By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden
The recent article by , published by , under the emotive title “A Victim of Vindictiveness?”, is less a serious political reflection and more a carefully packaged narrative of self-pity, selective memory, and personal frustration. It is an attempt to reframe political irrelevance as persecution and personal underperformance as principled dissent.
Let us address the facts—calmly, firmly, and point by point—in defence of and his government.
First, Mr. Jawo openly acknowledges that his dismissal from cabinet in June 2018 was entirely constitutional. The President of the Republic has the legal and executive authority to appoint and dismiss ministers. Cabinet reshuffles are a normal feature of democratic governance across the world. They are not acts of vindictiveness, nor are they punishments. To portray a lawful executive decision as personal persecution is intellectually dishonest and politically disingenuous.
Second, Mr. Jawo’s tenure as Minister of Information lasted eighteen months. During that period, he failed to leave behind any meaningful legacy. As a former leader of journalists who once fought against draconian media laws under dictatorship, Gambians rightly expected him to champion the repeal or review of those same laws when he assumed office. He did not. No bold reform. No decisive initiative. No structural change. Power was in his hands, yet nothing changed. Silence and inaction cannot later be repackaged as suppressed bravery.
Third, the claim that he felt “confined” in cabinet because he could not openly criticise government decisions is an indictment of his own leadership, not of the system. Collective responsibility is not a prison; it is a cornerstone of serious governance. Leadership demands courage within power, not comfort outside it. Criticism after dismissal is easy. Reform while in office is what defines statesmanship.
Fourth, the insinuation that he could have been “recycled” into government had he stopped criticising the President is speculative and self-serving. Governments retain or reassign officials based on performance, relevance, trust, and alignment with policy direction. Mr. Jawo cannot simultaneously claim he had no interest in returning to government and still complain about not being reappointed. One cannot reject a door and then accuse others of slamming it shut.
Fifth, Mr. Jawo admits membership in , an organisation whose stated objective is to unseat President Barrow in the next election. That is his democratic right. However, rights come with consequences. No government anywhere in the world extends state privileges, honours, or invitations to individuals actively organising against it. The withdrawal of invitations to state functions is not “sanction”; it is standard, logical, and politically neutral. State functions are privileges, not entitlements.
Sixth, attendance at state dinners, national dialogues, or independence celebrations is not a birthright. Millions of Gambians attend none of these events and suffer no injustice. These invitations are extended based on office, role, and relevance—not as lifetime rewards for former service. To interpret non-invitation as victimisation is to confuse entitlement with citizenship.
Seventh, the article is riddled with contradictions. Mr. Jawo claims to have cordial relations with the President and expresses gratitude for having served in cabinet, yet simultaneously alleges covert punishment, shadowy emissaries, and deliberate exclusion. These inconsistencies expose the article for what it truly is: a narrative driven by wounded ego rather than public interest.
Finally, President Barrow’s record stands firm. Under his leadership, has restored constitutional order, expanded democratic space, strengthened institutions, and moved decisively away from two decades of authoritarian rule. The Barrow administration has governed with tolerance, restraint, and respect for dissent—qualities that make claims of vindictiveness ring hollow.
In conclusion, Mr. Jawo is not a victim of vindictiveness. He is a former minister struggling to reconcile personal ambition with political reality. President Barrow owes him no apology for exercising constitutional authority, demanding results, or refusing to blur the line between the state and its political opponents.
History will remember those who built, reformed, and delivered—not those who found their voices only after leaving office.
No comments:
Post a Comment