THE DILEMMA OF OUTSOURCING JUSTICE: CAN THE GAMBIA TRUST ITS OWN TO DELIVER ACCOUNTABILITY?

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

Fatoumatta: As the government appoints a British Special Prosecutor for Jammeh‑era crimes, the nation confronts a deeper question: is foreign expertise a necessity—or a confession of institutional weakness?

The Gambia turns to a British barrister to lead Jammeh‑era prosecutions, reopening the debate on sovereignty, capacity, and the unfinished work of transitional justice. Alagi Yorro Jallow examines the tension between Gambianization and the urgent need to win cases that history cannot afford to lose.

The dilemma of outsourcing justice lies between embracing Gambianization and ensuring the capacity to win cases. It’s the capacity paradox: while Gambian talent is abundant, the confidence to fully harness it remains elusive.  Nations do not merely prosecute crimes; they perform justice. Every decision about who leads a prosecution becomes a statement about sovereignty, confidence, and national memory. The Government’s appointment of British barrister Martin Hackett as Special Prosecutor for Jammeh‑era crimes is therefore not a routine administrative act. It is a defining moment in our transitional justice journey—one that forces us to confront the tension between outsourcing expertise and Gambianizing justice.

In January 2026, I argued in “Outsourcing Justice—Why The Gambia Must Trust Its Own to Prosecute Jammeh‑Era Crimes” that a nation emerging from dictatorship must reclaim its own justice. Now, the central dilemma is clear: can The Gambia secure justice for Jammeh-era crimes when prosecutions are led by a foreigner rather than its own citizens? The issue is no longer theoretical—it defines the current architecture of our justice system.

Fatoumatta: The Gambia is not short of legal brilliance. Our record speaks for itself. Gambians have prosecuted at the Rwanda Tribunal. A Gambian served as Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. Gambian judges sit on international tribunals. The TRRC’s Lead Counsel—himself a Gambian—demonstrated world‑class prosecutorial skill before a global audience. These are not patriotic exaggerations; they are verifiable achievements.

Yet the government’s decision suggests a deeper anxiety: Gambian expertise is celebrated abroad but doubted at home. The collapse of the Ousainou Bojang prosecution exposed the fragility of our institutions—undertrained investigators, weak prosecutorial preparation, procedural missteps, and a justice system unprepared for high‑stakes litigation. The lesson was stark: the issue is not Gambian intellect; it is Gambian institutional capacity.

Fatoumatta: The Barrow administration now stands at a crossroads where two imperatives collide. On one hand lies the principle of Gambianization—national ownership, sovereignty, and the moral symbolism of Gambians prosecuting their own history. On the other hand lies the performance imperative—the need to win cases that carry global scrutiny and historical weight.

Jammeh‑era prosecutions involve cross‑border investigations, complex chains of command, crimes against humanity, extradition negotiations, witness protection, and forensic evidence. These are not ordinary cases. They demand a prosecutorial machinery that The Gambia has not fully built. Thus, the appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor becomes a form of insurance—an attempt to avoid the national humiliation of failed prosecutions. But insurance has a cost.

Outsourcing justice carries profound risks. It weakens national ownership of the transitional justice process, which is not a consultancy project but a national ritual. Victims want Gambians leading the reckoning, not observing it from the sidelines. It also reinforces the colonial reflex—the old belief that legitimacy comes from abroad. And it weakens public trust: if the state does not trust Gambian prosecutors, why should citizens trust the state? These risks are not symbolic; they shape the legitimacy of the entire TRRC process. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done by the nation that suffered.

Fatoumatta: To be fair, the government’s reasoning is not without merit. The stakes are enormous: the credibility of the TRRC, the expectations of victims, the international community’s scrutiny, and the historical weight of prosecuting a former head of state. A failed prosecution would be catastrophic. A foreign prosecutor, therefore, becomes a stabilizing force—an attempt to guarantee competence where institutions remain fragile. But even necessity must be managed with wisdom.

The question is not whether foreign expertise is useful. It is how it is deployed. A sustainable model requires Gambian leadership at the top, supported by foreign technical advisers embedded within teams. Joint prosecution units, skill transfer, and a clear succession plan to hand over leadership to Gambians must be central to the architecture. This is how Rwanda rebuilt its judiciary, how Sierra Leone managed its hybrid court, and how Liberia handled its war‑crimes investigations. Foreign expertise should be scaffolding—not a replacement.

The Ousainou Bojang case revealed that justice collapses long before it reaches the courtroom. If The Gambia wants to successfully prosecute Jammeh‑era crimes, it must strengthen its investigative capacity, professionalize the police, invest in forensic science, empower the DPP’s office, insulate prosecutors from political interference, and reform the prosecutorial arm of the Gambia Police Force. Without these reforms, even the best foreign prosecutor will be building on sand.

Fatoumatta: Justice must return home. The appointment of Martin Hackett is a moment of truth. It exposes our institutional weaknesses, our political anxieties, and our unresolved debate about national competence. But it also offers an opportunity. If handled wisely, this will be the last time The Gambia outsources its justice. If mishandled, it will deepen the dependency we have spent decades trying to escape. A nation that survived 22 years of repression must reclaim its justice with its own hands. Foreign expertise may strengthen the process, but the soul of justice must remain Gambian. The victims deserve nothing less. History demands nothing less. And the future will judge us by whether we trusted ourselves enough to lead our own reckoning.

EDITORIAL: Do Not Mock the Dead: The Burden of Selective Activism

The tragedy surrounding the killing of the police officers in The Gambia continues to stir emotions across the country. It should. These were sons, fathers, brothers, and public servants whose lives ended violently while serving their nation. Their families deserve truth, dignity, and closure. They deserve justice pursued calmly and responsibly through the courts of law.

This is why the reflection by Alagi Yorro Jallow on the danger of selective outrage deserves serious attention. His warning is not an attack on activism itself, but rather a reminder that activism must be grounded in principle, consistency, and moral courage. When outrage appears only when it is politically convenient, it stops being activism and begins to resemble opportunism.

Perhaps the saddest irony in today’s loud social media activism is that many of the loudest voices now presenting themselves as moral guardians of justice are closely linked to the very structures that sustained authoritarianism in the past. In many cases, their own parents were prominent figures within the APRC youth wing structures during the Jammeh era — structures widely known for intimidation, harassment, and unconstitutional political activities that undermined democratic freedoms.

Those same networks produced individuals who were later rewarded with powerful positions as regional governors, local government chairpersons, and influential political operatives. They were the machinery that helped entrench fear and silence dissent during some of the darkest moments in the country’s recent history.

History cannot simply be erased.

This does not mean that children must carry the guilt of their parents. Every generation has the right to choose its own path and define its own values. However, when individuals whose families once benefited from authoritarian power suddenly present themselves as uncompromising champions of justice without acknowledging that history, it raises legitimate questions about the sincerity of their outrage.

True moral authority is built on honesty and consistency. It requires acknowledging past injustices, not selectively remembering them.

The danger of selective activism is that it transforms national tragedies into political tools. Instead of seeking truth, it seeks advantage. Instead of encouraging reflection, it fuels division. And instead of honoring victims, it risks exploiting their suffering.

The killing of the police officers is not a political slogan. It is a human tragedy. The justice system has already begun its work: a trial was held, a verdict delivered, and an appeal process initiated. That is how the rule of law functions in any democratic society. Justice is not determined by social media campaigns or emotional pressure — it is determined by evidence, procedure, and the impartial judgment of the courts.

This is precisely why responsible voices must urge restraint. The families of the fallen officers should not be forced to watch their loved ones’ deaths turned into daily political theatre. They deserve space to grieve and confidence that the legal process will pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Alagi Yorro Jallow’s reminder is therefore deeply important: a nation that practices selective empathy risks losing its moral compass. If we cry loudly for some victims while ignoring others, we weaken the very foundation of justice we claim to defend.

The lesson for Gambians today is simple but profound. Activism must be principled, not performative. Justice must be patient, not rushed by public noise. And national tragedies must never be exploited for political gain.

To do so would not only betray the values of justice and accountability.

It would also dishonor the memory of the dead.

Barrow’s Rural Transformation Agenda Accelerates as Communities Celebrate New Feeder Roads

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Communities across Jarra, Kiang and Foni turned out in jubilant numbers to welcome President Adama Barrow as he continued his nationwide foundation-laying tour for new feeder roads, a landmark initiative aimed at transforming rural connectivity and strengthening The Gambia’s agricultural economy.

The visit forms part of the second phase of President Barrow’s ambitious infrastructure drive, which has already delivered electricity to over 90 percent of the Gambian population—a historic milestone widely regarded as one of the administration’s most significant development achievements.

Now, the government is turning its attention to rural roads, with more than 75 kilometres of feeder roads set to link farming communities to highways, hospitals, schools, and major markets.

During the latest leg of the tour across the Lower River Region (LRR) and Foni in the West Coast Region (WCR), enthusiastic residents lined the streets to greet the presidential convoy, praising what many described as long-awaited development finally reaching their doorsteps.

President Barrow laid foundation stones for several key feeder road projects that will improve accessibility and economic activity in rural communities. The roads include:

Sare Jamma – Minna: 4.5 km (LRR)

Gjonkil, Kewel, Kangmamudu – Kampassa: 4.3 km (Foni Jarol, WCR)

Wasadou, Adullay, Fass Chabai, Kangiramba Busary – Bulengant: 7.0 km (Foni Jarol, WCR)

Bondali – Jorem Bundakunda: 4.2 km (Foni Bondali)

Burambang, Bulegant, Tibat, Kankurang – Bambara: 7.5 km (Foni, WCR)

Nyentempo, Fass Chamen, Nfee, Jending, Jilahar – Bulunto: 7.2 km (Foni, WCR)

These projects form part of a broader 204.7 kilometres of feeder roads being implemented under the World Bank-supported Gambia Inclusive and Resilient Agricultural Value Chain Development Project (GIRAV).

Government officials say the initiative will significantly improve access to markets, reduce transportation costs for farmers, and open rural communities to essential social services such as healthcare and education.

As part of the program, modern agricultural equipment is also being distributed nationwide, further empowering farmers and strengthening the country’s food production capacity.

President Barrow also inspected the Kabada Belt and Kiang West road works, another major infrastructure intervention designed to enhance mobility and stimulate economic activity across the Kiang area.

Community leaders along the tour route hailed the projects as a transformative step for rural development, noting that improved roads will allow farmers to transport their produce more efficiently while giving residents easier access to hospitals, schools, and markets.

With electricity expansion already reaching most parts of the country and road networks now extending deeper into rural communities, observers say the Barrow administration’s infrastructure push is laying the foundation for a more connected, productive, and prosperous Gambia.

State Withdraws Motion Seeking Stay of Bail Order in Bojang Case

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter
April 1, 2026

The State has formally withdrawn its application seeking to stay the execution of the bail order granted to Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, in the ongoing legal proceedings before the High Court of The Gambia.

According to an official Notice of Withdrawal filed at the High Court of The Gambia, Criminal Division in Banjul, the State discontinued two motions it had earlier filed on March 31, 2026 in relation to the case The State vs. Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang (Criminal Case No. HC/744/23/CR/148/AO).

The first motion was an ex-parte application seeking an interim stay of execution of the bail order pending the hearing of a substantive motion. The second was a Motion on Notice requesting the court to stay the execution of the bail granted on March 30, 2026, pending the hearing and final determination of the State’s appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

However, in a notice signed by State Counsel A. Drammeh, the State informed the court that it was withdrawing both processes. The notice clarified that the withdrawal applies to both respondents, namely Ousainou Bojang and Amie Bojang.

Meanwhile, the Gambia Police Force has confirmed that the two individuals have been released from State custody with immediate effect.

In a press release issued on April 1, 2026, the Police informed the public of the development and called for calm.

“The Gambia Police Force wishes to inform the public that Mr. Ousainou Bojang and Ms. Amie Bojang have been released from State custody with immediate effect,” the statement said.

The Police further urged citizens to continue with their normal and lawful activities while assuring the public of its continued commitment to maintaining peace, security, and public order across the country.

The Bojang case has drawn significant public attention in recent weeks, particularly following the High Court’s decision to acquit and discharge the accused persons, and the subsequent legal moves by the State to challenge aspects of the ruling.

Legal observers note that although the State has withdrawn the motions relating to the stay of the bail order, the broader appeal process concerning the judgment of acquittal remains a separate matter within the judicial system.

JarranewsTV will continue to monitor developments in the case and provide updates as they unfold.

State Files Appeal to Overturn Acquittal of Ousainou and Amie Bojang

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Banjul — The Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice has filed a formal appeal seeking to overturn the acquittal and discharge of Ousainou Bojang and his sister, Amie Bojang, following the High Court ruling delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh.

In a Notice of Appeal filed on March 31, 2026, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) A.M. Yusuf described the trial court’s decision as “unreasonable and erroneous,” urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment and substitute it with convictions and sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

According to the filing, the State has advanced seven grounds of appeal, arguing that the trial judge committed several errors in both law and fact in arriving at the acquittal.

Ground One: Confessional Statements

The State contends that Justice Jaiteh erred in law by reducing the evidentiary weight of Ousainou Bojang’s extra-judicial statements, tendered as Exhibit P6, on the basis that they lacked corroboration. The prosecution argues that the statements were obtained in compliance with due process and were sufficiently corroborated. It further maintains that a properly established confession can legally sustain a conviction even if the accused later retracts it.

Ground Two: Burden of Proof and Alibi

The prosecution also argues that the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the State to disprove what it describes as an “afterthought alibi” raised during the trial. The State further submits that WhatsApp messages tendered as Exhibit D38 do not conclusively establish the accused’s physical location. It also faults the court for relying on testimony from witnesses described as close associates or relatives of the accused—identified as DW3, DW4, and DW12—whose evidence, the State argues, required careful caution due to their potential interest in the case.

Ground Three: Circumstantial Evidence

In its third ground, the State maintains that the judge focused too narrowly on visual identification principles, commonly referred to as the Turnbull guidelines, while overlooking what it describes as a “compelling web of circumstantial evidence.” The prosecution asserts that this body of evidence led investigators to Ousainou Bojang’s residence, where a kaftan allegedly linked to the case was recovered, and where the location of the alleged murder weapon was identified.

Ground Four: Flight to Senegal

The State further argues that Ousainou Bojang’s departure to Senegal on September 13, 2023, shortly after the incident, constitutes strong evidence of a “consciousness of guilt.” According to the prosecution, the trial judge failed to adequately scrutinize the accused’s explanation that he fled because of allegedly circulating nude photographs on social media. The State claims that the clandestine nature of the journey and attempts to avoid police checkpoints point instead to deliberate evasion.

Ground Five: Video Recording of Detention

The appeal also challenges the judge’s treatment of procedural issues surrounding the failure to video-record the accused’s detention under provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The State argues that once the court admitted the confessional statements following a voir dire, it should not subsequently have deemed them unreliable solely because of procedural non-compliance.

Ground Six: Alleged Role of Amie Bojang

With respect to Amie Bojang, the State submits that if the acquittal of Ousainou Bojang is overturned, the case against her as an accessory would automatically be revived. The prosecution points to testimony suggesting that she arranged transportation for her brother while allegedly aware that he intended to avoid public places.

Ground Seven: Overall Assessment of Evidence

Finally, the State argues that the High Court’s judgment was “unreasonable, excessive, and unwarranted” when assessed against the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

The prosecution is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court’s ruling and replace the acquittal with a conviction.

The case is expected to proceed before the Court of Appeal at a date yet to be announced.

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.