By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator
Sweden
Isac Jammeh’s recent piece attempting to portray former President Yahya Jammeh as being constitutionally immune from accountability reveals a deep misunderstanding of The Gambia’s 1997 Constitution and basic principles of law. His arguments are not only legally flawed but also factually incorrect and intellectually inconsistent. A careful reading of the Constitution itself exposes the weakness of his claims.
1. There Is No Constitutional Immunity for Yahya Jammeh
Contrary to Isac Jammeh’s assertion, the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia does not grant lifelong immunity to any former president. The relevant provision, Section 69, gives only temporary immunity while in office, and even that is limited.
Section 69(1)–(2) states that:
“No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against any person while holding or performing the functions of the Office of President in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in his or her private capacity.”
However, Section 69(3) goes further:
“After a president has vacated office, no court proceedings shall be instituted against him or her in respect of any act done or omitted to be done in his or her official capacity unless the National Assembly has passed a resolution with not less than two-thirds majority for such proceedings to be instituted.”
In plain language, once a president leaves office, the National Assembly can lift immunity. Therefore, Yahya Jammeh is not untouchable. The Constitution itself provides a legal pathway for holding him accountable.
To claim that “Yahya Jammeh has nothing to answer to the Gambian people” is a gross distortion of constitutional reality.
2. The 1997 Constitution’s Legitimacy Does Not Shield Crimes
Isac Jammeh argues that since the 1997 Constitution was passed by referendum, it somehow sanctifies everything that happened under it. That is a false and dangerous argument.
A law’s legitimacy does not absolve crimes committed under its cover. Apartheid South Africa had a constitution; so did Nazi Germany. Their existence did not cleanse the crimes committed under those regimes.
The fact that Gambians adopted the 1997 Constitution does not mean they surrendered their right to seek justice against tyranny, corruption, or state-sponsored crimes. The Constitution was never intended to shield any individual from accountability.
3. Retroactivity and Accountability: A Misapplied Argument
It is true that laws cannot be made retroactively to punish someone for past actions — but that principle is irrelevant here.
No one is creating a new law to prosecute Yahya Jammeh. The acts attributed to him — murder, torture, corruption, enforced disappearances, and crimes against humanity — were already crimes under Gambian and international law when they were committed.
Therefore, invoking “non-retroactivity” is nothing more than a legal smokescreen. You cannot hide murder and theft behind legal technicalities.
4. The Ghanaian Victims Case Is Not “Closed”
Isac Jammeh’s claim that the killing of over 50 West African migrants in 2005 — including Ghanaians — was “settled” and “closed” is another gross misrepresentation.
Yes, there was diplomatic engagement and limited compensation paid through the Ghanaian government after ECOWAS intervention, but that was a political arrangement, not a judicial resolution.
The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) later found that Yahya Jammeh personally ordered those killings, making it a matter of international criminal responsibility.
Under international law, crimes against humanity are not subject to immunity or limitation. They remain prosecutable regardless of time, office, or prior settlements.
5. The Same Constitution Empowered the TRRC and Janneh Commission
Perhaps the most self-defeating part of Isac Jammeh’s argument is his claim that “any court or commission to judge Yahya Jammeh is illegal.”
In fact, it is the very 1997 Constitution he relies on that empowered both the government and the president to establish the TRRC, the Janneh Commission, and other lawful inquiries.
Section 200(1) of the Constitution explicitly empowers the President to:
“Establish a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into any matter of public concern.”
Under this same constitutional authority:
The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) was created by an Act of Parliament to investigate human rights violations from 1994 to 2017.
The Janneh Commission was established by the President to investigate Yahya Jammeh’s illicit financial dealings and corruption.
Both commissions — operating fully within the 1997 constitutional framework — found Yahya Jammeh criminally and financially liable for serious violations and abuses.
Therefore, to claim that these commissions are “illegal” is to contradict the very Constitution Isac Jammeh claims to defend.
You cannot invoke the Constitution to protect Jammeh while rejecting the constitutional mechanisms that expose his crimes.
6. Law Is Law — and Justice Must Follow
Yes, law is law — as Isac Jammeh says — but he fails to understand what that means.
The law is not a personal shield for the powerful; it is the collective instrument of justice for the people.
The same 1997 Constitution that gave Yahya Jammeh power also provides the tools to hold him accountable.
You cannot cherry-pick constitutional provisions to protect one man while ignoring those that protect an entire nation.
7. Conclusion: The Constitution Does Not Protect Impunity
The truth is simple: the 1997 Constitution does not and was never intended to protect Yahya Jammeh from justice.
It provides due process, not permanent immunity.
The TRRC and Janneh Commission — both constitutionally grounded — have already established the evidence of Jammeh’s crimes.
Now it is up to the Gambian people, the National Assembly, and the justice system to complete that process.
To twist the Constitution into a shield for tyranny is to betray both law and logic.
Isac Jammeh’s argument is not a defense of the Constitution — it is an insult to it.
Final Word
Yahya Jammeh ruled The Gambia with fear, blood, and corruption. His accountability is not vengeance; it is the fulfillment of justice under the very Constitution he once abused.
The 1997 Constitution — far from protecting him — is the foundation upon which his crimes will be lawfully addressed.
Justice delayed is not justice denied. The Gambian people deserve closure — and the law, not propaganda, will deliver it.
No comments:
Post a Comment