignity of public office. Mr. Ceesay’s refusal to vacate his post, his public accusations against the President, and his overt embrace of opposition allies all constitute clear grounds of misbehavior under the Constitution.

By removing him, President Barrow did not weaken the Audit Office. He preserved it from descending into partisan warfare. Leadership is not always about doing what is popular. It is about doing what is necessary to protect the state and its institutions.

For that reason, President Barrow was right—firmly and unambiguously right—to act.

Anti-Corruption Law and the Pursuit of Good Governance in The Gambia_

By: Saidou DM Camara 

Good governance has become one of the most important benchmarks of democratic consolidation in Africa, and The Gambia is no exception. As a political and legal ideal, good governance emphasizes transparency, accountability, participation, and the supremacy of the rule of law. Yet, in The Gambia, as in many countries with fragile democracies, corruption continues to undermine these aspirations. The abuse of public office for private gain not only erodes public trust but also deprives the state of resources necessary for development, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality.

In the Gambian context, the legacy of authoritarianism under former President Yahya Jammeh left behind entrenched practices of graft, weak institutions, and a culture of impunity. Since the democratic transition of 2017, the Barrow administration has faced increasing pressure from citizens and the international community to confront corruption through both political and legal reforms. The drafting of the Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, alongside other measures such as the Access to Information Act (2021), reflects attempts to align domestic law with global anti-corruption standards. However, challenges of enforcement, institutional weakness, and political interference remain significant obstacles.

This essay critically examines the role of anti-corruption law in promoting good governance in The Gambia. It argues that while legal reforms provide an essential foundation, their effectiveness depends on strong institutions, political will, and citizen participation. The essay begins by defining corruption as a threat to governance, before analyzing the legal and institutional frameworks in The Gambia. It then considers the judiciary’s role, implementation challenges, and the reforms required to move towards a governance system that is transparent, accountable, and just.

Corruption as a Threat to Good Governance

Corruption is often defined in legal terms as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Politically, it is a distortion of governance systems, undermining equality, efficiency, and legitimacy. The African Union has declared corruption as one of the greatest obstacles to development, recognizing its impact on weakening democratic institutions and diverting resources from essential services.

In The Gambia, corruption manifests in several ways: bribery within public administration, misappropriation of state funds, nepotism in appointments, and manipulation of procurement processes. The Jammeh era was marked by an unprecedented personalization of state resources, where state coffers were routinely plundered for private enrichment. The Janneh Commission Report (2019) revealed staggering levels of mismanagement and theft, estimating that over US$300 million was diverted from public accounts under Jammeh’s rule. Such corruption not only deprived Gambians of development but also entrenched authoritarianism by concentrating wealth and power in the executive.

The link between corruption and poor governance is clear. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) consistently shows a correlation between high levels of corruption and low levels of governance quality. In the Gambian context, corruption has eroded trust in institutions such as the judiciary, the legislature, and public administration.

Good governance requires accountability, but corruption corrodes the very institutions that provide oversight. Instead of acting as guardians of the rule of law, compromised institutions perpetuate impunity. This dynamic explains why combating corruption is not merely a matter of legality but a cornerstone of governance reform (Johnston, 2014).

Legal and Institutional Frameworks Against Corruption in The Gambia

Existing Frameworks

The Gambia has taken important steps to develop anti-corruption frameworks. The Access to Information Act (2021) marked a significant milestone by granting citizens the right to demand transparency from public institutions (Amnesty International, 2021). The government has also tabled the Anti-Corruption Commission Bill, designed to establish an independent commission mandated to investigate and prosecute corruption.

Other institutions, such as the Office of the Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), and the National Audit Office, play oversight roles. Additionally, The Gambia is a signatory to international and regional instruments such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC).

Strengths and Weaknesses

These frameworks demonstrate a commitment to reform, but challenges persist. The Access to Information Act provides transparency but requires strong enforcement mechanisms to be effective. The Anti-Corruption Commission Bill remains under discussion and has not yet delivered tangible results. Institutions such as the PAC are constrained by inadequate resources, lack of technical expertise, and occasional political interference.

The Gambia’s experience highlights a broader African challenge: anti-corruption laws often exist in theory but remain weak in practice (Mbaku, 2020). Without strong institutional independence and adequate funding, legal reforms risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than tools for transformation.

The Role of Law in Promoting Good Governance

The rule of law is central to good governance. When enforced impartially, anti-corruption laws create accountability structures that restrain abuse of power. In The Gambia, this means empowering courts, oversight bodies, and the public to demand compliance from leaders.

For example, legal measures against illicit enrichment or asset declaration can deter corrupt practices. Judicial independence is also vital: a judiciary compromised by political influence cannot impartially adjudicate corruption cases (Fombad, 2017). In The Gambia, the judiciary has made strides in asserting its independence, but its capacity to handle complex financial crimes remains limited.

Comparative experiences provide useful insights. Ghana’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) offers a model of an independent anti-corruption body with broad investigatory powers. Rwanda’s success in reducing petty corruption through institutional reforms and strict enforcement also demonstrates the importance of political will. Botswana’s Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) is often cited as a benchmark for African anti-corruption institutions. These cases suggest that The Gambia must strengthen institutional capacity while ensuring political insulation.

Challenges in Implementation

Political Interference

One of the greatest challenges is political interference. Corruption thrives where political elites manipulate institutions for personal or partisan gain. In The Gambia, concerns have been raised that anti-corruption efforts may be selective, targeting political opponents while sparing allies (Transparency International, 2022).

Weak Institutional Capacity

Institutions charged with oversight often lack adequate funding, technical expertise, or autonomy. For example, the Auditor General’s reports are frequently delayed, limiting their effectiveness. Similarly, the National Audit Office faces logistical constraints that undermine its independence.

Cultural and Systemic Factors

Corruption is not only institutional but also cultural. Decades of authoritarian rule normalized patronage and bribery. In such contexts, corruption can become embedded in social and political life, making legal reforms difficult to enforce.

Public Apathy

Citizens often view anti-corruption measures with skepticism, perceiving them as symbolic rather than substantive. Without visible prosecutions or recovery of stolen assets, public confidence in anti-corruption initiatives declines.

Towards Strengthening Anti-Corruption and Good Governance

Institutional Independence

Independent anti-corruption institutions are critical. The proposed Anti-Corruption Commission must be shielded from political influence and granted prosecutorial powers. Adequate funding and capacity-building are essential.

Whistleblower Protections and Civic Education

Laws protecting whistleblowers and investigative journalists must be enacted and enforced. Civic education can also shift cultural attitudes by emphasizing the social costs of corruption.

Digital Reforms

E-governance and open data systems can reduce opportunities for corruption by automating processes and improving transparency. For example, digital procurement systems limit human discretion in public contracts.

International and Regional Cooperation

As corruption often involves cross-border financial flows, regional cooperation is vital. The Gambia can leverage platforms such as ECOWAS to strengthen asset recovery and financial intelligence mechanisms.

Conclusion

Anti-corruption law is not merely a legal tool but a governance imperative. In The Gambia, combating corruption is central to democratic consolidation, sustainable development, and public trust. While progress has been made through legislation such as the Access to Information Act and the proposed Anti-Corruption Commission, success will depend on political will, independent institutions, and citizen engagement.

The Gambian case illustrates a broader truth: laws alone cannot defeat corruption. They must be transformed into living instruments of accountability, backed by institutions that are independent, transparent, and trusted by citizens. In this sense, anti-corruption law is both a test and a measure of good governance. If The Gambia succeeds, it will not only strengthen its democracy but also serve as a model for other nations seeking to overcome the corrosive effects of corruption.

References:

Amnesty International. (2021). The Gambia: Access to Information Act a step forward for transparency. Amnesty International.

Fombad, C. M. (2017). Separation of Powers and Constitutionalism in Africa: The Case of Botswana. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 35(2), 183–203.

Johnston, M. (2014). Corruption, Contention and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge University Press.

Mbaku, J. M. (2020). Corruption in Africa: Causes, Consequences, and Cleanups. Lexington Books.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (2016). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge University Press.

Transparency International. (2022). Corruption Perceptions Index 2022: The Gambia.5 Transparency International.

Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). (2021). Final Report of the TRRC, The Gambia. Banjul.

Stop Misleading the Youth: Courts, Not Streets, Are the Path to Justice

In every democracy, rules, laws, and institutions form the backbone of governance. The Gambia is no different. When a new Auditor General, Mr. Cherno Amadou Sowe, was duly appointed to head the National Audit Office, every public servant within the institution had a duty to respect and comply with his leadership. Disobedience of lawful instructions from the legitimate head of the NAO is not only a dereliction of duty but also a direct assault on the very democracy some claim to defend.

Let us be clear: if anyone—whether staff of the NAO or ordinary citizens—believes the removal of Mr. Modou Ceesay was unconstitutional, the courts are the right and only avenue to challenge such a decision. That is how democracy functions. Disputes are settled through legal and constitutional mechanisms, not through inciting civil servants to rebellion or misleading the youth onto the streets.

Those now encouraging staff resistance and mobilizing the youth to defy lawful authority are not defenders of democracy. They are its enemies. For democracy does not mean doing as one pleases; it means abiding by the rule of law even when we disagree with decisions. To insist otherwise is to flirt with anarchy and to recklessly endanger the lives and futures of young Gambians who may be lured into confrontations that will only end in prison cells.

The National Audit Office was established as an independent body to safeguard accountability and transparency, not to become a political battlefield. By refusing to carry out their duties under the new Auditor General, some staff are betraying their professional oaths, undermining the credibility of the institution, and painting The Gambia as a lawless state where authority is mocked rather than respected.

Those agitating for confrontation must answer difficult questions:

Is refusing lawful instructions from a recognized office holder not itself a violation of the Constitution?

Can an institution retain its independence and credibility if its staff place personal allegiances above legal obligations?

Who benefits when Gambian youths are misled into the streets instead of being guided to lawful avenues of redress?

If indeed one believes in democracy, then let us practice what we preach. The courts are open, the Constitution is clear, and the law provides remedies. Resorting to intimidation, insubordination, or street lawlessness is not the way forward—it is the surest path to chaos.

The Gambia deserves disciplined institutions, not divided ones. The NAO must realign itself with its lawful leadership, perform its constitutional role with integrity, and allow those who disagree with government decisions to pursue their grievances through the courts. That is the democratic way. That is the Gambian way.

Enough with the theatrics. Enough with misleading the youth. Let us stand for democracy by standing for law, order, and constitutionalism.

Police, Justice Ministry Hold Consultative Meeting on Security and Justice Delivery

Banjul, September 17, 2025 — The Gambia Police Force (GPF) on Wednesday hosted a high-level consultative meeting with a visiting delegation from the Ministry of Justice’s Special Prosecution Office. The talks, held at Police Headquarters, focused on strengthening collaboration in security and justice delivery.

The meeting brought together members of the GPF Senior Management Team and officers from the Legal and Prosecution Unit. Chairing the session, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Operations) Pateh Jallow reaffirmed the Force’s commitment to building strategic partnerships that reinforce national security, the rule of law, and effective justice systems.

Dr. Samuel Akorima, Security Lead of the Special Prosecution Advanced Team, delivered the main presentation, highlighting three thematic areas for cooperation. He stressed the importance of closer coordination to combat crime, enhance prosecutions, and safeguard justice.

Officials say the engagement will deepen institutional synergy, strengthen internal security mechanisms, and foster stronger collaboration between the two institutions. The initiative is described as an important step toward consolidating peace, stability, and justice in The Gambia.

DLEAG Registers Landmark Seizure of Over 400,000 Ecstasy Pills

By Jarranewstv Staff Writer

The Drug Law Enforcement Agency, The Gambia (DLEAG), has recorded a major breakthrough in its fight against narcotics, seizing more than 401,000 pills of suspected ecstasy in what authorities describe as a landmark operation.

The month-long sting, which culminated on September 16, 2025, led to the arrest of two Gambian nationals and the confiscation of drugs with an estimated street value of D40 million at wholesale.

According to DLEAG, the first arrest was made at London Corner in Serrekunda, where Fallou Cham was taken into custody with 1,767 pills of ecstasy in his possession. Investigators say Cham’s arrest led to the discovery of a bunker residence in Sukuta, where officers uncovered 11 suitcases containing 80 packets of ecstasy. Each packet was filled with 5,000 pills, bringing the total haul to hundreds of thousands of tablets.

In addition to the drugs, operatives seized significant sums of cash suspected to be proceeds of the illicit trade, including D967,700, 176,000 CFA, and €50,100.

Further investigations prompted the arrest of Mariama Jawara at her residence in Brufut. Preliminary findings suggest the narcotics were shipped from Holland, with Jawara allegedly playing a central role in coordinating the operations. Officials say her husband, believed to be residing in Holland, is connected to the shipments.

Both suspects remain in custody

“Africa at the Crossroads: Navigating China’s Rise, Russia’s Return, and the Quest for Reparative Sovereignty

By Lang Fafa Dampha

From Parade to Power Play: China's Military Assertion, Russia's Resurgence, and Africa's Struggle for Reparative Sovereignty

 

The recent military parade in Beijing was more than a demonstration of growing technological sophistication. It marked a strategic signal of China's ambition to reshape the global order. For African nations, this is not a remote or abstract development. Rather, it offers a convergence of new opportunities and deep challenges. These shifts must be analysed against the background of Africa’s enduring historical trauma : slavery, colonialism, apartheid, and economic marginalisation by the West. In this evolving landscape, China and Russia present alternative paradigms that simultaneously disrupt and replicate aspects of Western engagement. Understanding this complex geopolitical recalibration requires a sober examination of Africa’s past, present, and its pursuit of future autonomy.

Africa’s relationship with the West has been defined by systemic exploitation. The transatlantic slave trade decimated populations and disrupted indigenous societies, inaugurating centuries of forced labour and dispossession. This was followed by colonial partition during the so-called Scramble for Africa, when European powers drew arbitrary borders that disregarded ethnic and cultural realities. The colonial imperative was not development, but extraction. Africa’s raw materials were funneled into the engines of industrialisation in Europe and North America, while indigenous economies were stunted to ensure dependency.

Post-independence did not bring true liberation. Instead, a new form of neocolonial control emerged through financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Structural adjustment programmes undermined public services, prioritising debt repayment over social investment. Western alliances with autocratic regimes, justified by Cold War geopolitics or access to strategic resources, further destabilised democratic development. Even the global struggle against apartheid, which took decades of advocacy, exposed how Western governments often prioritised ideological alliances over fundamental human rights.

China’s emergence as a central actor in African development presents an alternative approach. Through mechanisms such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation and the Belt and Road Initiative, China frames its engagement around mutual benefit, infrastructure development, and a policy of non-interference in domestic governance.

This pragmatic approach appeals to many African leaders. Unlike Western donors who attach political and ideological conditions to loans and aid, China often provides infrastructure investments in the form of roads, railways, ports, energy systems, without public demands for governance reform. This model directly addresses the continent’s critical infrastructure deficits and is seen as less intrusive than traditional Western prescriptions.

However, the relationship is not without complications. Critics have raised concerns about the risk of debt dependency and the possible forfeiture of strategic assets, as evidenced by Sri Lanka’s experience with the Hambantota Port. There is also a risk of perpetuating extractive dynamics where raw materials leave the continent in exchange for imported manufactured goods, thereby suppressing African industrialisation.

 Furthermore, China's non-interference doctrine can embolden repressive regimes by shielding them from international scrutiny.

The growing influence of China, and to a lesser extent Russia, has prompted a defensive reaction from the West. The United States has launched new initiatives such as Prosper Africa and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which emphasise market-driven development and private sector growth. The European Union has responded with its Global Gateway initiative, intended as a counterweight to China's infrastructure investments.

However, these efforts are often undermined by historical baggage. Many African observers remain skeptical of Western rhetoric about democracy and transparency, particularly when it comes from former colonial powers with a long record of backing authoritarian regimes. Moreover, Western media portrayals of African leaders' engagements with China or Russia often carry an implicitly condescending tone. Such moralising fails to acknowledge the historical role of the West in undermining African sovereignty and is increasingly dismissed by African audiences as an effort to preserve declining influence.

Alongside China, Russia has reasserted its presence in Africa, primarily through military cooperation, energy deals, and political alignment. Moscow’s appeal lies partly in its vocal critique of Western imperialism and its support for alternative power structures. Russia’s engagement, often focused on security training and arms sales, has been particularly significant in countries grappling with insurgencies or internal instability.

While the ideological appeal of Russia is limited, its symbolic value as a counterweight to Western dominance resonates with some African governments. The deepening of ties between Africa and Russia was visibly reinforced in forums like the Russia-Africa Summit and the broader Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), where the language of multipolarity and sovereign equality takes precedence over conditional diplomacy.

Amid this global power competition, Africa should no longer be a passive recipient of foreign interests. The African Union’s Agenda 2063 sets out an ambitious vision for integration, prosperity, and peace. The African Continental Free Trade Area aims to redefine the continent’s economic architecture and reduce dependency on external powers.

African governments are increasingly adept at playing global powers against each other to extract more favorable terms.

This emerging multipolar order offers African nations unprecedented leverage. For the first time in modern history, African countries can reject unfavorable terms and seek partnerships that align more closely with their national priorities.

The symbolism of China’s military parade should be interpreted not only as a declaration of Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions but also as an indication of broader transformations in the global order. The era of unchallenged Western hegemony appears to be drawing to a close. For Africa, this moment presents the potential to dismantle the historically coercive structures that have impeded its development and autonomy, provided that African states cultivate strategic coherence, institutional discipline, and long-term self-reliance. 

The challenge now lies in avoiding a replacement of one set of dependencies with another. True sovereignty will require African states to develop robust institutions, foster intra-African trade, and prioritise long-term capacity building over short-term gains. The goal is not merely independence but reparative sovereignty, a geopolitical and economic condition in which historical injustices are acknowledged and addressed, and where Africa is empowered to define its future on its own terms.

UDP Finally Admits Defeat in 2021 Elections?

By JarraNews

For years, the United Democratic Party (UDP) has fed its supporters a familiar story whenever it loses at the ballot box — that the people’s will was stolen, that votes were tampered with, or that ballot boxes were stuffed. But is the party at last admitting, albeit grudgingly, that it was soundly beaten in the 2021 presidential elections?