By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden
After reading the recent opinion by lawyer Malick H.B. Jallow, “Legal Implications of President Jammeh’s Anticipated Return,” has stirred public debate. This article have serious legal and constitutional lapses that cannot be allowed to slide. Therefore I must point out that yes Mr. Jallow is a respected human rights lawyer, but several of his arguments about former President Yahya Jammeh’s rights and privileges in his article are legally weak and misleading.
It is therefore important to clarify what the law actually says—because justice and truth cannot coexist with distortion.
The Right to Return Is Not Absolute
Every Gambian, including Yahya Jammeh, has the right to return home. That right, however, is not unlimited. The 1997 Constitution, under Section 25, allows freedom of movement to be restricted “in the interest of public order, morality, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
If the return of a former leader accused of serious crimes threatens national security or public peace, the state has the legal authority to manage or delay that process. Suggesting that Jammeh can walk back into the country and reclaim full privileges as if nothing happened is a misreading of both law and logic.
Privileges Are Conditional, Not Automatic
Mr. Jallow claims Jammeh “is well within his rights to be afforded the full privileges of a former leader.” The Privileges of Former Presidents Act (2006) tells a different story. It allows those benefits to be withdrawn or suspended if the former president acts “in a manner unbecoming of the office” or is convicted of a criminal offence.
Moreover, Jammeh’s departure in 2017 was not a normal, lawful transfer of power. He refused to accept election results and left the country only after ECOWAS intervention. It is therefore debatable whether he qualifies, in the legal sense, as a former president who “vacated office lawfully.”
Privileges of state are earned by honourable conduct—not by holding the nation hostage.
Prosecution Is a Legal Duty, Not Political Theatre
Mr. Jallow suggests that threats to arrest Jammeh arise only for political reasons. That is not true. The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) found credible evidence linking Jammeh and his associates to extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, and enforced disappearances.
Under the TRRC Act 2017, the government is legally bound to act on those findings. The Attorney General has a statutory duty—not a political choice—to pursue prosecution where the evidence warrants it. Ignoring such findings would be a betrayal of justice and a violation of the state’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pursuing accountability is not political persecution—it is legal responsibility.
The TRRC Was Not a Court and Did Not Violate Fair Hearing
Mr. Jallow argues that the TRRC process violated Jammeh’s right to a fair hearing because he was not invited to respond to allegations. That argument fails on two grounds.
First, the TRRC was a truth-seeking body, not a court of law. It could not convict or sentence anyone. Its purpose was to uncover facts and recommend reforms, not to determine guilt. Second, Jammeh and his supporters were publicly invited multiple times to testify or send written responses. They refused.
One cannot refuse to participate in a national truth process and then claim to have been denied a hearing. When formal prosecution begins, Jammeh will have every right to defend himself before a competent court.
Immunity Does Not Cover Crimes Against Humanity
It is true that Section 69 of the Constitution provides some immunity to former presidents—but only for acts performed in official capacity. Torture, unlawful killings, and enforced disappearances are not official duties of a head of state; they are crimes.
International law, from the Pinochet ruling in the UK to the Charles Taylor trial in Sierra Leone, has consistently held that no former head of state can claim immunity for crimes against humanity. The same principle applies to The Gambia under customary international law.
Therefore, any attempt to shield Jammeh under the pretext of constitutional immunity is both legally and morally untenable.
Accountability and Dignity Can Coexist
On one point, I agree with Mr. Jallow: Jammeh’s dignity as a human being must be respected. Every accused person deserves fair treatment and due process. But dignity does not mean impunity.
Justice must protect both the accused and the victims. The TRRC gave voice to those who were silenced for decades. Their right to truth and justice cannot be sacrificed for political convenience or misplaced loyalty.
No One Above the Law
Yahya Jammeh, like any Gambian, is entitled to his rights—but not to privileges that shield him from accountability. The government’s responsibility is to uphold the law without fear or favour.
We cannot build a new Gambia on selective justice. The TRRC process was a vital step toward healing and reform. Implementing its recommendations is not a vendetta—it is an act of national integrity.
The time has come for Gambians to stand firmly for justice, not personality cults. As a nation, we must ensure that the law serves the people, not the powerful.
Thanks in The Services of The Gambia
Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator, Sweden
Born in Jarra Jappineh, Lower River Region, The Gambia, Yaya Dampha is a journalist, human rights and political activist based in Sweden.
No comments:
Post a Comment