Amie Bojang-Sissoho On The Role of Ministers In Governance

Dear Mantawrawally Blog, I would like to take a moment to share my thoughts on the captivating analysis regarding the role of Ministers in governance. It is my belief that political parties craft manifestos to outline their governance plans, providing voters with a clear picture of what they can expect once in office. Consequently, every government seeks to identify individuals who will champion and advance this developmental agenda. Ministers are entrusted as leaders of policy advocacy, illustrating how the governing party is translating its campaign promises into reality through a comprehensive development agenda.

Though Ministers are political appointees, their technical expertise is crucial in working alongside Permanent Secretaries, who must remain non-partisan to uphold the national interest. Permanent Secretaries, as civil servants with permanent appointments, play a vital role in safeguarding governance systems, procedures, and processes from potential misuse. They are the skilled professionals who guide politicians, ensuring that efforts to achieve development goals are conducted in accordance with good governance practices and the rule of law. Even when they may not align with the party in power, Permanent Secretaries, as technical heads of their Ministries, are expected to uphold professionalism and not undermine the government of the day. Their unique position allows them to serve any ruling party, while political appointees are loyal only to the government that appointed them. Once leadership changes, political appointees often depart as well. However, this does not imply that political appointees cannot excel in their areas of expertise; indeed, many Ministers may claim to be "technocrats," thus preserving their chances for reappointment by future administrations. Permanent Secretaries should serve as mentors to Ministers, facilitating the successful implementation of government policies while aligning party interests with national priorities for sustainable development. Nation building is an ongoing journey, yet different governments adopt varying approaches and emphasize diverse priorities. The actions and strategies employed in nation building are shaped by the ideologies and perspectives of those in power. Regardless of the ideology they espouse, leaders share a common aspiration to provide citizens with: 1. Quality healthcare services 2. Accessible education for all 3. A boost in mechanized agriculture, manufacturing, and marketing 4. Robust road infrastructure 5. Affordable and accessible electricity By fostering an enabling environment, governments can stimulate job creation and economic growth, ultimately enhancing the livelihoods and well-being of their citizens within a framework of good governance and democracy. This divergence in governance significantly influences how the ruling party approaches its developmental goals. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Alagi Yorro and Yaya Dampha for igniting such an engaging debate. There remain numerous unanswered questions regarding this discourse, which I believe should be brought to the annual National Dialogue level, allowing Gambians to contribute further insights on “party politics, political appointments, and governance in The Gambia.” Such candid discussions are essential for guiding citizens toward promoting good governance and fostering a sense of responsible public service. Wishing everyone a blessed Eid Mubarak. Warm regards, Amie Bojang-Sissoho DPPR 6th June 2025.

Alagi Yorro Jallow Writes Yaya Dampha Clarifies

Rebuttal to Alagi Yorro Jallow: Understanding the Role of Ministers as Political Appointees Dear Alagi Yorro Jallow, Thank you for sharing your insights on the role of cabinet ministers in governance, particularly in the context of The Gambia. While I appreciate the importance of neutrality and professionalism in public service, it is vital to understand the unique nature of political appointments and the realities of governance in a democratic framework. Your critique of the expectation that ministers act as representatives of the ruling party overlooks a fundamental truth of our political system: ministers are political appointees chosen by the president who often share a political vision and mandate. This alignment is not only logical but necessary for coherent governance. Ministers who support the president's agenda ensure that the policy direction is consistent, unified, and conducive to achieving the administration's goals. It is essential to recognize that the essence of democracy involves a political majority that has earned the right to govern—often through a clear electoral mandate. In this context, cabinet ministers cannot merely be viewed as neutral public servants devoid of party affiliation, but rather as integral components of the political framework that advances the electorate's will. It is perfectly normal for these officials to engage in political activities that promote the policies they are responsible for implementing—this is not a betrayal of public trust, but a reflection of their chosen role within a political system. You invoke the Swedish model of governance to highlight a standard of ministerial neutrality. However, it is crucial to remember that different political cultures yield different norms. Sweden’s consensus-driven, multi-party system functions distinctly from The Gambia’s political landscape, where the ruling party needs its ministers to actively participate in promoting its agenda to ensure stability and social cohesion. The challenges facing our country—economic development, social justice, and institutional integrity—require an engaged cabinet that rallies behind the president's vision, mobilizing support and resources to tackle pressing issues. Furthermore, your argument about the integrity of public institutions is valid, but it is essential not to conflate party activities with a loss of that integrity. Political engagement by ministers does not inherently diminish their ability to serve the public effectively. Instead, when ministers are energized and committed to promoting the political agenda they were appointed to support, they can mobilize resources, galvanize public support, and drive policy initiatives that align with the president’s vision—ultimately benefitting the nation as a whole. Your comparison to other democratic systems, including that of the U.S., also needs careful consideration. Ministers—be they secretaries or otherwise— in many systems serve under the dictates of political appointees who share decided political objectives. The role of a minister inherently involves answering not just to the public, but also to the political leader who appointed them. It is a symbiotic relationship where loyalty to governance can coexist with loyalty to the party that reflects the will of the voters. Arguing that cabinet officials could be undermined by wearing party colors or engaging in political rallies disregards the reality that active political participation is often necessary to achieve accountability, transparency, and support for government initiatives. Ministers who are open about their political affiliations and who actively rally support can create pathways for innovative solutions and cooperative governance, all while remaining dedicated to the majority sentiments that brought them to power. Lastly, it is paramount to recognize that a healthy democracy thrives on competition, debate, and—yes—partisan engagement. The Gambia deserves ministers who can combine their political affiliations with a dedication to serve all Gambians, working from a place of shared commitment to national progress. Dismissing the political role of cabinet ministers as inherently detrimental is a simplistic view. In a dynamic political landscape, engaged and politically-aware ministers can drive the country forward, balancing party loyalty while addressing the diverse needs of our populace. In conclusion, rather than viewing the involvement of ministers in political matters as a detriment, we must appreciate their role in furthering the political agenda of the government they serve, recognizing that this is a vital feature of a functional democracy. Sincerely, Yaya Dampha

Rebuttal to Alagi Yorro Jallow's Editorial on Cabinet Ministers in The Gambia:

Dear Alagi Yorro Jallow, Your editorial presents a well-articulated perspective on the role of cabinet ministers in The Gambia and their apparent entanglement in partisan politics. While it is essential to uphold ethical governance and professionalism in public service, your argument fundamentally overlooks a crucial aspect of our political system—one that is particularly defined by its unique context and the expectations set by our current democratic framework. Firstly, it is essential to recognize that in The Gambia, cabinet ministers are not merely technocrats serving in a vacuum of neutrality; they are politically appointed by the president to assist in implementing his government’s policies and programs. This political appointment is by design, rooted in the expectation that ministers will actively support the agenda of the ruling party. It is a model that reflects the democratic principle of accountability and representation. If ministers were to detach entirely from their political affiliations, they would be neglecting their primary responsibilities and failing to advocate for the policies that resonate with the electorate. Your suggestion that Gambian ministers should emulate their counterparts in the United States assumes a one-size-fits-all approach to governance that disregards the importance of context. While it is true that cabinet secretaries in the U.S. are expected to navigate their roles with a degree of political impartiality, it is also essential to acknowledge that the political dynamics and historical evolution of governance in the U.S. are vastly different from those in The Gambia. Here, ministers acting as political agents can foster greater engagement with the citizens who voted for the ruling party, ensuring that the voices of the electorate are heard within government deliberations. This loyalty not only solidifies the government’s mandate but also fosters a sense of accountability that is crucial in a developing democracy. Moreover, your editorial paints participation in party activities as a negative phenomenon that erodes institutional integrity. I contend that when ministers wear “Ashobi” and engage in party rallies, they are embodying the spirit of political engagement that is necessary for any evolving democracy. Such participation serves to remind citizens that their government is not distant but rather deeply connected to their aspirations and commitments. This direct engagement can strengthen public trust and confidence in governance, so long as it is conducted with an eye toward serving the collective good.

While it is critical to maintain professionalism and avoid the pitfalls of corruption and nepotism, it is equally vital not to impose a sterile definition of governance that disregards the rich socio-political fabric of The Gambia. Ministers are not merely passive functionaries but active proponents of change who wield influence to implement the policies that align with their party’s developmental agenda. As long as their actions aim toward the betterment of the nation, their political affiliation can be a source of strength rather than a hindrance. Furthermore, your assertion that ministers exhibit prioritization of party politics over national interest seems to imply a lack of nuance regarding the real-world intricacies of governance. The reality is that often, party interests and national interests are intertwined. A robust political will can translate into impactful governance, paving the way for significant advancements in the areas of development, education, health, and infrastructure. It is entirely possible for ministers to champion party initiatives that simultaneously align with national needs, thereby creating a symbiotic relationship between politics and governance. In conclusion, while professionalism in public service is indispensable, the call for complete detachment from partisan politics overlooks a foundational element of our governance model. Ministers must balance their loyalty to the ruling party with their commitment to the broader populace, embodying a dynamic leadership that is responsive to the needs of citizens. In a democracy, the political connection of ministers is not a flaw but rather a feature that allows for governance that is not only representative but also vibrant and engaged. The challenge lies not in extinguishing the political fire within our ministers, but rather in harnessing that fire to ignite meaningful change for all Gambians. Sincerely, Yaya Dampha Coordinator NPP Diaspora

Editorial The Critical Challenge of Cabinet Ministers in Partisan Politics.

By Alagi Yorro Jallow.

Part 1 Fatoumatta: In a democracy, governance must rise above the fray of partisan theatrics; yet in The Gambia, cabinet ministers are increasingly mired in party politics, which severely undermines institutional integrity. Instead of embodying national service, they often showcase loyalty to the ruling party, transforming their roles into mere extensions of political allegiance. This alarming trend raises a crucial question: Should ministers act as political agents, or should they uphold the principles of neutrality and professionalism in serving the nation? Cabinet ministers in The Gambia are progressively entwined in partisan politics, creating significant concerns about the integrity of our governance. This entanglement leads ministers to prioritize party interests over the collective needs of the nation, often demonstrated by their overt endorsement of party policies that may not best serve the public good. Unlike their counterparts in other nations who maintain an impartial stance in public service, Gambian ministers frequently don in “Ashobi”, ruling party attire and engage in political rallies. This blurring of lines between governance and partisanship erodes the professionalism essential for effective national service. Historically, the 1970 constitution permitted politicians and parliamentarians to serve as cabinet ministers, a provision intended to ensure representation of the people’s political choices. However, this was later abolished to enhance governmental independence. Today, we observe ministers actively participating in party activities, betraying the core principle that public servants should represent the entire nation, not just a narrow political faction. Fatoumatta: Today, cabinet ministers flaunt their allegiance to the ruling party, donning "Ashobi" clothing at political events, including the inauguration of National People’s Party (NPP) offices. This situation demands a critical examination: Should cabinet ministers immerse themselves in party politics, or should they maintain a dignified distance from such partisan affairs? In contrast, countries like the United States exemplify a more balanced approach, where cabinet secretaries—such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense—engage in political matters with prudence and restraint. Unlike elected officials, their roles are not centered around political campaigning or party functions. Instead, their political involvement manifests in a more substantive way: In other democracies, cabinet secretaries serve as the President's key advisors, leading policy formulation and ensuring the government's agenda is executed effectively. This advisory role is inherently political, yet it influences national strategy and direction. They act as the public face of their respective departments, championing policies before Congress, the public, and international audiences. For example, the Secretary of State oversees foreign relations, while the Secretary of Defense manages military and national security matters. These roles, while requiring significant political engagement, are firmly rooted in the interest of the nation, rather than mere party loyalty. Despite often being appointed by the President from the same political party, cabinet secretaries are expected to serve the entire nation, transcending the interests of individual political factions. This expectation is particularly critical for positions involving diplomacy and national security, where professionalism and strategic governance must always overshadow partisan considerations. Ultimately, we must insist that our cabinet ministers prioritize the interests of national governance over the shackles of party politics. While political engagement is an inevitable aspect of policymaking, the emphasis must be on leadership, expertise, and the preservation of institutional integrity. It is imperative that we shift our focus from political theatrics to genuine and effective governance. A comparative analysis of other democracies reveals more principled practices. In the United States, cabinet secretaries engage in politics by influencing government policy and advising the President, yet they maintain a clear boundary by refraining from open political campaigning and partisan displays. Their primary duty is national service, not the promotion of party interests. The Gambian government must act decisively to address this troubling trend and restore professionalism to our leadership. Ministers must be held accountable to prioritize governance, focusing on policy and public service rather than political theatrics. Failure to uphold these standards could lead to a continued erosion of institutional integrity, ultimately threatening the very foundations of governance. Fatoumatta: By recommitting to professionalism, we can forge a future worthy of our collective investment. Governance must be rescued from the clutches of political spectacle and restored to its vital purpose—serving the nation with dignity, expertise, and foresight. If ministers fail to uphold the ideals of neutrality and discipline, The Gambia risks further degradation of institutional integrity, where governance becomes indistinguishable from partisan activism. A government that values professionalism over distraction is not merely a government; it is a beacon for a future worth defending.

Editorial: Bravo CG Darboe and Team At GRA

Bravo Mr. Commissioner General Yankuba Darboe and the esteemed team at the Gambia Revenue Authority

We at JarranewsTV wish to extend our heartfelt congratulations and commendations for the exceptional performance and monumental achievements that the Gambia Revenue Authority (GRA) has demonstrated over the past month. The D500 million revenue collection in May alone is a testament to your unwavering dedication, visionary leadership, and the relentless efforts of your entire team, particularly Mr. Saikou Balajo and Mr. Raphael Mendy, as well as the entire GRA team at the Gambia Ports.

This remarkable feat not only underscores the effectiveness of GRA’s ongoing digital transformation into Smart Customs but also showcases your commitment to enhancing operational efficiency and transparency within the revenue collection process. By harnessing cutting-edge technology, the GRA is redefining the standards for revenue collection in The Gambia and establishing a robust framework that enhances accountability and fosters a culture of excellence. Your accomplishments are not merely figures on a spreadsheet; they represent a significant milestone in the development of our nation's economic landscape. This monumental revenue collection will undoubtedly contribute to the betterment of public services and infrastructure, thus benefiting all Gambians. Your leadership has not only brought about tangible results but has also inspired confidence among stakeholders, citizens, and businesses alike. As you continue on this path of innovation and excellence, we encourage you and your team to remain steadfast in your mission. The foundation you have laid today will cultivate a brighter future for The Gambia, and for that, you deserve every bit of recognition and praise. Once again, congratulations on this significant achievement. Your hard work and commitment to excellence do not go unnoticed, and we look forward to witnessing even greater accomplishments from the Gambia Revenue Authority under your exemplary guidance. With sincere appreciation,

President Adama Barrow's Vision for Industrialization and a Clean Future

Transforming The Gambia: President Adama Barrow's Vision for Industrialization and a Clean Future In an inspiring move toward a brighter future for The Gambia, His Excellency, President Adama Barrow, recently met with a distinguished delegation from Shukran Capital Management (SCM). This pivotal meeting centered around the groundbreaking "Waste-2-Fuel Project"—a revolutionary initiative that is set to redefine waste management in our beloved nation.

As The Gambia embarks on its journey to industrialization, this innovative project promises to turn waste into wealth—transforming hazardous dumpsites into productive environments. The Waste-2-Fuel Project will convert solid waste, tires, and other commercial refuse into clean, renewable Bio-Oil through cutting-edge technology. Not only will this initiative generate valuable by-products like compost for sustainable agriculture and recycled “green” plastics, but it will also pave the way for a cleaner, healthier nation.

President Barrow is committed to addressing the long-standing issue of waste management, a challenge that has hindered our progress for far too long. Under his visionary leadership, this initiative will not only enhance public health but also spur economic development and create jobs for our spirited youth. It is a bold stride towards a thriving industrial economy that embodies the resilience and determination of the Gambian people. The president’s assurance of political will reflects a renewed focus on elevating our nation’s image through effective waste management solutions. He has called on SCM and our dedicated officials to delve deep into the viability of this transformative proposal, setting the stage for a prosperous future grounded in sustainability and innovation. The meeting, attended by Ousianou Senghore, Executive Director of the Gambia Investment and Export Promotion Agency, featured a competent delegation led by Modou Kabirr M. O. Faal, SCM’s Executive Chairman and Goodwill Ambassador for The Gambia, alongside eminent experts from Kuwait, Belgium, and Germany. Together, they stand ready to champion the cause of revolutionizing waste management in The Gambia.

With President Barrow at the helm, The Gambia is poised to emerge as a beacon of industrial progress and environmental stewardship. The Waste-2-Fuel Project is not just a step towards cleaner cities; it is a leap into the future—a future where our waste is transformed into opportunity and our country thrives like never before! Join us in supporting this vital initiative as we work together towards a cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous Gambia!

Singapore’s Special Envoy Visits The Gambia High Commission in London

The Gambia High Commission in London recently welcomed Mr. Yap Ong Heng, the Special Envoy of the Minister for Transport of the Republic of Singapore, for a courtesy visit with Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Mr. Sulayman Suntou Touray. This meeting highlighted the strengthening partnership between The Gambia and Singapore, focusing on opportunities for greater collaboration in transport, maritime, aviation, and environmental sustainability. Key Topics Discussed: - Capacity Building and Skills Transfer: Strategies to enhance technical expertise in aviation, maritime, and land transport sectors. - IMO Compliance and Best Practices: Sharing knowledge on the implementation of International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions. - Climate Sustainability Collaboration: Support for The Gambia’s National Action Plan for greenhouse gas reduction, aligned with the IMO GHG Strategy. - Education and Training: Expanding fellowships and professional development in governance and public sector reform. - Multilateral Cooperation: A commitment to mutual support in international platforms such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the IMO. Notably, 118 Gambian professionals have benefited from training at Singapore’s Aviation Academy, alongside maritime training facilitated by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.

The discussion also noted Singapore’s Climate Decarbonisation Blueprint for 2050, which serves as a model for advancing climate-resilient infrastructure efforts. Both nations expressed optimism about future engagements, with plans for further coordination through national channels and upcoming initiatives. The meeting culminated in a reaffirmation of the long-standing diplomatic friendship between Singapore and The Gambia. Attendees Included: From Singapore: Mr. Yap Ong Heng, Special Envoy; Ms. Lau Bee Juan, Senior Assistant Director. From The Gambia High Commission: Mr. Sulayman Suntou Touray, Chargé d’Affaires a.i.; Mrs. Sainey Barrow, Counsellor; and interns Ms. Abi Barry and Mr. Zindi Anthony Levi.

Ambassador Conteh's Open Letter To H.E Dr. Mamadou Tangara

Dear Dr. Tangara, I am compelled to address you in light of the remarks made during your recent town hall discussion on the "Mansa Kunda" program on May 16, 2025. While the session illuminated various aspects of your ministry’s policies and challenges, it became abundantly clear that your comments on the cadre of diplomats you referred to as "political appointees" lacked not only clarity but also fairness.

Your description of these individuals as merely beneficiaries of political favoritism, rather than competent professionals, reflects a profound misunderstanding of their qualifications and contributions. By oversimplifying their appointments to a matter of political allegiance, you undermine the reality that many of these diplomats possess exemplary credentials, extensive professional experience, and a commitment to serving our nation's interests on the global stage. It is striking that you singled out the foreign service for alleged incompetence while neglecting to acknowledge that political appointments also span other vital roles within the government. The cabinet ministers, ambassadors, and senior civil servants, filled by politically motivated selections, are not all disgraced individuals. Are we to assume that the diplomatic corps alone is unworthy of respect? This narrative is not only misleading but also dangerously divisive. You have accused this group of diplomats of being the source of numerous issues within our missions, branding them as untrainable and unfit for their roles. Such statements not only rip the fabric of essential diplomatic engagement but also convey a damaging stereotype that dismisses the complex realities of our foreign service. Instances of misconduct, such as those you cited in Rabat and Havana, while regrettable, should not serve as a blanket indictment of all politically appointed diplomats. Accountability lies not solely with them, but also with your ministry’s apparent failure to address challenges as they arise. A proactive approach could have mitigated many conflicts before they escalated. Moreover, your silence on incidents involving the diplomatic community, including the alarming actions leading to certain diplomats being declared "persona non grata" by the U.S. State Department, raises further questions about accountability within your own ranks. Ironically, as you cast aspersions on political appointees, you overlook that many may not have been privy to the same shortcomings you ascribe to others.

It is essential to remember that these purported "misfits" have often sacrificed their well-being to oppose tyranny, enduring persecution and suffering while fighting for the democracy that we enjoy today. They, more than anyone, understand the principles of our nation and the obligations that come with representing The Gambia abroad. Instead of vilification, they deserve recognition and support as vital contributors to our diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, your lack of engagement with the valuable perspectives of Gambians abroad is alarming. Their cries for active participation in national elections, representation in the National Assembly, and inclusion in cabinet appointments must not fall on deaf ears. To ignore the potential and plight of the Gambian diaspora is a disservice to our nation's collective progress. The future of our foreign service cannot be shackled by outdated regulations or a lack of strategic engagement from your office. As we venture further into 2025, reform and modernization are not merely aspirations; they are imperatives. It is time to elevate the conversation around our foreign policy and diplomatic engagement, focusing on collaboration and inclusivity rather than division. I urge you to reconsider your stance, not only towards the diplomatic representatives whom we have entrusted with our nation's image abroad but towards the vast potential that lies within the Gambian diaspora. Our collective future depends on forging unity, fostering respect, and embracing the diverse talents and experiences that every Gambian brings to the table. Yours sincerely, Alkali Fanka Conteh

Jammeh’s Dangerous Conspiracy

Jammeh’s Dangerous Conspiracy: The Threat of Misinformation in West African Diplomacy. The Legacy of Deception. Rejecting Falsehoods & Embracing Transparency. Alagi Yorro Jallow Fatoumatta: Yahya Jammeh, Gambia’s exiled former dictator, has once again resurfaced in the political discourse—this time through a leaked audio filled with conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims of oil theft. His accusations against Senegalese leaders, past and present, are not only reckless but pose a real risk of diplomatic instability between two nations whose futures are deeply intertwined. Jammeh’s statement, alleging that former Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade envied Gambia’s oil discovery and that current Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko failed to stop its supposed theft, is a calculated attempt to stir tensions. His vow to “reclaim Gambia’s oil” upon his return is not just delusional but dangerous, as it exploits nationalist sentiments for personal political gain. Fatoumatta: Jammeh ruled Gambia with an iron grip for over two decades, systematically silencing opponents, suppressing dissent, and building a regime based on fear. He was notorious for fabricating narratives—from bizarre medicinal claims to fantastical economic promises—while siphoning state resources for personal enrichment. His sudden reemergence, now weaponizing conspiracy theories, is not surprising, but it demands a firm rebuke from Gambian authorities and the media. Misinformation is not harmless—it erodes trust, destabilizes relationships, and fuels unnecessary conflicts. If such baseless accusations gain traction, they could damage regional cooperation and economic progress that Gambia and Senegal have painstakingly built over the years.

As Gambia moves beyond Jammeh’s dark legacy, the nation must reject his divisive tactics. The government and civil society must counter misinformation with truth, ensuring that citizens do not fall prey to unfounded narratives. Regional diplomacy must be rooted in fact-based discussions, not conspiracy theories designed to manipulate public opinion. Fatoumatta: Jammeh may believe he can still shape political discourse from afar, but Gambia has moved forward. His era of deception is over—truth and accountability must now define the future.

Lawyer Melville Robertson Resigns From UDP

"THE DEAFENING SILENCE OF LEADERSHIP: MY FORMAL RESIGNATION FROM THE UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

In a move that echoes the urgent call for accountability, I, Melville Robertson Roberts, hereby announce my resignation from the United Democratic Party (UDP), a decision that weighs heavily on my heart yet is resolute in its necessity. For years, I have dedicated myself to the UDP, inspired by its commitments to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—values that once ignited my hope for a better Gambia. However, I now see that hope without action equates to hypocrisy, and that is a path I cannot walk. The party’s insistence on standing by Ba Tambadou, despite alarming and unresolved allegations regarding the disposal of Jammeh’s assets, is not merely disappointing—it is disgraceful. The silence surrounding this matter is deafening, particularly in light of the demands from dedicated members who seek accountability and justice. Where is the UDP’s proud voice of reason and reform now? Are these values only to be upheld for the ordinary citizen while the powerful remain sheltered from scrutiny? My previous open letter to the party leadership was birthed from my faith that the UDP could elevate itself and truly lead by example. In a time when the current government turns a blind eye, it is imperative for the UDP to illuminate the path of ethical governance rather than remain shackled by silence. But silence in this context speaks volumes, revealing a troubling truth: accountability seems to be a privilege reserved for the powerless, while the influential escape unscathed. Until the UDP summons its courage and reclaims its voice, I find it impossible to continue under its banner in good conscience. The Gambia demands leadership that not only advocates for justice but embodies it. I will always honor the esteemed leader Ousainou Darboe and my fellow members with respect and regard. However, my admiration for the UDP will not compel me to compromise my principles. We all deserve more. The Gambia deserves leadership that acts with integrity and conviction. Melville Robertson Roberts Legal Practitioner, Social Commentator, and Advocate for Justice

Rebuttal: Defending President Adama Barrow's Administration

By Yaya Dampha Coordinator NPP DIASPORA GROUP

The article by Ensa A.B. Ceesay presents a skewed and overly negative portrayal of President Adama Barrow’s administration, inaccurately branding him a dictator without considering the significant strides made toward democracy and human rights in The Gambia since his leadership began.

First, let’s address the claim of human rights violations. The reality is, under Barrow’s administration, Gambians have witnessed an unprecedented level of freedom. For the first time in decades, citizens can express their opinions openly, participate in peaceful protests, and engage in political discourse without the constant fear of repression. This openness starkly contrasts with the era of Yahya Jammeh, where dissent was met with imprisonment, violence, or worse. If President Barrow were truly a dictator, it would be unjustifiable for him to allow such freedoms to flourish. The very idea of a dictatorship is antithetical to the environment of free expression that currently exists.

It's also crucial to highlight that there are no political prisoners in Gambia today, and journalists and human rights activists operate with a level of safety and freedom that did not exist prior to Barrow’s presidency. The actions against journalists accused of defamation or other crimes have often resulted in leniency, reflecting a commitment to uphold freedom of speech rather than silence dissent. Indeed, the Barrow administration has taken several steps to reform and protect press freedoms, showcasing an effort to correct past injustices rather than perpetuate them. Assertions about corruption, tribalism, and respect for the rule of law are important issues, but they do not paint the full picture. Yes, challenges remain, just as they do in any emerging democracy. However, these challenges do not warrant a blanket dismissal of the progress made under Barrow’s leadership. The establishment of more inclusive governance systems, engagement with international human rights bodies, and the incorporation of various political perspectives into the governance process are indicators of an administration striving for positive change. Furthermore, labeling Barrow as a dictator reflects a deeper misunderstanding or deliberate misinterpretation of Gambia’s political landscape. It ignores the fact that Barrow came to power through a coalition of diverse opposition voices that demonstrated a collective desire for change and reform. The same coalition, which now calls for accountability and democratic principles, is a testament to the political pluralism that Barrow has encouraged. Critics such as those represented in Ceesay's article often surge with the disappointment of their personal failures, failing to acknowledge the significant progress made. Their narratives may originate from a place of discontent but misconstrue the broader context of Gambian governance under Barrow. The motivations and character of those dissenting should not overshadow the real achievements made in the country. In conclusion, accusing President Adama Barrow of dictatorial tendencies is not only misguided but perilously overlooks the genuine strides made toward democratic governance and human rights in The Gambia. For the first time in a long while, we are witnessing a society where discourse thrives, human rights are being respected, and the aspiration for progress is palpable. It is important to recognize and uphold these aspects rather than yield to the cynicism that so easily takes root in political discourse. As we move forward as a nation, it is paramount to support continued engagement, constructive criticism, and the celebration of the freedoms we now enjoy.

Courtroom Is Not Where Truth Will Find Us Gambia

By Lawyer Melville Roberts The Courtroom Is Not Where Truth Will Find Us Gambia

t.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY5DZliFRQv41VgwHElhLq_xMR5eTADFRT9TOsbab5OUSQcgIOyAo045D8pAGK-1dyhyphenhyphentT4dK_Yj1XJxu6O9Dt1UiC_vGFqAWYVkZRzmN4fp_X5sYnuQZb5PzjUsech0E4y9q4UOIoiJKNp-qOMeMfup4AeVqAjBZs9-k8ZvcEnrD7EzZHTA0CoQ7xY4k/s960/IMG_1214.JPG" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; ">

. After watching tonight's episode of the Bantaba on Kerr Fatou, I was nearly moved to tears for a nation so consumed by a quest for truth, that finding it at whatever means, suddenly breeds a misconception of the very ideals of truth and fact finding. In the quiet desperation of a nation still grappling with its past, a belief is spreading like wild fire that if Alhagie Kurang and Amie Bensouda end up in court, the truth about the Janneh Commission and Jammeh’s looted assets will finally come to light.

It is a compelling idea. But it is also deeply misguided and misleading. Courtrooms do not exist to reveal the whole truth. They exist to test specific claims. What was said, what was done, and whether it violated the law. If Bensouda sues Kurang, or vice versa, what will be examined is that dispute and not the integrity of the entire Janneh Commission, not the fate of Jammeh’s assets, and most certainly not the unanswered questions the nation still carries.

This legal clash, if it comes, will not give us a national reckoning. It will not answer why there has been no full public audit of recovered assets, or why recommendations still gather dust. The courtroom cannot shoulder what our institutions have refused to carry. To place our hopes for truth in a trial between two individuals is to ask a scalpel to serve as a mirror. It will cut precisely, but only where directed. The broader truth, that of complicity, silence, and evasion solidly remains outside its reach. If we are to make sense of the Janneh Commission, its purpose, its limits, its legacy, we must go beyond personalities and legal filings. We must demand accountability from those who hold the reins of state power today. We must insist on transparency, not just in court, but in cabinet meetings, National Assembly sessions, and public reports. We must elevate our national conversation beyond rumors and rivalries. Because if we continue to place the weight of our truth-seeking on the shoulders of individual conflict, we will always be disappointed. The courtroom will close, the ruling will come, and we will find, once again, that the real questions remain unanswered.

The truth we seek is not in a defamation case or a public spat. It is in our refusal to forget. It is in our insistence that national memory be respected. It is in our courage to say that commissions are not enough, and that justice delayed, distorted, or diluted is justice denied.

If we want answers, we must demand them not from a court case, but from our government, our parliament, our civic spaces. We must understand that justice does not live in legal drama,it lives in public accountability. Until then, we risk mistaking sparks for sunlight, conflict for clarity and the truth we so desperately seek will remain just out of reach. M R R.

Rtd.Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s Selective Outrage and Intellectual Dishonesty.

A Response to Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr: Selective Outrage and Intellectual Dishonesty. Alagi Yorro Jallow

Fatoumatta: Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s latest attempt to vilify my defense of President Adama Barrow’s ceremonial attire lacks both historical grounding and intellectual honesty. His exaggerated critique—a blend of misplaced mockery and selective outrage—deliberately distorts the role of the Commander-in-Chief while conveniently ignoring well-established traditions. It is neither unprecedented nor unusual for civilian heads of state to don military attire in ceremonial settings. Leaders across Africa and beyond—including Tanzania’s Samia Suluhu Hassan, Senegal’s Macky Sall, and Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings—have all worn military regalia in official capacities without sparking misplaced controversy. Such attire symbolizes the authority vested in the head of state, reinforcing their position as the symbolic leader of the national defense forces. Sarr’s reaction, however, is not rooted in a genuine concern for military professionalism but in personal animosity and political opportunism. His history of contradiction—from his book Coup d’État in The Gambia, which he later retracted under pressure, to his erratic use of pseudonyms like "Ebou Kolley" and "Arac Pacobi"—reflects a pattern of intellectual dishonesty. His attempted transformation from Jammeh enabler to self-styled commentator is riddled with inconsistencies that undermine his credibility.

Moreover, his exaggerated framing of President Barrow’s appearance as "cosplay" exposes not only a failure to engage in substantive discussion but a deliberate effort to trivialize established governance norms. Presidents do not wear military regalia to “play soldier.” They do so in recognition of their constitutional authority, a practice embedded in traditions across multiple political systems. Fatoumatta: Rather than offering a thoughtful critique, Sarr’s response devolves into theatrical disdain, laced with personal attacks that have no bearing on the actual issue at hand. If he were genuinely interested in governance, he would acknowledge that presidential symbolism extends beyond uniforms and is rooted in historical precedence. But such an acknowledgment would require intellectual consistency—something he has demonstrated time and again to be beyond his reach.

As for his accusations, it is ironic that a man whose credibility was so tarnished he was denied the opportunity to testify at the Truth Commission would attempt to lecture others on integrity. His selective outrage, aimed more at personal grievances than objective discourse, is not only misplaced but a reflection of his longstanding struggle to reconcile his contradictions. A meaningful discussion on governance requires depth, historical awareness, and logical coherence. If Lt. Colonel Sarr is truly interested in engaging in such discourse, he must first reckon with his own conflicted record before attempting to lecture others on political symbolism. Lt. Colonel Samsudeen Sarr’s erratic criticisms and selective outrage epitomize a pattern of intellectual inconsistency that has long defined his public posture. His history of contradiction—of fabricating, retracting, and maneuvering to regain favor—stands as testament to a credibility crisis that no amount of theatrical prose can conceal. Real discourse demands integrity, historical awareness, and intellectual honesty. It is not shaped by resentment nor sustained by petty attacks. When someone like Sarr, whose own credibility was deemed too compromised to testify before the Truth Commission, attempts to lecture others on governance, one is reminded that opportunism often masquerades as wisdom. Fatoumatta: The presidency is not a spectacle, nor is national symbolism a trivial pursuit for political theatrics. It is grounded in tradition, reinforced by constitutional authority, and wielded as a representation of leadership. Sarr’s dismissal of this reality—driven more by personal vendetta than genuine critique, reflects the desperation of a man who has long lost the intellectual weight to engage in serious debate. History will not remember the loudest voices, but the most principled ones. And in this discourse, the contrast is clear.