Youth-Led Accountability protest Hijacked by Political Opportunists

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

The Opposition’s Political Calculations and Reclaiming the Mn ovement: No Place for Political Exploitation. Alagi Yorro Jallow Fatoumatta: In every political crisis, survival instincts take over. When youth activists took to the streets to demand full disclosure of Yahya Jammeh’s confiscated assets, sold under questionable circumstances, they ignited a movement built on transparency, justice, and accountability. But in the shadows of their courage, opportunistic politicians and diaspora figures are now hijacking their struggle for political mileage. Instead of standing beside these brave activists, certain figures have turned the protests into photo-ops for their personal branding. Some have rushed to detention centers, capturing selfies with arrested youth, while others have hosted press conferences in luxury hotels, masquerading as architects of the movement. These attempts to steal credit from genuine grassroots activism dilute the integrity of the fight and distort the core purpose of the protests.

Fatoumatta: Beyond the superficial political showboating, a deeper, more troubling trend is emerging: strategic undermining of the youth protests.The swift release of detained protesters—without securing tangible commitments from the government—represents a lost opportunity to force genuine engagement. Instead of securing direct assurances, activists were allowed to disperse without concessions, weakening the leverage they built through civil disobedience. This moment should have been used to demand a full-scale investigation into the undervalued sale of properties and expose the network of insiders who benefited from Jammeh’s confiscated assets.

A more assertive approach is needed—one that ensures a thorough reassessment of all seized properties, leveraging the damning revelations of former Janneh Commission Secretary Alhaji Mamadi Kurang and investigative journalist Mustapha K. Darboe. Their findings, along with scrutiny of former Attorney General Baa Tambadou’s role in these transactions, must become central to the youth’s demands for full accountability. Fatoumatta: Meanwhile, opposition figures are attempting to capitalize on the unrest, not by amplifying the youth’s cause, but by distorting it to fit their own agendas. Instead of legitimately supporting the movement, they have co-opted the protests through self-serving press releases and staged conferences, falsely positioning themselves as the architects of the revelations regarding Jammeh’s asset sales.

However, the government’s sudden compliance in releasing the full asset list suggests it is responding out of pressure, not principle. This reaction—borne out of political survival instincts—signals a potential consolidation of power, rather than genuine accountability. Fatoumatta: This moment is too critical to be ceded to opportunists. The youth, alongside the Gambia Youth Leadership Association (GALA), must recognize that politicians—whether domestic or in the diaspora—do not truly represent their interests at the political table. The National Youth Council must seize this moment, ensuring that demands for transparency extend beyond protest rhetoric and into structured action. By joining the Task Force, young activists can transform symbolic resistance into policy influence, preventing both government manipulation and political co-optation of their movement. The message to all self-serving opportunists is clear: this fight belongs to the youth. It is not for political theatrics, not for career-building, not for clout-chasing. It is about justice, integrity, and the right of the people to demand truth without interference.

Fatoumatta: Enough is enough. The youth must remain in control of their struggle, keeping political opportunists at bay and ensuring this fight remains focused on lasting change—not fleeting self-promotion.

Bubscarr Bob Keita and His Associates: A Warning to Gambians

By Yaya Dampha Coordinator NPP Diaspora

As Gambians prepare for the 2026 presidential elections, it is crucial to recognize the political posturing of individuals like Bubscarr Bob Keita and his associates. Their attempts to capture the spotlight and manipulate public sentiment reveal a troubling agenda, one that poses significant risks for our nation. Bob Keita, once entangled in a highly publicized legal case surrounding serious allegations, may have momentarily garnered attention and misguided support. However, it is essential to understand that any popularity gained during such tumultuous times does not equate to genuine public trust or integrity. Many supporters during his trial may have been motivated by a desire to protect men from unsubstantiated accusations, yet this does not excuse or validate his actions. The reality remains that those who engage in questionable behavior do not possess the character necessary to lead our country.

The upcoming elections provide an opportunity for Gambians to reflect critically on the qualifications of those vying for political power. We must prioritize leaders who embody integrity, maturity, and a genuine commitment to serving the people. In contrast to Keita and his associates, President Adama Barrow and the NPP are focused on fostering a stable and productive environment for all Gambians. Under his leadership, we can continue to build a brighter future, grounded in trust and accountability. It is evident that individuals with dubious backgrounds cannot be entrusted with the responsibilities of governance. The era of relying on clowns and disruptors to steer our political direction must end. The youth protests we have witnessed are a call to action, not just for political change, but for a deeper understanding of the qualities we seek in our leaders.

Let us stand firmly behind President Adama Barrow and the NPP, as they work tirelessly to protect the interests of The Gambia. Together, we can ensure that our nation is led by those who truly aspire to contribute positively to our society, rather than those who seek to capitalize on chaos and confusion. It's time to prioritize character and vision in our quest for true representation and leadership.

Editorial: Where Was The Outrage Before No

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

The Great Gambian Blindspot: Where Was the Outrage Before Now? Selective Outrage: Why Are Protesters Ignoring the 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission? Accountability Must Be Universal, Not Selective. Alagi Yorro Jallow Fatoumatta: Activism thrives on accountability, justice, and transparency—but what happens when activists themselves engage in selective outrage? As Gambians rally in protest demanding government disclosure of Yahya Jammeh’s asset buyers, one glaring contradiction remains: Where was this same energy when the 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission uncovered powerful elites dodging their fiscal responsibilities? Where were the protests when Justice Mama Fatima Singhateh’s commission exposed a web of financial misconduct among lawyers, corporate giants, and state figures? Instead of mass mobilization, there was silence. Instead of calls for justice, there was indifference. And now, suddenly, the streets are filled with voices claiming to fight for transparency—but transparency for whom? If activists and their supporters truly stand for accountability, then why have they ignored systemic corruption beyond Jammeh’s regime? This movement must confront uncomfortable truths, because justice is not real if it is selective. Fatoumatta: As Gambians rally for accountability and transparency, demanding answers about Yahya Jammeh’s looted assets, one glaring question remains unanswered: Why is there no outrage over the damning findings of the 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission? This commission, chaired by Justice Mama Fatima Singhateh, exposed powerful and influential lawyers, business elites, and professionals who failed to pay their taxes—a direct betrayal of the nation’s economic integrity. Some even challenged their tax liabilities in the Supreme Court, attempting to evade responsibility through legal maneuvering rather than compliance.

Yet, where are today’s protesters, who claim to be fighting for justice and transparency? Their silence on this issue reveals a troubling inconsistency—one that suggests political opportunism rather than genuine activism. If transparency is truly the goal, then activists must confront all forms of corruption—not just the ones that fit political narratives. The 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission uncovered widespread financial misconduct, yet no sustained movement emerged to demand consequences for those implicated. Instead, many of the same voices now calling for protests against Jammeh’s asset sales were silent when elite professionals dodged taxes, depriving the state of critical revenue. This selective outrage raises serious questions: Why was there no mass mobilization when the commission exposed tax evasion among powerful figures? Why do activists ignore systemic corruption beyond Jammeh’s regime? Are protests truly about justice, or are they being shaped by political convenience? True accountability must be consistent—not cherry-picked based on political expediency. Fatoumatta: Activism should never be reduced to a tool for political maneuvering. Yet, many protesters today risk becoming pawns, blindly following narratives shaped by political elites rather than engaging in independent, critical advocacy. The silence on the 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission suggests that some activists are willing to overlook corruption when it does not serve their immediate agenda. But justice is not selective—it must be pursued wherever wrongdoing exists, whether it involves former presidents, business elites, or influential lawyers. If Gambians truly want transparency, they must demand accountability across all sectors, not just where it is politically convenient. The fight for justice and transparency must be rooted in principle, not political calculation. If protesters ignore past corruption while selectively targeting certain figures, they risk undermining the credibility of their movement.

The 2011 Tax Evasion Inquiry Commission was a critical moment in The Gambia’s history, exposing deep-rooted financial misconduct. Yet, it was met with silence. If activists truly stand for accountability, they must demand justice for all forms of corruption—not just the ones that fit political narratives. The question remains: Will Gambians fight for real transparency, or will they continue to be pawns in a selective battle?

Statement Condemning Intimidation of Investigative Journalist Mustapha K. Darboe

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

The blatant attempt by leaders of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Media Council of The Gambia (MCG) to pressure The Republic newspaper into exonerating former Justice Minister Abubacarr Tambadou is an unacceptable assault on press freedom and investigative journalism.

Journalists do not exist to sanitize reputations or shield public figures from scrutiny—they exist to expose truth, hold power accountable, and inform the public. The April 30 investigative report, “The Assets of Gambia’s Former Dictator Go for a Song,” raised serious concerns about corruption and lack of transparency in the sale of Yahya Jammeh’s assets. Instead of addressing these concerns through lawful and transparent means, NHRC Chair Emmanuel Daniel Joof, MCG Executive Secretary Bai Emil Touray, and MCG Governing Council Chair Baboucarr Cham resorted to intimidation tactics, summoning Editor-in-Chief Mustapha K. Darboe to demand a joint statement clearing Tambadou of wrongdoing. This brazen attempt to manipulate the narrative is not only a violation of journalistic ethics but also a dangerous precedent for press suppression. The insinuation that Darboe was paid to conduct the investigation is a baseless and defamatory attack on his credibility, designed to discredit legitimate reporting and silence independent voices. We unequivocally condemn this intimidation and demand the following: 1. An immediate end to all forms of pressure and coercion against The Republic newspaper and its journalists. 2. A public apology from NHRC and MCG leaders for their attempt to interfere with independent journalism. 3. A reaffirmation of press freedom by all institutions tasked with upholding democratic values. The Gambia Press Union (GPU) has rightly called out this unethical interference, warning that journalistic integrity must never be compromised to serve political interests. The proposal to “tweak the facts” is a direct attack on truth and public trust—and must be rejected outright. Journalists must be free to investigate, report, and expose wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The Gambian people deserve transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to press freedom. We stand in solidarity with Mustapha K. Darboe and all journalists who refuse to be silenced. Alagi Yorro Jallow Former Executive Member of the Gambia and Emeritus Journalist.

Editorial: GALA Misguided in Their Approach

The newly established activist group, Gambians Against Loathed Assets (GALA), appears to be misinformed about the legal framework governing protests in The Gambia. Rather than effectively advocating for change, their tactics of public demonstrations echo sentiments from a time when free expression was met with harsh repression. Just a few years ago, many Gambians lived in fear of dissent under a dictatorship where any attempt to protest could lead to dire consequences, including imprisonment or, in some cases, even death. Today, however, Gambians can apply for permits to hold public demonstrations without fear of government retaliation. This shift illustrates a significant move towards freedom and democracy in our country. Despite this progress, it is essential to recognize that the right to protest is governed by the Public Order Act, which mandates obtaining police clearance to hold public gatherings. This law has undergone scrutiny and has been upheld by various courts, including the Gambia Court of Appeal and the ECOWAS Court, as evidenced by notable cases involving the United Democratic Party leaders.

Regrettably, some so-called human rights activists, journalists, and political figures—who once cowered under the regime of Yahya Jammeh—are now misleading our youth. They risk jeopardizing the future of these young people by encouraging protest actions that could lead to legal troubles. The recent actions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) serve as a stark reminder of this environment. In a disturbing turn of events, the NHRC leadership pressured the publisher of a critical investigative report to publicly vouch for former Justice Minister Abubacarr Tambadou. This move raises significant questions about the integrity and independence of our institutions. The Gambia Press Union (GPU) has condemned such pressure tactics, which undermine journalistic freedom and professionalism. The allegations against investigative reporting should be met with transparency and accountability, not coercion or intimidation. The GPU strongly asserts that the rights of journalists to provide accurate and balanced information must be preserved without external interference. As citizens of The Gambia, it is imperative to discern the motivations behind such advocacy and to engage in a manner that respects our evolving democratic framework. TRUE progress lies in fostering dialogue and understanding within the bounds of our laws, rather than descending into chaos that endangers our hard-won freedoms. Let us not be swayed by misguided leaders but rather advocate for our rights in constructive and lawful ways.

The Public Order Act Is Still Law

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

The Public Order Act: A Law of Controversy, But Still the Law. The Danger of Misinformation in Legal Discourse. The Case of Ousainou Darboe: A Legal Precedent. Alagi Yorro Jallow Few laws in The Gambia’s legal framework spark as much debate and contention as the Public Order Act. While critics argue that it is anti-democratic, the reality remains: it is a legitimate and enforceable law. Those who invoke constitutional principles must do so with accuracy and integrity, avoiding misinformation or political distortion. The Public Order Act has been tested in court, challenged at the highest judicial levels, and remains legally binding. It is not a relic of dictatorship, nor is it an arbitrary tool of suppression—it is a law that has survived judicial scrutiny, including cases brought by prominent political figures.

The Case of Ousainou Darboe: A Legal Precedent One of the most high-profile challenges to the Public Order Act came from Lawyer Ousainou Darboe, leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP). In 2016, Darboe and the UDP executive were arrested, tried, and convicted under this law for participating in unauthorized protests. Seeking justice, Darboe appealed his conviction at multiple levels: • The Appeal Courts • The Supreme Court • The ECOWAS Court Yet, each appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the legal validity of the Public Order Act. The courts upheld the government’s authority to regulate public demonstrations, confirming that while protest is a constitutional right, it must adhere to legal procedures. This ruling sets a precedent—one that activists and legal commentators must acknowledge when discussing the law. In an era where social media amplifies narratives, it is imperative that discussions surrounding legal matters remain fact-based and intellectually honest. The Public Order Act is often misrepresented, with commentators twisting its provisions to fit political agendas. Conduct thorough legal research—understanding court rulings and precedents. Avoid political distortion—ensuring legal arguments remain objective. Uphold integrity in discussions—promoting fact-based activism rather than misleading rhetoric.

The Public Order Act remains a valid law, upheld by The Gambia’s highest courts. While its democratic implications can be debated, its legal standing is indisputable. Those who invoke constitutional principles must do so with accuracy, ensuring that public discourse remains informed, responsible, and free from manipulation. Justice is not served through misinformation—it is upheld through fact-based legal challenges. If activists wish to contest the Public Order Act, they must do so through judicial processes, not through distorted narratives.The law is not perfect, but it is the law—and until it is successfully challenged, it remains binding.