The Rule of Law Must Prevail Over Emotion

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator

There is no doubt that many Gambians sympathize with Mr. Abdoulie Sanyang. His ill health is a matter of genuine concern, and his past contributions to the struggle against dictatorship in The Gambia are well known and widely acknowledged. Compassion, however, must never eclipse the supremacy of the Constitution. A nation governed by law cannot substitute justice with sentiment, no matter how compelling the circumstances may be.

Recent calls on President Adama Barrow to pardon and release Mr. Sanyang before the conclusion of his trial are not only misguided; they are unconstitutional and unlawful.

Presidential Pardon Applies Only After Conviction

The Gambian Constitution is unequivocal on this matter. Under Section 126 of the 2019 Draft Constitution—mirroring provisions in the 1997 Constitution—the President may grant a pardon, respite, or remission of punishment only to a person who has been convicted of an offence, typically after consultation with the Prerogative of Mercy Committee.

There is no ambiguity here. A presidential pardon applies solely to a convicted person. The President cannot pardon an individual whose trial is ongoing. Moreover, a pardon does not erase guilt; it merely forgives or reduces punishment after a court of law has rendered its judgment.

Any demand for a presidential pardon prior to conviction therefore has no constitutional basis. It is not an act of mercy; it is executive interference in the judicial process.

Discontinuation of Trials Is Not a Presidential Power

Equally important is the issue of discontinuing criminal proceedings. The Constitution clearly assigns this authority to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), subject to the approval of the Attorney General. The DPP may discontinue proceedings at any stage before judgment.

The President has no constitutional authority to unilaterally halt or withdraw a case before the courts. Suggestions that the President should “order” Mr. Sanyang’s release or terminate his trial either misunderstand—or deliberately ignore—the principle of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

Separation of Powers Is Fundamental

The judiciary exists precisely to prevent executive overreach. Courts determine guilt or innocence; the executive does not. A presidential pardon is not a substitute for a trial, nor was it ever intended as a political tool to bypass the courts. Allowing such a practice would drag The Gambia back to the authoritarian past that many citizens sacrificed so much to overcome.

The law is clear:

A pardon after conviction: constitutionally permitted and exercised by the President.

A pardon before conviction: constitutionally prohibited.

Discontinuation of a trial: within the powers of the DPP, with Attorney General approval.

Stopping a trial by executive order: constitutionally impermissible.

The Lawful Path Forward

If Gambians are genuinely concerned about Mr. Sanyang’s health and welfare, the responsible and lawful course of action is clear. The courts should be urged to expedite the trial so that justice is neither delayed nor denied. The judiciary must be allowed to determine guilt or innocence without pressure or interference. If—and only if—Mr. Sanyang is convicted, constitutional avenues for a presidential pardon may then be properly pursued.

This approach respects the Constitution, upholds the rule of law, preserves the separation of powers, and honors the democratic values that Mr. Sanyang himself once championed.

Conclusion

The President of The Gambia cannot lawfully pardon, release, or discontinue the trial of an individual whose case is still before the courts. Any demand to the contrary is not a call for justice; it is a call for constitutional violation.

True democracy is not tested when the law is convenient. It is tested when the law must be upheld despite sympathy, pressure, and emotion. Let justice take its course. Let the courts do their work. And let mercy follow the law—not replace it.