By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden
The attempt by Mr. Tombong Saidy and some members of the UDP to equate the reckless and dangerous incitement to violence issued by Lawyer Borry S. Touray with the political statement made by Hon. Demba Sabally is not only dishonest, but also dangerously misleading to the public.
These two statements are not equal, and they are not comparable, either in law, in meaning, or in consequence.
Lawyer Borry Touray was not responding to any political metaphor or campaign rhetoric. He openly called on the youth to take the law into their own hands, to confront the state, and create disorder. That is a textbook definition of incitement to violence. In every democratic society, encouraging citizens to rise against public order, to disobey the law violently, or to provoke chaos is a criminal offence. There is no democracy in the world where such statements are harmless or protected as “free speech”.
By contrast, Hon. Demba Sabally’s statement — made in direct response to UDP’s own declaration that the 2026 election is “do or die” — was not a call to violence. It was political rhetoric expressing commitment, sacrifice, and determination in the face of an aggressive political narrative already introduced by the UDP leadership. It was metaphorical, not operational. It contained no instruction, no mobilisation for violence, and no encouragement of lawlessness.
To suggest that both statements are the same is either intellectually dishonest or politically desperate.
Mr. Saidy claims the law is being applied selectively. But selective application would mean similar wrongdoing being treated differently. Where is the video of Hon. Sabally instructing citizens to riot? Where is the recording of him calling on youths to dismantle law and order? Where is the statement in which he urges violence? There is none — because it does not exist.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to incite violence.
Freedom of speech does not grant the right to provoke unrest.
Freedom of speech does not include the right to destroy the peace of a nation.
When a lawyer — who should be a custodian of the law — publicly encourages anarchy, it is not political expression; it is a threat to national stability. The state has not only the right but the duty to act.
The UDP and its allies must stop confusing political defence with moral confusion. Defending incitement today is defending chaos tomorrow. History shows us exactly where this road leads: instability, suffering, and national regression.
Democracy is not damaged when the law is enforced.
Democracy is damaged when lawlessness is defended. Democracy is destroyed when incitement is normalised. Just like how some of you are portraying it.
Justice is not selective when it is applied correctly. It only appears “selective” to those who believe political loyalty should grant immunity.
The law is not a party card.
The Constitution does not wear party colours.
Public safety is not subject to political negotiation.
The Gambia has suffered enough instability in its history. We will not return to the days when reckless statements set communities on fire and leaders pretended innocence afterward or you all thinking in the same myopic manner.
Let it be crystal clear:
Political speech is protected.
Incitement is a crime.
Law is law.
And no one is above it.
If Mr. Saidy and the UDP truly believe in democracy, they should be the first to defend peace, legality, and responsibility — not excuse recklessness because it comes from someone wearing the same political badge.
History will not judge us by party loyalty.
It will judge us by whether we stood on the side of law, peace, and truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment