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.

Opinion: Letter To Lawyer Melville Roberts On Bensouda Kurang Law Suit

Upholding Integrity in our Discourse Dear Mr. Melville Robertson Roberts and others the sentiments you expressed are commendable, but it is essential to acknowledge that, as observers, we found your words to be flattering. I would like to respectfully remind you that, not so long ago, you were involved in a Facebook Live broadcast where you lost your composure and hurled insults at someone who had allegedly defamed and spoken disparagingly about your child. As a legal professional, your reaction was quite temperamental, and you resorted to using profanity. While freedom of speech and dissenting views are fundamental principles, it is crucial to recognize that they can be challenging to uphold in practice. The primary distinction in this instance was that you were not holding public office, but several hundreds of thousands of people including individuals including myself look up to you, much like you admire Lawyer Amie Bensouda. Many people had to urge you to reconsider your actions, and you even intended to block those who advised you to disregard the individual who had spoken ill of you and your daughter. You could have taken the higher ground and refrained from resorting to personal attacks, which included disparaging remarks about the individual’s mother. Lawyer Amie Bensouda chose to pursue legal action, which was the honorable course of action, and it highlights the importance of respecting the laws of our country The ongoing discussions surrounding the alleged illegal sale of looted assets belonging to Yahya Jammeh have raised significant concerns about how we address unsubstantiated claims within our society. It is imperative that those with allegations present solid evidence to the relevant authorities, allowing the judicial process to take its course. If proven guilty, individuals responsible for any wrongdoing must be held accountable.

As a member of the legal community, I recognize the serious implications of libel, defamation, and character assassination. The recent decision by Lawyer Amie Bensouda to use Facebook Live to confront unfounded claims made by Mr. Mamadi Kurang raises questions. Should such an important discourse devolve into a contentious “he said, she said” scenario? I believe it should not. Instead, we would have benefited from Lawyer Bensouda directly addressing the Gambian people, clarifying how the Janneh Commission managed the sales of the assets in question. That said, I commend her for taking legal action against Mr. Kurang, providing him an opportunity to either present evidence for his claims or face the consequences of a lawsuit. This was not a threat; it was a chance for him to substantiate his assertions. Lawyer Amie Bensouda is a respected member of our community—a loving mother, wife, and fellow Gambian who deserves protection from baseless allegations. Unfounded claims against her, or anyone for that matter, must not go unchecked. It is not just Lawyer Bensouda who has taken a stand; we have seen others, like Abubacarr Jawara, pursue legal redress in the face of defamation. It is crucial that we foster a culture of truthfulness and integrity in our discourse. When confronted with contentious issues, we must either speak truthfully or choose silence. This isn't about stifling dissent; it’s about combating the arrogance and misinformation that undermine our society.

I extend my sympathies to those aligning with Mr. Kurang, yet I must point out that his posture appears rooted in a troubling arrogance, which hinders our nation’s progress. Lawyer Bensouda’s courageous actions serve to promote our democracy and establish a precedent: that conveniently disregarding the truth will not be tolerated. Let us strive toward a more respectful and fact-based dialogue, while ensuring that individuals like Lawyer Bensouda are protected from unsubstantiated attacks. Sincerely, Ensa Ceesay for police Cadet