EDITORIAL Justice Must Not Be Reduced to Partisan Theatre

The acquittal and discharge of Ousainou Bojang and his sister by the High Court in connection with the tragic September 23, 2023 Sukuta–Jabang traffic lights shooting has once again exposed a deeply troubling pattern within our national discourse: the dangerous tendency to reduce serious criminal matters into partisan political contests.

Two officers of the Police Intervention Unit (PIU) were brutally killed while on active duty, and another officer sustained injuries. These were not mere statistics in a court record. They were sons, fathers, brothers, and public servants who wore the uniform and swore an oath to protect society.

The fundamental question confronting the nation should therefore be simple and solemn: Who killed these officers, and how will justice be served?

Yet in certain quarters, the public reaction has shifted away from this central question. What has instead emerged is an atmosphere of celebration—not necessarily because justice has been achieved, but because the accused persons have been freed.

Such a reaction should give every serious citizen pause.

The Legal Meaning of an Acquittal

In criminal law, an acquittal does not automatically establish factual innocence. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the high evidentiary threshold required in criminal trials.

This standard exists to safeguard society against wrongful convictions and remains a cornerstone of modern justice systems. However, it also means that a failure of proof does not necessarily mean that a crime did not occur or that the real perpetrators are known.

Legal history across many jurisdictions offers numerous examples where innocent individuals were wrongfully convicted, while in other cases real perpetrators walked free because of weak investigations, flawed prosecutions, or procedural failures.

Such outcomes may arise from miscarriages of justice, poor evidence gathering, weak witness preparation, prosecutorial shortcomings, or the failure of investigators to strictly follow due process.

For that reason, the acquittal in this case should not be interpreted as a political victory for any group, nor should it be framed as a defeat for the State. It is simply a legal outcome arising from the evidentiary process within the justice system.

Justice Is Not a Political Contest

Unfortunately, sections of the political and activist space have chosen to frame the case as a trial of the State itself, rather than what it fundamentally was: a criminal case concerning the killing of two law enforcement officers.

Even more concerning is the conspicuous silence from many who claim the mantle of human rights advocacy when it comes to the victims of this tragedy.

Human rights advocacy must be universal and principled. It cannot selectively defend the rights of accused persons while ignoring the rights of victims and their grieving families. Justice demands balance.

The rule of law protects both the accused and the victims.

In this case, the accused were fully entitled to the protections of the law—the presumption of innocence, access to legal representation, and a fair trial based strictly on evidence presented before the court. These rights were respected.

However, the families of the fallen officers are equally entitled to truth, accountability, and justice. Their loss cannot be erased simply because a prosecution has failed to secure a conviction.

A Troubling Public Reaction

Equally disturbing is the tone of celebration seen on the streets and across social media following the acquittal.

In any mature democracy governed by the rule of law, the appropriate reaction to such a verdict should be sober reflection—not jubilation.

Two officers were killed in cold blood while carrying out their duties. When society celebrates the collapse of a murder prosecution without equal concern for the victims, it risks sending a dangerous message: that political allegiance matters more than justice.

No responsible society should travel that path.

Recognizing the Broader Democratic Context

While many on social media platforms are commending the defence lawyer Lamin J. Darboe for his legal performance in the case, it is equally important to acknowledge the broader democratic context that made such legal representation possible.

The government of President Adama Barrow deserves recognition for fostering an atmosphere that is legally conducive for lawyers—including those who once lived in exile—to return freely and defend accused persons in Gambian courts without fear or intimidation. The fact that a lawyer who once lived outside the country can appear in court, vigorously defend his client, and secure a favorable verdict speaks volumes about the current state of judicial independence and legal freedom in The Gambia.

Such realities stand in stark contrast to the era of dictatorship under Yahya Jammeh, when many lawyers, journalists, and activists were forced into exile simply for standing on the side of the law and justice.

The ability of defence counsel to operate freely, challenge the State’s case, and win in court is not a weakness of the system—it is evidence that the rule of law and judicial independence are taking root in post-dictatorship Gambia.

The Legal Process Is Not Over

It is important to emphasize that the legal process in this matter is not necessarily concluded.

The State retains the constitutional right to appeal, and the accused persons have been granted court bail pending any further legal proceedings. The appellate courts may now review critical legal issues arising from the judgment, including the evaluation of evidence and the interpretation of law.

This is how justice systems function. Courts correct potential errors through structured appellate processes—not through political outrage or celebratory street reactions.

The Question That Still Remains

Despite the verdict, one question continues to weigh heavily on the conscience of the nation:

Who killed the PIU officers?

Until that question is answered through credible investigation and lawful prosecution, justice remains incomplete.

The families of the slain officers deserve answers. The security services deserve accountability. And the Gambian people deserve the truth.

A Call for Sobriety and Responsibility

Recognizing the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang and his sister does not mean declaring them the killers. Nor does raising concerns about public celebrations amount to an attack on the judiciary.

Courts decide cases based solely on the evidence placed before them. When that evidence fails to meet the threshold required by law, acquittal is the only lawful outcome.

However, society must also acknowledge that legal outcomes can sometimes leave unresolved moral and investigative questions.

This case should therefore serve as a national reminder of the importance of professional investigations, diligent prosecution, proper witness preparation, and strict adherence to due process.

Without these foundations, justice—whether for the accused or the victims—can easily slip through the cracks.

Conclusion

The acquittal of the accused should not divide the nation along partisan lines. Instead, it should reinforce a fundamental principle that must guide any democratic society: the rule of law must prevail, and justice must ultimately be done.

Two police officers lost their lives while serving the public. Their memory deserves solemn reflection, not political theatre.

As the legal process continues, the nation must remain committed to the pursuit of truth, accountability, and justice.

For while justice delayed may be painful, justice abandoned is far worse.

GRA CHAMPIONS AFRICAN TAX SOVEREIGNTY AT WAUTI CONFERENCE IN SENEGAL

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

The Commissioner General of the Gambia Revenue Authority (GRA), Mr. Yankuba Darboe, has led a high-level Gambian delegation to the 12th Annual Conference of the West African Union of Tax Institutes (WAUTI) held in Mbour, Senegal, where regional leaders gathered to chart a stronger and more independent fiscal future for West Africa.

The Gambian delegation included Mr. Essa Jallow, Deputy Commissioner General and Head of Domestic Taxes; Mr. Yahya Manneh, Director of the Technical Services Department; Mr. Ebrima Sallah, Deputy Director of Legal; Mrs. Mariama Jobe, Senior Tax Officer and Country Representative of the Society of Women in Taxation (SWIT) Gambia Chapter; and Mr. Malayn Sanneh, Communication Sub-Officer II, alongside other supporting officials.

Speaking on behalf of the Gambia Revenue Authority and the Government of the Republic of The Gambia, Commissioner General Darboe delivered a powerful goodwill message highlighting the growing urgency for African nations to strengthen their tax systems and reclaim economic independence.

He commended WAUTI for sustaining an important regional platform that continues to bring together tax administrators, policymakers, academics, and financial experts to shape the fiscal destiny of West Africa.

“For twelve consecutive conferences, WAUTI has remained a beacon of professional collaboration and intellectual exchange,” Darboe noted. “Its consistency demonstrates vision, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to strengthening taxation across the region.”

This year’s conference was held under the theme “Taxation and Economic Sovereignty in West Africa: Harmonizing Fiscal Autonomy for Inclusive Growth.” According to Darboe, the theme resonates strongly with the realities facing African economies today.

He stressed that true economic sovereignty can only be achieved when nations finance their development through reliable domestic resources, rather than excessive dependence on external aid.

“Taxation is the most legitimate and sustainable tool available to governments,” he said. “It strengthens accountability between the state and its citizens and reinforces the social contract that underpins national development.”

The Commissioner General warned that many African countries are now confronting growing development challenges amid declining donor support, often described as “donor fatigue,” as the global economic environment becomes increasingly uncertain.

He further pointed to the alarming debt burden facing many African economies, noting that in some countries up to 60 percent of government revenue is consumed by debt servicing, leaving limited resources for vital sectors such as health, education, infrastructure, and social development.

Darboe therefore called on African governments to embrace home-grown solutions and strengthen domestic institutions, emphasizing that sustainable development cannot be outsourced.

“Our development must be driven by resilient economies, strong institutions, and efficient tax systems,” he stressed. “Africa must look inward and build the financial foundations necessary for its own progress.”

He also underscored the importance of regional cooperation, knowledge sharing, and continuous professional development among tax administrations in order to improve compliance, enhance transparency, and strengthen domestic resource mobilization across West Africa.

Beyond institutional reforms, Darboe urged a shift in public perception regarding taxation. Rather than viewing taxes merely as a burden, he said they should be seen as a collective investment in nation-building.

“When taxes are properly managed,” he explained, “they translate into roads that connect communities, hospitals that save lives, schools that educate future generations, and infrastructure that powers economic growth.”

The WAUTI conference brought together delegates from The Gambia, Senegal, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and Liberia, reinforcing the growing determination among West African nations to build stronger and more self-reliant fiscal systems.

For The Gambia, participation in the conference underscores the GRA’s continued commitment to modernizing tax administration, strengthening regional cooperation, and advancing Africa’s economic sovereignty through effective domestic revenue mobilization.

Who Gave Baba Galleh Jallow the Moral Authority to Lecture the Nation?

By Yaya Dampha

NPP Diaspora Coordinator, Sweden

The recent article by Dr. Baba Galleh Jallow, written under the banner of the so-called Never Again Network, opposing President Adama Barrow’s potential third-term bid, is not only intellectually shallow but legally unsustainable and morally hypocritical.

Before Dr. Jallow attempts to posture as the national conscience on matters of democracy and constitutionalism, he owes the Gambian people a clear explanation for the deeply troubling legacy he left behind at the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC)—an institution he served as Executive Secretary.

The fundamental question therefore arises: who is Baba Galleh Jallow to lecture the Gambian people about democracy when the very institution he administered left many genuine victims unrecognized while elevating questionable testimonies to official status?

The Constitution, Not Baba Galleh Jallow, Determines Presidential Terms

Let us begin with the law.

The 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, which remains the supreme law of the land under Section 4, clearly provides that the presidency is determined through democratic elections every five years.

There is no constitutional provision limiting a president to two terms in the current constitution.

Therefore, President Adama Barrow seeking another term—whether a third or otherwise—is not unconstitutional. It is simply a democratic right that must be decided by the Gambian electorate at the ballot box.

Dr. Jallow’s argument is therefore a political opinion disguised as constitutional authority.

In any genuine democracy, the decision does not belong to activists, networks, commentators, or former TRRC officials—it belongs to the sovereign will of the Gambian people.

Coalition Agreements Are Not Constitutional Law

Dr. Jallow’s argument about the 2016 coalition agreement is equally flawed.

While the coalition may have politically proposed a three-year transition, the reality remains that political agreements do not override constitutional law.

Once President Barrow was elected under the 1997 Constitution, his mandate became a five-year constitutional term, just like every other president elected under that same constitution.

No coalition document signed among political actors can supersede the legal authority of the constitution. To argue otherwise is to promote constitutional confusion dressed up as moral outrage.

The Hypocrisy of “Never Again”

The phrase Never Again should carry profound moral weight in The Gambia. It symbolizes a collective commitment to justice for victims of past abuses.

Yet under the leadership of Baba Galleh Jallow’s Secretariat, the TRRC produced outcomes that many victims consider deeply discriminatory and profoundly unjust.

One must therefore ask: how did the Commission determine who qualifies as a victim?

Why were individuals with clear historical records of arrest, torture, persecution and forced exile excluded from recognition?

Why was Musa Saidykhan—an internationally recognized torture survivor—excluded from the official list of victims?

Why were victims like myself, Yaya Dampha, and the family of the late Almamo Manneh, who was extrajudicially executed, not recognized by the Commission?

If we were not victims, why were we invited to testify before the TRRC?

Our testimonies are on record. The historical facts are documented.

Almamo Manneh was extrajudicially executed, just as Harouna Jammeh was.

Musa Saidykhan was tortured and permanently maimed, just as Bunja Darboe was.

Yet the TRRC under Baba Galleh Jallow’s Secretariat segregated victims—recognizing some while ignoring others.

Meanwhile, individuals whose testimonies raised serious credibility questions somehow found themselves included in the official reparations framework.

This raises troubling questions about transparency, methodology and integrity in the Commission’s victim determination process.

Accountability Must Begin with the TRRC Leadership

Before Baba Galleh Jallow lectures the nation about safeguarding democracy, he should first explain to the Gambian people:

What criteria did the TRRC use to determine who qualifies as a victim?

Who made the final determinations within the Secretariat?

Why were legitimate victims excluded from recognition?

Why were questionable testimonies accepted without sufficient scrutiny?

These are legitimate questions that deserve clear and honest answers.

Victims of the Jammeh era deserve justice—not selective recognition or administrative indifference.

The Convenient Return of Political Activism

It is also remarkable that some of the loudest voices today were silent when they held real institutional authority.

During their tenure at the TRRC, they possessed enormous power to ensure fairness, transparency and justice.

Instead, many used that platform to enhance international reputations, secure prestigious global engagements, and build impressive professional résumés before quietly moving on to greener pastures.

Now that some of those contracts and international engagements appear to be winding down, they suddenly reappear as political activists offering lectures on democracy.

The Gambian people are neither naïve nor forgetful.

They recognize opportunism when they see it.

Democracy Belongs to the Gambian People

Whether President Adama Barrow chooses to contest another election is not the decision of Baba Galleh Jallow.

It is not the decision of the Never Again Network.

And it is certainly not the decision of commentators seeking renewed political relevance.

It is a decision that belongs solely to the Gambian people through democratic elections.

That is the essence of democracy.

If Gambians believe President Barrow deserves another mandate, they will vote for him.

If they believe otherwise, they will vote him out.

That choice belongs to the electorate—not to self-appointed guardians of political morality.

The Real Betrayal

The real betrayal of the victims of the Jammeh era is not a presidential election.

The real betrayal would be a transitional justice process that failed to recognize all victims fairly and equally.

Until Baba Galleh Jallow confronts that moral failure and explains the inconsistencies of the TRRC’s victim recognition process, he lacks the credibility to lecture the nation on democracy and constitutionalism.

Those who presided over such a flawed process should approach the national conversation with humility rather than arrogance.

The Gambian people deserve honesty, fairness and accountability—not selective outrage and revisionist activism.

Democracy belongs to the people, not to self-appointed custodians of political virtue.

REJOINDER: HISTORY IS NOT YOURS TO EDIT, MADI JOBARTEH

Why the truth of the 2002–2004 media struggle must not be rewritten

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

In public discourse, disagreement is expected. What is not acceptable, however, is the deliberate distortion of verifiable facts in an attempt to recast history. Madi Jobarteh’s recent article in The Alkamba Times, purporting to revisit the 2002–2004 National Media Commission (NMC) struggle, falls squarely into that troubling category.

His account is not merely flawed—it is revisionist.

At the heart of this matter lies a simple, indisputable truth: the legal challenge against the NMC Act is a matter of public record. In Gambia Press Union & Others v. National Media Commission & Another (Civil Suit No. 5/2005), the Supreme Court of The Gambia clearly identified the plaintiffs who stood against the law. These included the Gambia Press Union (GPU), Deyda Hydara, Alagi Yorro Jallow, Demba Ali Jawo, and Swaebou Conateh.

This is not opinion. It is fact—documented, archived, and accessible.

Yet, in his attempt to reconstruct this pivotal moment in Gambian media history, Madi Jobarteh conspicuously omits my name while introducing individuals who were not party to the case. Such a departure from the record cannot be dismissed as oversight. It raises serious questions about intent and credibility.

Let us be clear: the constitutional challenge to the NMC Act was not a symbolic exercise. It was a defining confrontation with state power at a time when dissent carried real risks. The individuals named in the court filings were not commentators or retrospective analysts; they were active participants in a legal battle that helped shape press freedom in The Gambia.

To substitute or omit names from that record is to alter history itself.

It must also be stated that those referenced by Jobarteh—respected as they may be in their own right—were not plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. They neither signed the legal petition nor stood before the court in that action. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the public and undermine the integrity of the historical record.

This discussion is not about personal differences. It is about preserving truth in a space where accuracy matters. The history of the NMC struggle is too important to be reduced to selective storytelling or retrospective positioning.

Indeed, Jobarteh is correct in one respect: contemporary legislative proposals echo troubling aspects of past regulatory overreach, now extending into the digital sphere. That is a conversation worth having. But any meaningful critique of present challenges must be grounded in factual integrity. One cannot defend democracy by distorting history.

If we are to invoke the legacy of figures such as Deyda Hydara, we must do so with honesty. The principles he stood for—truth, accountability, and courage—demand nothing less.

The struggle against the NMC Act was not fought in comfort or hindsight. It was waged in a climate of fear and uncertainty, where taking a stand came with consequences. Those who participated did so at personal and professional risk. That reality must not be diluted.

History does not belong to any one individual to edit or reinterpret at will. It is a collective record, anchored in evidence. Court documents do not shift with narratives, and facts do not yield to preference.

In the final analysis, attempts to rewrite this chapter of Gambian history say more about the reviser than the events themselves. The record remains intact. The names are documented. And the truth endures.

No amount of revisionism can alter that.

STATE-LED SKILLS DRIVE IGNITES NEW HOPE FOR PWDs NATIONWIDE

By Madi S. Njie

In a bold demonstration of its unwavering commitment to inclusive development, the Government of The Gambia, through the National Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities (NACPWD) and the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Welfare, has successfully delivered a transformative nationwide training programme aimed at economically empowering Persons with Disabilities (PWDs).

Held from 16th to 18th March 2026, the intensive three-day initiative is being hailed as a landmark intervention designed to unlock the potential of PWDs by equipping them with practical skills in entrepreneurship, digital innovation, and vocational development—key pillars of the country’s broader development agenda.

The programme commenced at the GOVI Resource Centre in Kanifing, where participants from Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) under the Gambia Federation of the Disabled converged in large numbers, reflecting growing confidence in government-led empowerment initiatives. The momentum continued across the regions, culminating in a major provincial convergence at the Mansakonko Area Council, drawing participants from Lower River, North Bank, Central River, and Upper River Regions.

This strategic rollout underscores the government’s firm resolve to ensure that no Gambian is left behind. It directly advances the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2021, while reinforcing The Gambia’s standing commitment to global standards under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Officials described the initiative as a game-changer in shifting PWDs from dependency to productivity. Speaking at the opening, Principal Social Welfare Officer Mr. Modou Suwareh emphasized that true independence can only be achieved when individuals are empowered with relevant, market-driven skills.

“Skills development is the cornerstone of dignity and self-reliance,” he declared, urging participants to seize the opportunity as a stepping stone to economic freedom.

Chairman of NACPWD, His Worship Muhammed Krubally, reinforced the government’s inclusive vision, stressing that equality and non-discrimination are no longer aspirations but actionable realities under the current leadership. He noted that empowering PWDs is central to building a resilient and equitable society.

“We are determined to see persons with disabilities rise as creators of wealth and drivers of national progress,” he affirmed.

Director of Social Welfare, Mr. Alaye Barra, acknowledged longstanding structural challenges but pointed to innovation and technology as powerful tools now being leveraged to bridge those gaps. He highlighted that digital skills, combined with entrepreneurship, are opening new frontiers for PWDs to compete and thrive in today’s economy.

Adding further weight to the initiative, Deputy Permanent Secretary Mr. Delo Bah described the training as a “defining milestone” in the government’s social inclusion agenda. He reiterated that empowering PWDs is not just a social responsibility but a strategic investment in national development.

“By providing practical tools and knowledge, we are enabling active participation in the economy and strengthening the country’s human capital base,” he stated.

The training sessions—facilitated by seasoned experts including Ms. Jobe, Alex Pratt, and Mr. Abdoulie Demba Bah—covered critical areas such as business management, digital marketing, and enterprise development. Participants also received assurances of continued mentorship, including free advisory support for business registration—further solidifying the programme’s long-term impact.

Across all regions, participants expressed renewed optimism, describing the initiative as life-changing. Many indicated readiness to launch or expand their businesses, signaling a shift toward self-reliance and economic independence.

Stakeholders have since called for sustained investment in disability inclusion, particularly in enhancing access to digital platforms, assistive technologies, and startup financing. They also emphasized the importance of forming cooperative structures to strengthen collaboration and ensure long-term growth.

This landmark initiative stands as clear evidence of a government not only listening but delivering—creating real opportunities, restoring dignity, and empowering every citizen to contribute meaningfully to national development.

Indeed, The Gambia is steadily advancing toward a future where inclusion is not a privilege, but a guaranteed right for all.

Another Major Endorsement: Jarra News Echoes My Call for Media Reform.

By Alagi Yorro Jallow 

 I am humbled to see Jarra News join the growing national conversation sparked by my recent commentary on the state of journalism in The Gambia. Their detailed analysis affirms what many of us have been warning for years: the crisis in Gambian journalism is internal before it is external.

Jarra News highlights critical issues that can no longer be ignored: the collapse of standards, the rise of untrained voices, the politicization of newsrooms, the erosion of ethics, and the dangerous normalization of defamation and misinformation. Their conclusion is clear and uncompromising: reform is no longer optional; it is necessary for the survival of the profession.

This endorsement follows the earlier editorial support from the Daily Observer, signaling a broader awakening within the media landscape. The message from both institutions is unmistakable:

Accreditation, professionalism, and ethical discipline are essential if journalism is to reclaim its dignity and public trust.

 welcome this growing alignment and hope it inspires deeper reflection, honest dialogue, and meaningful reform across the sector. The future of our democracy depends on a credible, responsible, and principled Fourth Estate. The unified essay, The Rain That Beat Us: A Manifesto for Redeeming Gambia’s Fourth Estate, is now available for publication and public engagement.