Rearrest After Acquittal: Understanding the Law Beyond Social Media Noise

By Yaya Dampha

There has been a wave of heated reactions across social media following the rearrest of Ousainou Bojang and his sister after their release from Mile Two Prison. Many young Gambians and so-called cyber warriors are portraying the development as unlawful or a violation of justice. However, a basic understanding of criminal law and police procedure tells a different story.

It is important to educate the public that an acquittal and discharge in a particular case does not automatically grant permanent immunity from arrest. Where investigators believe that new evidence exists, a different offence has been identified, or a fresh charge can be lawfully framed, the police are legally empowered to arrest the same suspect again and commence a new investigation or prosecution.

In many jurisdictions — including systems modeled after the common law tradition such as The Gambia’s legal system — it is not unusual for police officers to position themselves outside courtrooms or prison gates to rearrest released suspects. This practice may occur when investigators are pursuing separate charges, newly discovered evidence, or procedural corrections to earlier investigations.

Those familiar with policing understand that criminal investigations are dynamic. Evidence may emerge later, witnesses may become available, or investigators may reorganize a case to ensure a more diligent and legally sustainable prosecution. In such circumstances, the law allows the police to take suspects back into custody and initiate fresh proceedings.

This does not automatically mean persecution or abuse of power, nor does it mean that the suspect has been found guilty. It simply means that the criminal justice process is continuing under a different legal framework or evidentiary basis.

Gambian youths must therefore resist the temptation to turn every legal development into political propaganda or social media outrage. The rule of law functions through procedures, evidence, and due process — not through trending hashtags or street speculation.

The real test of justice will still occur in the courtroom, where the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and where the accused persons retain their full constitutional right to defend themselves.

Until then, the public should allow the legal process to unfold calmly and responsibly. In a democracy governed by law, courts determine guilt or innocence — not social media tribunals.

Farafenni General Hospital Dismisses Whatson Gambia's Ambulance Story As False

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Farafenni, North Bank Region — The management of Farafenni General Hospital has dismissed as false reports circulating on social media suggesting that the hospital was unable to dispatch an ambulance to assist an alleged assault victim because the vehicle had been assigned to a presidential tour.

In a clarification issued on March 29, 2026, hospital authorities described the publication as misleading and inaccurate, stressing that none of the hospital’s ambulances were ever deployed for the presidential convoy.

According to the hospital management, presidential movements are always accompanied by ambulances from the State House, which operate independently and do not rely on ambulances stationed at public health facilities across the country.

The hospital further explained that the patient involved in the incident—who was reportedly assaulted in Farafenni—was escorted to the facility by the police and promptly received medical attention from clinicians on duty at the Accident and Emergency Unit.

Medical personnel immediately attended to the patient upon arrival, and hospital officials confirmed that she is currently in stable condition and receiving treatment.

The management reaffirmed its commitment to delivering quality healthcare services and maintaining the trust and confidence of the public.

“We remain committed to providing quality healthcare services at all times and value the trust and confidence the public places in us,” the hospital stated.

The clarification was issued by Mr. Sainey Dibba, Public Relations Officer of Farafenni General Hospital, who also urged members of the public and media outlets to verify information before publication to prevent the spread of misinformation that could undermine confidence in the country’s healthcare system.

Restoring Professionalism and Patriotism in The Gambia’s Justice System

By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator, Sweden

Nearly a decade after the political transition of 2017, Gambians continue to cherish the freedoms and democratic space that replaced the dark days of authoritarian rule. However, democracy does not merely thrive on freedom of expression and political pluralism. It equally depends on strong, disciplined and professional institutions — particularly the judiciary and the police force, which together form the backbone of law, order and justice.

Regrettably, the performance of the Gambia Police Force and significant segments of the Judicial Service since 2017 has raised serious concerns among citizens who expect a justice system that inspires confidence, professionalism and national pride.

Across the country, there is a growing perception that many criminal cases are poorly investigated from the very beginning. Arrests are sometimes carried out hastily, often without the level of evidence required to sustain a prosecution. Suspects are paraded, detained and sometimes publicly condemned, only for the cases to collapse in court because the investigations were weak or incomplete.

Such failures do not only waste public resources; they also erode public trust in the very institutions mandated to protect society.

Equally troubling is the lack of diligent prosecution in many cases that reach the courts. Prosecutors often appear unprepared, witnesses are poorly guided and inadequately briefed, and basic evidentiary standards are sometimes ignored. When witnesses take the stand, their testimonies frequently fall apart under cross-examination because the groundwork for a solid case was never properly laid.

Justice cannot be achieved when investigations are shallow and prosecutions are weak.

Another worrying trend is the unprofessional conduct displayed by some officers within the security and justice sector. The culture of leaking classified or sensitive information has become disturbingly common. Information meant strictly for official processes finds its way onto social media platforms or into the public domain through individuals who justify their actions under the banner of freedom of expression and democracy.

But democracy does not mean recklessness.

Freedom of expression should never be used as an excuse for breaching professional ethics, betraying institutional confidentiality or undermining ongoing investigations and judicial processes. When police officers or judicial staff compromise confidential information, they do not only damage specific cases — they weaken the entire justice system and betray the public trust placed in them.

At this critical moment, leadership and decisive action are required.

President Adama Barrow must take bold steps to restore professionalism, discipline and patriotism within both the police force and the judicial service. The time has come for what can metaphorically be described as the use of the “electric broom” — a firm and systematic effort to weed out unprofessional, incompetent and unpatriotic officials whose actions continue to tarnish the credibility of our justice institutions.

No government in the world can function effectively without a loyal, disciplined and professional police force. Likewise, no democracy can survive without a judiciary that commands respect, competence and independence.

Institutional reform must therefore go beyond rhetoric. It must include stronger internal accountability mechanisms, improved investigative training for police officers, better prosecutorial preparation, and strict enforcement of professional ethics within the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, the government should not hesitate to strengthen the system through international collaboration. One practical step would be to invite experienced Commonwealth judges and prosecutors to work alongside our Gambian legal professionals. While many Gambian judges and lawyers possess solid academic qualifications, judicial experience accumulated over decades in more mature legal systems can provide valuable mentorship and institutional strengthening.

Such partnerships are not a sign of weakness; rather, they are a demonstration of a nation’s commitment to improving its institutions.

The Gambia is still building the foundations of a stronger democracy after years of institutional decay. That rebuilding process requires courage, honesty and the willingness to confront weaknesses within our own systems.

The police must investigate professionally. Prosecutors must prosecute diligently. Judges must adjudicate competently and independently. And above all, every official entrusted with public responsibility must place national interest above personal convenience or public popularity.

The Gambian people deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, punishes the guilty and operates with the highest standards of professionalism and patriotism.

Anything less undermines the very democracy we fought so hard to restore.

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.