For the past week, my ears have been bombarded with a cacophony of forwarded messages—both in written and verbal form—decrying the National Assembly Members (NAMs) of the NPP and their coalition partners for voting against a bill that allegedly “disenfranchises diaspora Gambians.” The outrage, though loud, follows a predictable script. Once again, the usual opposition chorus—composed of domestic party loyalists and a handful of self-appointed diaspora revolutionaries—has seized the microphone, spinning a narrative of victimhood and betrayal.
What piqued my interest in this controversy, however, was not the bill itself but the familiar faces orchestrating the uproar. These are the same career demagogues who reject every government initiative with clockwork precision—often without proposing a single viable alternative.
Ironically, most of them have never held administrative roles or wrestled with the complexities of governance. From their self-righteous vantage points, they fling criticisms, mistaking loudness for wisdom. But let’s puncture their illusion. The idea that a scattered group of Western-based Gambians—many of whom pontificate from the comfort of their apartments, reliving their political grudges—somehow represent the entire diaspora is laughable. Having lived abroad for decades, I can confidently say that the overwhelming majority of Gambians in the diaspora are not part of this English-speaking activist class that dominates online discussions. Instead, they form a silent but formidable bloc—entrepreneurs, traders, construction workers, and taxi drivers—whose primary concern is economic stability, not the ideological crusades of online firebrands.
Take the Bronx, New York—home to one of the largest Gambian communities abroad. If one were to conduct an impromptu survey on Jerome Avenue, where Gambians gather in large numbers, I would wager that 90% would cast their ballots for the NPP. Their business-oriented mindset prioritizes stability over opposition theatrics. So, the question remains: who exactly are these self-proclaimed diaspora representatives speaking for?
As for the domestic opposition, their selective outrage over this bill is as hypocritical as it is amusing. The very clause that governs diaspora voting is rooted in the 1997 Constitution—a document they have long sought to replace. If the ultimate goal is to discard the so-called “forbidden” constitution, why cherry-pick a single provision to defend? Either the entire constitution is illegitimate, or it isn’t.
Moreover, let’s dispense with the misinformation. The bill in question isn’t some single-issue attack on diaspora rights—it’s an extensive election bill with 157 clauses. Those fixated on a lone provision are either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting the bigger picture. According to the 1997 Constitution, the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is mandated to register any Gambian of sound mind who is at least 18 years old. The only stipulation? They must be registered in one of the country’s 53 constituencies. Meaning, if diaspora Gambians wish to vote, they are free to return home and cast their ballots in their designated constituencies, as some already do.
But let’s entertain the opposition’s argument for a moment. If the government were to allow diaspora voting as they demand, the IEC would have to provide ballot boxes for every constituency and distribute them worldwide. Logistically, that is a nightmare of absurd proportions. The government’s proposed alternative—a constitutional amendment that establishes designated diaspora constituencies—is a far more practical and forward-thinking solution. This would allow Gambians abroad to not only vote but also elect their own representatives to the National Assembly. If that isn’t a more logical and effective approach, then what is?
Now, let’s talk about the so-called injustice of barring dual citizens from holding political office. Both the 1997 Constitution and the 2020 draft constitution maintained stringent restrictions on dual citizens vying for key government positions. Yet, the revised 2024 Constitution offers a groundbreaking shift by lifting these barriers, allowing dual citizens to contest for office. That’s progress. But, of course, the opposition remains entrenched in their dogmatic stance, ensuring that meaningful dialogue on these developments is drowned out by their relentless antagonism.
Amid this noise, I stumbled upon an article by Mr. Omar Bah of The Gambia Standard, reporting the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s disappointment over the National Assembly’s rejection of the bill. Predictably, the NHRC parroted the opposition’s talking points, insinuating government complicity in suppressing diaspora voting rights. But let’s place this in context: out of Africa’s 54 sovereign nations, only a handful—Senegal, Algeria, Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Tunisia, South Africa, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, and Niger—have provisions for diaspora voting. Notably, none of the ECOWAS Anglophone nations have adopted it, a testament to its complexity. Rather than fanning public resentment with emotionally charged rhetoric about diaspora remittances, the NHRC should have offered practical solutions for implementing diaspora voting in a way that aligns with national realities. But, as we all know, the NHRC is stacked with hardcore opposition loyalists whose allegiance lies not with objective governance but with political activism disguised as human rights advocacy.
At the heart of this entire debate lies an inconvenient truth: without a consensus on adopting either the 2020 or 2024 draft constitutions, The Gambia is left with a stark reality—the 1997 Constitution remains the legal foundation of the state. Instead of waging an ideological war over which draft constitution should be accepted, why not take a pragmatic approach? Why not revisit the 1997 Constitution, reinstate beneficial provisions that were removed from the original draft, and eliminate those that no longer serve the national interest? This remains a viable, common-sense option—one that was previously suggested by Halifa Sallah and deserves serious consideration.
For now, the opposition can continue their theatrical outrage. But the majority of Gambians—both at home and abroad—are more concerned with governance that works, not political posturing that leads nowhere.
COL SAMSUDEEN SARR
The Gambia Armed Forces regrets to announce the passing of Brigadier General Bora Colley on 9 March 2025.
Brigadier General Colley voluntarily returned to The Gambia on 9 August 2024, after eight (8) years of self-imposed exile, citing deteriorating health conditions. During his time in exile in Guinea-Bissau, he also traveled to Casamance and the Middle East.
Following his return, Brigadier General Colley was taken into state custody due to the circumstances surrounding his departure and his implication in the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) report, which recommended his prosecution for the killing and torture of victims in various locations in The Gambia.
While in custody, his medical condition was assessed and found to require continuous medical monitoring, which was provided by the state. Despite these efforts, he succumbed to his medical condition on 9 March 2025.
Meanwhile, the Hon. Attorney General and Minister of Justice has applied to His Lordship, the Hon. Chief Justice for an inquest to be conducted pursuant to the Coroner’s Act in respect of the Deceased who died while in the custody of the Armed Forces. The purpose of the inquest is to ascertain the actual cause of death of the Deceased.
The Gambia Armed Forces extends its condolences to his family.
*The Government of The Gambia remains committed to fully investigating and prosecuting cases that arose from the recommendations of the TRRC, as contained in its White Paper on the TRRC Report.*
Issued by:
DHQ , Gambia Armed Forces
Banjul, The Gambia
10 March 2025
