Foreign Expertise Is Not Outsourcing Justice: Why The Gambia’s Transitional Justice Must Prioritize Credibility Over Sentiment

By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator

With due respect to Alagi Yorro Jallow= Mbading's reflection on the government’s appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor for Jammeh-era crimes, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion. The realities of post-dictatorship justice across the world clearly show that engaging foreign prosecutors is neither a confession of institutional weakness nor a surrender of national sovereignty. In many instances, it is a deliberate and strategic decision aimed at ensuring impartiality, credibility, and technical competence in highly sensitive prosecutions.

Mbading  history provides many examples.   Countries emerging from dictatorship or conflict have frequently relied on international prosecutors or hybrid justice mechanisms to deal with crimes of national trauma. Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cambodia all incorporated foreign judges and prosecutors in their post-conflict justice systems. These countries were not lacking in capable legal professionals. Rather, they recognized that transitional justice demands extraordinary neutrality and global credibility—especially when prosecuting crimes tied to former regimes and powerful institutions.

The issue in The Gambia is not the absence of competent Gambians. On the contrary, Gambian legal professionals have distinguished themselves globally. Gambians have served at the Rwanda Tribunal in Arusha, the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and in several other international judicial bodies. These achievements demonstrate the intellectual and professional capacity of Gambian jurists. But this very reality also reinforces the principle that justice today is a collaborative global effort. Just as Gambians have been invited by other nations to prosecute sensitive cases abroad, The Gambia can equally invite foreign expertise to support prosecutions of historic national importance.

We must also acknowledge the social realities of a small country like ours. Gambian society is tightly interconnected—families, communities, and professional networks are deeply intertwined. Many individuals involved in Jammeh-era cases may have personal, political, or social ties with those within the justice system. In such an environment, the perception of bias can easily undermine public confidence in the process. An independent foreign prosecutor can therefore serve as a neutral professional buffer, helping to reassure victims, the accused, and the public that justice will be administered fairly and without local pressures from badinyaa, siñoyaa and  teriyaa. Remember Balafaa beh lonĝŋõlenoma.

Furthermore, the crimes arising from the Jammeh era are not ordinary criminal matters. They involve allegations of torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and potentially crimes against humanity. Such cases require specialized expertise in international criminal law, complex investigative procedures, command responsibility doctrine, cross-border evidence gathering, witness protection systems, and forensic documentation. Even countries with far stronger judicial infrastructures sometimes bring in international prosecutors when dealing with crimes of this magnitude.

Another important dimension is international credibility. Jammeh-era prosecutions will inevitably attract scrutiny from international human rights organizations, foreign governments, and global legal institutions. Having a prosecutor with international experience can strengthen the perception that these trials meet global legal standards and are insulated from political influence or domestic rivalries.

It is also important to remember that while the victims of Jammeh-era abuses are mainly Gambians, there were also non-Gambian victims who suffered during that dark period. Because these crimes affected both Gambian citizens and foreign nationals, the accountability process naturally carries an international dimension. Engaging foreign expertise therefore does not dilute Gambian justice; it strengthens the legitimacy and universality of the process.

For these reasons, the appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor should not be framed as “outsourcing justice.” Justice remains fundamentally Gambian. The crimes were committed on Gambian soil, the victims are predominantly Gambian, the courts are Gambian, and the laws under which prosecutions will proceed are Gambian laws. The presence of a foreign prosecutor is simply a professional reinforcement designed to ensure that the prosecutions are conducted to the highest possible standard.

Ultimately, the central objective should be clear: to successfully prosecute Jammeh-era crimes and deliver justice to victims. The debate should not revolve around the nationality of the prosecutor but rather around the credibility, competence, and effectiveness of the process.

The victims—mainly Gambians and also some non-Gambians—deserve a justice process that is fair, credible, and capable of delivering accountability without failure. In matters of transitional justice, success is not measured by symbolism but by results. History will judge The Gambia not by who led the prosecution, but by whether justice was ultimately done.