By Dave Manneh – Research Lead
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative
In my capacity as a Brufut indigene, with deep connections to the customary landowners of the land the state calls the Tanji Bird Reserve, and as Research Lead for SFLRAC, I feel it necessary to offer a critical perspective on the recent investigative report by Malagen. This report transcends mere journalistic exposé; it represents a crucial empirical document shedding light on the systemic inefficiencies of The Gambia’s land governance system and the continuity of injustices across political transitions.
I present this analysis on behalf of my community, whose hold on their ancestral heritage remains precarious amidst the unrelenting assault.
Understanding Elite Capture and Accumulation by Dispossession
The Malagen investigation corroborates a disturbing pattern SFLRAC has consistently critiqued: the questionable transfer of communal assets–a dynamic that has persisted beyond the previous authoritarian regime. The detailed allocation of substantial tracts within the Tanji Bird Reserve to private entities, including prominent political and business figures, constitutes a stark violation of established legal norms, and represents “elite capture.”
Gambians must understand this phenomenon within the broader framework of “accumulation by dispossession”–the systematic transfer of communal assets to private interests through extra-economic means. Such practices reveal how ostensibly democratic governance structures can facilitate the instrumentalisation of state power to enrich elites at the expense of communities.
Constitutional Violations and Procedural Irregularities
The Karenti Land Question
Critically, the land identified as the Tanji (or Tanjeh) Bird Reserve is, in fact, Karenti (the land of Brufut clans). It was part of the tract of lands the community leased to the state as part of the Tourism Development Area (TDA) under specific conditions. When the “primary use” changes from its original purpose, the state bears an obligation to revert the land to its rightful owners rather than proceeding with redistribution amongst the elite.
This reallocation represents not merely a policy misjudgement but a violation of the original terms by which the community entrusted the land to the state. Moreover, it constitutes a direct affront to the ancestral land rights of the Kombonkas, reinforcing patterns of systematic dispossession that have historically characterised state-community relations.
The Janneh Commission and Legal Precedent
The Malagen report confirms that the Janneh Commission had determined the de-reservation of this land by the former presidency to be illegal. Despite this legal pronouncement and the corresponding recommendation that the state reinstate the land’s protected status, the Gambia Tourism Board (GTBoard) proceeded with parcel distribution, justified under the rubric of a “tourism designated zone.”
This action is indefensible. As SFLRAC has written in similar cases, the GTBoard is potentially enabling the appropriation of communal lands without transparent consultation or seeking community consent.
Environmental Impact and Sustainable Development Concerns
The environmental implications of these allocations are profound and far-reaching. Karenti is a critical refuge for hundreds of bird species, representing a significant ecological asset both nationally and internationally.
The prioritisation of private commercial development contradicts principles of sustainable development and environmental stewardship. This act raises fundamental questions about development models that generate wealth for elites whilst yielding minimal returns to communities.
Characterising these activities as “rent-seeking” rather than authentic “value creation” is apt. Notably, presidential aspirant Essa Faal (a beneficiary of these allocations) has previously described communal lands as “dead capital” in a radio interview. Such framing reflects a reductionist approach to land that privileges market activation, thereby legitimising the transfer of community and national assets to elites like him.
Procedural Irregularities and Governance Failures
The Malagen report highlights troubling procedural irregularities that warrant investigation. Allegations that Nandkishore Rajwani used multiple identities to accumulate land whilst receiving allocations without fulfilling financial prerequisites exemplify the endemic corruption in land dealings. These practices mirror patterns whereby officials divert public-purpose lands to colleagues, friends, family, and other connected individuals rather than serving genuine development needs.
The reported interaction between Faal and Barrow regarding land applications highlights concerns about opaque processes and conflicts of interest within public asset management. Faal’s own account of his presidential meetings, though meant to show transparency, highlights the problem of privileged access and informal decision-making processes that bypass established institutional safeguards.
Historical Context and Structural Analysis
The State Lands Act Legacy
This situation serves as a reminder that the State Lands Act 1991 needs reviewing. It vests the Minister of Lands with extensive powers often without requiring community consultation or participation in decision-making processes.
This legislation leaves communities vulnerable to precisely the abuses we are seeing in Karenti. The continuation of the Jammeh playbook under Barrow suggests that despite regime transition, structural reform remains incomplete.
Continuity Across Political Transitions
The situation also demonstrates how elite capture mechanisms can persist across political changes. The pattern of dispossession that has historically favoured external interests over indigenous communities continues unabated. This suggests that regime change alone is insufficient to address embedded structural issues within land governance systems.
Community Resistance and Democratic Engagement
SFLRAC commends the stance and courage Brufut youth and forest rangers demonstrated by resisting construction on these allocated plots. Their actions represent the sort of community-centred approach and sustained vigilance that land rights advocacy and protection requires. Such grassroots efforts are even more crucial when administrative guidelines prove meaningless, lack enforcement mechanisms, and lack genuine political will.
This collective resolve points towards the possibility of governance systems where such forms of community resistance become unnecessary, and where development enhances rather than undermines community rights and environmental sustainability.
Policy Demands and Reform Framework
Considering these pressing concerns, SFLRAC demands:
- Immediate Cessation and Land Restitution
The GTBoard must cease further allocations and development activities within Karenti. The state must return the land to its rightful customary owners, given that its primary use has changed from its lease agreement with the landowners.
- Implementation of Legal Directives
The state must implement the recommendations of the Janneh Commission, ensuring the restoration of the Karenti’s protected environmental status. Legal pronouncements cannot remain mere symbolic gestures; they must translate into administrative action and policy implementation.
- Comprehensive Transparency and Accountability
The state must investigate all land allocations within Karenti, ensuring accountability for anyone implicated in illegal or corrupt practices. It must make accessible and public all documentation, including land valuation reports, transaction records, and decision-making processes.
- Community Empowerment in Governance
The voices and rights of communities must be central to all land governance decisions, ensuring meaningful participation prior to rather than subsequent to development decisions. The state must adopt legal empowerment approaches to strengthen communities’ capacity to assert their rights effectively within formal governance structures.
Towards Justice and Sustainable Development
The situation in Karenti is not an isolated incident but part of a systematic pattern throughout Kombo that favours elite interests over rights and even environmental sustainability. SFLRAC remains committed to using research and advocacy to address the knowledge gaps concerning land laws whilst empowering communities to reclaim lost rights and protect heritage.
We call upon all stakeholders–policymakers, civil society organisations, international development partners, and the broader Gambian public–to act decisively in ensuring that heritage preservation and community rights take precedence over narrow economic interests.
ADDENDUM – 19 July 2025
Following initial circulation of this analysis, Mr Essa Mbye Faal released a comprehensive statement through the APP-Sobeyaa Party addressing his land allocation.
Response to Faal’s Statement: We’ve read Faal’s statement carefully. His characterisation of the dispute as jurisdictional (between GTB and Parks and Wildlife) ignores the fundamental question of land rights. His argument that the bird sanctuary should remain limited to 401 hectares, whilst technically referencing existing legislation, does not address whether this original designation itself violated the customary tenure rights of the Brufut clans over Karenti.
His claim of having “followed due process” works within a system that excludes communities from decisions about their own lands and treats customary ownership with legal irrelevance if not an annoyance. The fact that Faal paid substantial sums and received governmental encouragement does not resolve the core question of whether the state had legitimate authority to lease or allocate these lands in the first place, given the TDA lease and customary ownership status.
Faal’s defence, though detailed, misses the point entirely: whether allocations follow formal governmental procedures is less significant than whether those procedures themselves respect the ancestral rights of communities. The competing narratives surrounding these allocations underscore the need for governance frameworks that centre community voices rather than treating them as peripheral concerns it can address after it has made administrative decisions.
Our position remains unchanged that procedural compliance within flawed systems cannot substitute for genuine recognition of customary land rights. We’re open to discussions with anyone genuinely committed to land justice.
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative (SFLRAC) is a registered NGO-think tank hybrid based in The Gambia. Committed to empowering Kombo’s dispossessed land-owning communities, SFLRAC combines participatory action with rigorous research to secure ancestral land rights, advocate for equitable governance policies, protect cultural heritage, and advance sustainable development.
