OPINION

By Dave Manneh

President Adama Barrow’s national address on 14 May 2025 offered a predictable, yet fundamentally dishonest, response to the burgeoning scandal surrounding the criminal disposal of Yahya Jammeh’s forfeited assets. Gambians both at home and abroad exchanged knowing looks and network-mediated eyerolls. Numerous analyses have correctly identified the chasm between Barrow’s platitudes of transparency and accountability, and the stark reality of systemic failures and a deeply entrenched democratic deficit.

Despite the President’s lip service to public concern and his admission of “certain procedural failures,” his strategic framing and continued reliance on demonstrably compromised institutions confirm the ongoing elite capture that has strangled The Gambia’s democratic aspirations.

Barrow began by acknowledging the “national concern with reason,” a tacit admission of the outrage Gambians feel and continue to express. His attempt to sanitise the government’s actions by referencing the Janneh Commission and the subsequent Ministerial Taskforce aimed to project a veneer of order and due process.

The Janneh Commission itself faced widespread criticism, and the very existence of a regularly reporting Taskforce directly exposes the incredulity of the President’s subsequent claim that he learnt crucial details “for the first time.” This implausible attempt to evade responsibility further shreds public trust, already decimated by revelations that assets worth millions were pilfered for mere fractions of their true value.

There are allegations of a state official’s brother acquiring a Mercedes-Benz for next to nothing, and stories of the wealthy plundering tractors intended for farmers. Those are stark evidence of a profound betrayal of the Gambians.

The President admitted “certain procedural failures,” notably the premature sale of assets, a significant concession forced by public outcry. Yet his subsequent decision to entrust the investigation primarily to the National Assembly and the National Audit Office – institutions previously shown to be toothless against powerful interests – exposes a cynical manoeuvre to neuter any genuine accountability.

There is a corpus of opinion pieces with incisive analyses that have demonstrated that The Gambia’s formal democratic structures, while present, lack the power to challenge entrenched power networks. Therefore, by opting for these compromised bodies, rather than establishing an independent panel as he initially considered, guarantees the perpetuation of a system where “connections matter more than competence and loyalty trumps law.”

This strategic choice is not about a commitment to a robust, impartial investigation; it is a calculated effort to control the narrative and severely limit the scope of any inconvenient findings.

Barrow’s pledge to publicise the findings and enforce recommendations offers a sliver of false hope, overshadowed by the historical context of broken promises and the proven complicity of the very institutions that the state tasked with this crucial undertaking. The true test will not be his words, but the government’s non-existent political will to implement any findings that might implicate powerful figures within the administration and the elite class.

Given the documented periodic attempts to suppress the media, and the routine disregard for judicial rulings, any expectation of a self-dismantling of the current corrupt power structure is naive. Thus, Barrow’s pledge convinces only a tiny fraction of Gambians.

President Barrow’s call for calm and unity is the routine rhetoric of leaders seeking to quell justified public anger. Nonetheless, genuine calm and unity can only be built upon a bedrock of trust and accountability, qualities this scandal has destroyed.

The Gambian public, especially the younger generation who see the truth online, increasingly understands the chasm between democratic pronouncements and the grim reality of endemic corruption and elite impunity. As my young cousin, Isatou aptly stated to me last night, “We swapped a dictator for a democracy, but we’re still waiting for the democracy to deliver.”

That wait, under Barrow’s leadership, appears destined to continue unless young people like her raise their voices and demand change.

Ultimately, President Barrow’s address, far from offering a genuine path to resolution, represents a superficial attempt to placate a furious populace. By clinging to compromised institutions and offering carefully crafted message, the President prioritises political survival over the fundamental necessity of justice.

Until The Gambia tears down the mechanisms of elite capture through concrete, independent action, the aspiration for a truly accountable democracy will remain a cruel illusion, and the stolen assets will stand as enduring monuments to a transition betrayed from within.

The true measure of President Barrow’s legacy will not be his pronouncements, sincere or otherwise, but his failure to dismantle the system of privilege that has infected the very democratic institutions Gambians fought and died to establish.

Dave Manneh – Research Lead

Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative

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.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect The Fatu Network’s editorial stance.

OPINION

By Dave Manneh – Research Lead, Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative
10th May 2025

In democracies, independent institutions guard against the concentration and abuse of power. When these bodies fail, or worse, actively undermine their mandates, they not only endanger democracy but imperil orderly society. The recent controversy involving the chair of The Gambia’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) exemplifies this danger, necessitating an intense and thorough public scrutiny.

Institutional Compromise in Plain Sight

The NHRC was initially welcomed as a symbol of democratic renewal following the collapse of Jammeh’s authoritarian regime. Established by an Act of Parliament in 2017 and operational by 2019, it represented a cornerstone of The Gambia’s post-dictatorship transition. It quickly gained recognition for its ambitious mandate, earning “A status” accreditation from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). This designation marked it as one of the first in the region to fully comply with the Paris Principles on independence, accountability, and pluralism. Abubacarr Tambadou, then Attorney General and Justice Minister, was widely credited as a driving force behind the NHRC’s creation during the early Barrow administration. His involvement was initially seen as instrumental to its legitimacy, cementing the NHRC as a flagship institution of the so-called New Gambia. But the very closeness between the NHRC and its political architects would soon emerge as its most profound vulnerability.

The troubling sequence began with The Republic’s investigative report on 30 April 2025. The report documented how assets seized from former dictator Yahya Jammeh, valued at approximately $362 million, were sold for merely $23.7 million, representing a staggering 93% loss of public value. More disturbingly, the report implicated former Justice Minister Abubacarr Tambadou in procedural irregularities surrounding these sales. Rather than defending press freedom and upholding public accountability, both core components of its human rights mandate, the NHRC acted in defence of Tambadou. On 6 May 2025, NHRC Chairperson Emmanuel Daniel Joof joined Media Council leaders in pressuring The Republic’s editor to issue a joint statement with Tambadou that would effectively exonerate him. Contextualising this alongside the NHRC’s public endorsement of Tambadou for the International Court of Justice reveals a profound institutional capture, directly threatening The Gambia’s democratic foundation.

The Founder’s Paradox

This controversy highlights the “founder’s paradox”: can institutions genuinely hold accountable those who created them? The NHRC’s statement supporting Tambadou’s ICJ nomination explicitly acknowledges his instrumental role in establishing the Commission. This creator-creation dynamic has transformed a potential independent guardian into a protective shield for its originator, illustrating a critical failure of oversight.
The NHRC’s behaviour embodies a corollary of elite capture: classic regulatory capture, where bodies of society set up to serve the public become instruments for protecting the powerful. When such watchdogs become complicit, the entire accountability ecosystem collapses, eroding public trust and enabling further abuses.

Beyond Individual Ethics: A Structural Problem

While focusing exclusively on individual ethical failures is tempting, the problem lies in systemic issues. The revolving door between government positions and oversight bodies generates conflicts that compromise institutional independence. In The Gambia, the transition from Jammeh’s authoritarianism has yielded formal democratic structures without the substantive application of democratic principles. The NHRC case underscores a critical failure of “horizontal accountability”, the system where state institutions are meant to scrutinise one another. This breakdown elevates the importance of “vertical accountability”, where citizens, through elections and civil society, hold power to account. As internal checks falter, “vertical mechanisms”, most notably a robust and independent press, engage in investigative journalism, and become the ultimate defence against impunity. This highlights the indispensable role of a free press when institutional oversight within the government weakens. And it is for this very reason that The Republic’s investigative report is such an honourable public service.

The Broader Pattern of Asset Mismanagement

The NHRC controversy is not an isolated incident, sadly, but rather part of a wider and systemic pattern of elite capture documented across Gambian governance. From the undervaluing and underselling of Jammeh’s assets to the dispossession of communal lands, arbitrarily changing the primary use of lands leased from communities without the communities’ consent, let alone awareness, a pattern emerges: connected elites systematically transfer public resources through opaque processes. When institutions meant to prevent such transfers instead obscure them, the issue transcends mere corruption, signifying systematic state capture, the repurposing of public institutions for private gain. This further entrenches elite power and undermines the principles of equitable governance.

Media Freedom Under Threat

Perhaps most worrying is the attempt to undermine journalistic integrity. By pressuring The Republic to issue a joint statement with Tambadou, effectively retracting their factual reporting, the NHRC and Media Council leadership demonstrated contempt for press freedom’s fundamental role in democratic governance. This action directly assaults a key pillar of vertical accountability. The implied threats of legal action, coupled with baseless insinuations that someone or some party bribed The Republic’s editor to produce the story, represent classic intimidation tactics on critical reporting. When human rights institutions themselves deploy such tactics, the democratic regression is particularly severe and signals a dangerous erosion of fundamental rights.

From Authoritarian Rule to Oligarchic Capture

The Gambia appears trapped in the “grey zone” between authoritarianism and democracy, a space where elections occur but elite networks obstruct genuine accountability. The formal trappings of democracy exist, yet power remains concentrated among those who can manipulate institutions for their own advantage, hindering true democratic consolidation. This situation represents not a clean break from Jammeh’s authoritarianism but its evolution into “competitive authoritarianism” or “electoral authoritarianism”: where democratic forms conceal essentially undemocratic substance. When human rights institutions protect the powerful rather than the vulnerable, this evolution accelerates, solidifying elite control.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

The chair of the NHRC has engulfed a profound crisis of legitimacy by his scandalous actions. How can an institution the state tasks with protecting human rights command public confidence when it actively undermines press freedom? How can it credibly investigate rights abuses when it demonstrates a willingness to shield powerful figures from accountability? This erosion of trust strikes at the heart of the institution’s mandate, rendering the position of its head untenable.

The Gambia Press Union’s call to remove the Media Council’s Executive Secretary is an important initial step, but more fundamental reforms are essential. The NHRC itself requires genuine structural independence, extending beyond its founding legislation, which Tambadou helped craft, to its operational reality. The resignation of the NHRC’s head would be a necessary first move towards rebuilding public trust.

Toward Genuine Institutional Independence

Recovering from this crisis demands several urgent interventions. The government must implement clear cooling-off periods to prevent revolving-door appointments between government positions and oversight bodies. Human rights institutions need independent funding mechanisms that shield them from financial leverage that might compromise their activities. Crucially, the NHRC currently appears to receive its funding primarily from the Government of The Gambia, alongside support from United Nations agencies and potentially other international partners; they need to structure this funding to guarantee the NHRC’s operational autonomy and prevent undue influence. Leadership positions within these institutions should be filled through transparent, merit-based selection processes rather than political appointments that create inherent conflicts of interest. Furthermore, The Gambia must substantively implement the Paris Principles, requiring independence of national human rights institutions, moving beyond mere rhetorical invocation. Finally, formal mechanisms should empower civil society to effectively monitor and evaluate the performance of human rights institutions themselves, creating an additional layer of accountability.

Conclusion: The Democratic Promise at Stake

The Gambia’s transition from Jammeh’s dictatorship initially inspired hope across Africa. However, this promise remains unfulfilled when institutions meant to safeguard democracy instead undermine it. The NHRC controversy reflects a broader crisis of post-authoritarian governance where formal institutions often serve to mask entrenched informal power networks.

As civil society organisations like the Gambia Press Union and Securing Futures continue to push for accountability, international partners must recognise that a functioning democracy requires more than elections and formal structures. It necessitates the substantive independence of its institutions and their consistent application of principles, irrespective of who stands accused. Ultimately, when human rights commissions act to shield the powerful rather than protect fundamental freedoms, democracy exists in name only, and the Gambian people deserve institutions that genuinely serve the public interest, not private ambitions.

Dave Manneh is Research Lead at Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative, a registered NGO-think tank hybrid based in The Gambia, committed to empowering Kombo’s dispossessed land-owning communities and advocating for equitable governance policies.

Dave Manneh
Research Lead
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative

By Dave Manneh – Research Lead
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative

“In the aftermath of The Republic newspaper’s explosive investigative article, Gambians confront uncomfortable truths about the continuity of injustice across political transitions. This piece connects our specific land rights concerns to these broader patterns of asset mismanagement that continue to impoverish our country.”

Background to This Analysis

This opinion piece is a response to a segment on “Coffee Time with Peter Gomez,” broadcast on Wednesday, 29 April 2025, featuring Mustapha Taf Njie. During this interview, Njie addressed questions regarding controversial land acquisitions in Brufut and Yundum during Yahya Jammeh’s regime.

Securing Futures submitted several pre-broadcast questions to Mr Gomez, including: “Your company developed Brufut Gardens and AU Villas on land the Manneh and Sanneh clans formerly held. What compensation did you provide to the community, and what percentage of the developments’ current market value does this represent?”

In his response, Njie defended the acquisition process, essentially justifying what we characterise as state-sanctioned dispossession. He claimed he provided compensation through “government-stipulated methods” while suggesting the development positively affected the national housing sector.

Securing Futures subsequently recorded an audio rejoinder challenging these claims, documenting that the clan rejected compensation payments and Njie initially attempted to impose GMD250,000 (less than $6,000) for over 30 hectares of prime land – a figure the clan explicitly rejected.

This case exemplifies a broader pattern of asset mismanagement and undervalued transfers that characterised the Jammeh era and continues after his forced exile.

The groundbreaking investigative piece by The Republic titled “The Assets of Gambia’s Former Dictator Go for a Song” has sent shockwaves through Gambian society both at home and abroad. This documented exposé revealed state officials sold assets worth approximately $362 million for only $23.7 million – a recovery rate of less than 7%.

The investigation’s detailed documentation of specific transactions, complete with names, dates, and figures, has transformed what Gambians once whispered as suspicion into incontrovertible public record. This systematic undervaluation constitutes a significant depletion of national resources that demands not just forensic scrutiny but immediate accountability.

From Loss to Legacy: Why Misappropriated Land Still Matters

The Brufut case, viewed alongside The Republic’s exposé, exposes more than historical injustice. It underscores the state’s continued failure to pursue genuine accountability. These incidents show how elites exploit bureaucratic procedures and legal ambiguities to shield themselves from scrutiny. At the centre lies a pressing question: who bears responsibility when state-backed dispossession and asset undervaluation occur under the guise of legality?

The likes of Njie who profited from repression remain largely untouched in the Gambia’s post-authoritarian era. They engage in reputation laundering and deflect blame, when challenged.

Accountability vs. Evasion: Analysing Post-Authoritarian Responsibility

The radio program is a clear attempt to cleanse and enhance his public image. And his response reveals not only a lack of transparency regarding compensation but also shows what transitional justice scholars term “responsibility deflection.” He attempts to evade accountability for actions taken during a period of dictatorship by attributing them solely to the regime’s directives. Rather than addressing the clan’s dispossession directly, Njie resorts to vague references to “government-stipulated methods” while avoiding acknowledgment of the disparity between compensation offered and the land’s market value.

These evasions reflect a broader pattern of opacity that hampers Gambia’s recovery from authoritarian rule. As political scientist Kathryn Sikkink argues in her work on “cascades of justice,” sustainable democratisation requires addressing not only direct perpetrators of abuses but also the network of beneficiaries who profited from rights violations. For Sikkink, sustainable democracy requires dismantling the “political economy of repression” – holding both perpetrators and their enablers accountable through prosecutions, reparations, and systemic reforms.

The case of Jammeh’s seized assets, as documented in The Republic demonstrates how officials systematically undermine transparency mechanisms: they replace open auctions with closed bids, withhold valuation reports, and deny access to purchasing records despite formal requests from journalists, activists, and lawmakers.

The investigation revealed how Justice Amina Saho-Ceesay ruled against premature disposal of these assets, calling it a “travesty” of justice, yet then Minister of Justice Abubakarr Tambadou circumvented her decision through procedural manipulation – actions Justice Ebrima Jaiteh later acknowledged constituted an “abuse of process.”

While Tambadou has publicly denied wrongdoing in subsequent statements, the documentary evidence compiled by The Republic presents a damning chronology of procedural irregularities that he has yet to adequately address.

In the radio interview, Njie further attempts to deflect criticism through classical whataboutism argumentation, referencing “undeveloped land” opposite his Brufut development and citing an alleged post-Jammeh inquiry that purportedly not only vindicated him but resulted in compensation payments to him. Such rhetorical manoeuvres divert attention from the central issue: the Jammeh regime violated the constitutional rights of the clans through state-sanctioned land appropriation.

Thus, the documented facts remain: the state dispossessed the clans of their ancestral land, attempted to impose compensation the Manneh clan formally rejected as inadequate, and yet the first post-Jammeh administration purportedly compensated Njie. The nature of this compensation, the name, and the remit of this inquiry body; or the findings of the inquiry, he did not disclose. This highlights the persistence of non-transparency in post-authoritarian governance – if there is in fact any credibility to what Njie said.

Constitutional Violations: Accumulation by Dispossession

The dispossession of communal lands across Kombo represents a clear violation of constitutional rights. Section 22 of the Gambian Constitution explicitly protects property rights and mandates fair compensation for compulsory acquisition. Jammeh “gifted” ancestral lands to private developers without adequate compensation, exemplifying what political economist David Harvey terms “accumulation by dispossession” – the transfer of public or communal assets to private hands. As elsewhere, Accumulation By Dispossession (ABD) by Njie and others reveals capitalism’s reliance on coercion – from colonial exploitation to modern financial predation. It highlights how neoliberalism weaponised state power to enrich elites while eroding communal rights.

In this context, the recent remark by presidential aspirant Essa Faal – who described communal lands as “dead capital” in an interview on “Coffee Time with Peter Gomez,” – warrants scrutiny. This framing reflects a mercantilist and reductionist approach to land, one that prioritises market activation (i.e., demand creation, financialisation), and treats lands as idle unless commodified. But such language reinforces precisely the kind of extractive thinking that enabled Jammeh’s land grabs in the first place. It legitimises the transfer of land from communities to elites by painting customary ownership as inefficient. It specifically reflects deeper ideological assumptions about property, productivity, and legitimacy that are at the core of land commodification and accumulation by dispossession.

Through this theoretical lens, Njie’s case exemplifies a pattern of elite capture wherein select individuals accumulated extraordinary wealth through preferential access to resources – particularly land. Scholars of authoritarian political economy have documented how such “crony capitalism” creates distorted markets where connections rather than competition determine resource allocation.

Just as Gambia initiated processes to address Jammeh’s ill-gotten assets through the Janneh Commission, similar accountability mechanisms must extend to those who benefited from his unconstitutional actions. The dispossession of lands belonging to hundreds to enrich individual elites represents precisely the type of injustice the New Gambia’s democratisation processes should aim to remedy.

This pattern of grossly undervalued compensation defined standard practice under Jammeh. We find it both unfortunate and unacceptable to witness its continuation under the Barrow administration. In a case with notable parallels to the Brufut dispute, The Republic exposed how a connected individual resold a property worth approximately D8.5 million in Fajara to its original owner for merely D3.15 million. This is just D150,000 more than Jammeh paid 15 years earlier, despite the exponential increase in land values in that area.

Coercion, Rejection, and Legal Challenge: Documenting Resistance

This systemic pattern of dispossession not only underscores the ongoing erosion of constitutional protections but also highlights the critical need for continued reforms to prevent the perpetuation of unjust practices in the post-Jammeh era.

We must state that Njie’s much-touted compensation process bypassed normal administrative channels. With the apparent complicity of state security functionaries, he, and elements of the Jammeh regime entrusted the compensation payment to the late Darba Marenah (then Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency) and the late Baba Jobe (then Secretary to Jammeh). The use of security apparatus rather than standard civil procedures for property transactions represented a clear attempt at intimidation. It was a tactic the clan elders recognised and refused to succumb to, rejecting the compensation entirely.

In a tragic development that illustrates the regime’s brutality, the Jammeh government subsequently murdered both men.

Undeterred by these intimidation tactics, the Manneh clan initiated civil suit 44/03 (Brufut Manneh clan versus Taf Holdings Ltd), directly contradicting any implication that they accepted compensation. The legal record clearly establishes their unwillingness to part with their ancestral land. This legal challenge highlights that the transaction lacked mutual consent – a fundamental requirement for legitimate property transfers under both statutory and customary law.

Beyond False Binaries: Development Without Dispossession

The Brufut case exposes what development scholars term the “false binary” between development and rights.

Too often in The Gambia, we face artificial choices: development or tradition, investment or rights, progress, or justice. Applied development theorist Amartya Sen argues that genuine development enhances freedoms rather than restricting them, creating what game theorists call positive-sum rather than zero-sum outcomes. Sen argues that genuine development is fundamentally about expanding human freedoms. These include freedoms such as health, education, political participation, and economic opportunities – rather than the mere increase in GDP or material wealth.

When compensation amounts to less than $6,000 for land with an estimated market value of over $12 million, the transaction becomes exploitative and extractive rather than developmental. This represents less than 0.05% of the land’s value, demonstrating the egregious nature of the undervaluation. Economists term this “rent-seeking” rather than value creation.

True national progress requires development models that enhance community agency and capabilities. Political philosopher John Rawls’ “difference principle” suggests that inequalities justify themselves only when they benefit the least advantaged. By this standard, developments that generate enormous wealth for elites while providing minimal returns to communities fail the test of justice.

Drawing on Elinor Ostrom’s work on common-pool resources, we recognise that communal lands often operate under sophisticated Indigenous governance systems that predate colonial disruption. Rather than viewing these as obstacles to development, a more productive approach would integrate these governance mechanisms into contemporary development planning.

Post-Authoritarian Accountability: Addressing Beneficiary Networks

In line with this broader approach, it is crucial to not only recover assets directly linked to Jammeh’s regime but also to create structures that empower communities to reclaim their rights and restore the integrity of land ownership in the post-authoritarian Gambia.

Transitional justice scholars increasingly recognise that post-authoritarian accountability must address not only direct perpetrators but also beneficiary networks. Pablo de Greiff, former UN Special Rapporteur on transitional justice, argues that sustainable peace requires addressing the full spectrum of those who profited from rights violations.

The case of Njie and others who accumulated wealth through land dispossessions challenges us to expand our transitional justice framework beyond focusing on Jammeh alone. Drawing on “transitional justice from below,” framework, we might consider how communities dispossessed under Jammeh’s authoritarian rule can reclaim agency in the Barrow era.

Just as we pursue recovery of Jammeh’s direct assets, we must establish mechanisms to review and potentially reverse land acquisitions that occurred through constitutional violations. This approach aligns with “restorative justice” and focuses not on punishing wrongdoers but on restoring rights and relationships.

Healing Forward: A Framework for Equitable Land Governance

How might Gambia move forward from such disputes toward more equitable land governance?

Drawing on comparative experiences and theoretical frameworks:

First, we must establish transparent, participatory processes for development planning that recognise both statutory and customary rights—whilst prioritising customary rights. The Feedback and Recommendations Securing Futures provided to the Ministry of Lands on the draft National Land Policy (2026-2035) parallels internationally recognised standards that can inform land reforms.

Second, communities must have meaningful input before, not after, development decisions affect their lands. This embodies what planning theorist Sherry Arnstein terms “citizen power” rather than tokenistic consultation. When government officials communicate major decisions through notorious security agencies rather than proper administrative channels, as happened in Brufut, they erode public trust.

Third, the state should implement fair compensation standards based on market values when land acquisition genuinely serves the public good. This requires independent valuation by certified professionals with results made public. This embodies what transparency advocates call “radical transparency.”

Fourth, we need accessible dispute resolution mechanisms that balance power differentials between developers and communities, ensuring that financial resources do not determine judicial outcomes. “Legal empowerment approaches,” provide models for supporting communities in asserting their rights.

Fifth, our transitional justice mechanisms must extend beyond Jammeh himself to address the network of beneficiaries who profited from constitutional violations and excesses. This includes establishing an independent commission to review land acquisitions that occurred during the dictatorship. This should be like land commissions established in post-conflict settings like Rwanda and South Africa.

Finally, our country must establish robust safeguards against conflicts of interest in public asset management. As former Finance Minister Amadou Sanneh criticised regarding asset sales, when the same individuals act as “judge and jury” in transactions, they imperil public interest.

National Reckoning: A Moment for National Reflection

The Njie-Brufut case offers Gambians a moment for critical national reflection. Do we want development that empowers communities or elites? Do we want governance systems where intimidating security forces deliver “compensation,” or where communities participate as equals in development planning? Do we intend to hold accountable only Jammeh, or also those who built fortunes through his tyrannical rule?

The Manneh clan’s refusal to accept coerced compensation demonstrated moral courage that commands respect and merits emulation. Their stance challenges us to create a nation where such courage becomes unnecessary; where development enhances rather than dismisses community rights.

The path to social harmony lies not in suppressing difficult conversations but in conducting them openly, with mutual respect and commitment to equitable outcomes. Only then can we build developments on foundations solid enough to truly last.

Conclusion: Constitutional Values and National Integrity

The Brufut issue offers a mirror for a new democratic Gambia. It challenges us to choose between building a society where constitutional principles prevail, or one that allows legacies of dispossession and impunity to persist.

The revelations by The Republic that hundreds of millions in seized assets yielded only $23.7 million in recovery have catalysed unprecedented public discourse across Gambian society. The investigation’s digital dissemination – including through social media platforms like Facebook where activists like Ben Suwareh have embarked on detailed serialisations have elicited discussions and much soul searching. The investigative piece has created a watershed moment in post-Jammeh accountability politics.

Gambians-abroad, who often maintain financial connections to homeland development, have expressed particular outrage at these findings, with many questioning their continued investment in a system where public assets remain vulnerable to insider dealing. When officials conduct deals through closed bids, stonewall inquiries, and sideline court-appointed receivers, these actions threaten not only our democratic transition and constitutional governance but also the economic confidence necessary for national development.

Gambia’s national motto – “Progress, Peace, and Prosperity” – encapsulates our aspirations. These three values must proceed in tandem, for prosperity without justice brings neither progress nor peace. The Republic’s investigation has highlighted how the current distribution of wealth – particularly land and property – reflects not market efficiency but authoritarian patronage networks that persist beyond regime change.

This revelation has resonated with younger Gambians but particularly those of Kombo who face dispossessions and prohibitive barriers to expanding their families from the homesteads to their former farmyards now declared “state lands.” They watch helpless while well-connected elites control vast properties acquired through criminal means. When victims of human rights violations await reparations while these elites retain assets acquired through those violations, our society merely exchanges one form of injustice for another.

Let us be clear: the ownership of communal lands predates the Anglo-French Convention of 1889 that created the Gambia by centuries. These lands are not the nation-state’s to arbitrarily redistribute and reallocate. Just as we seek accountability from Jammeh himself, we must also address the enduring consequences of his unconstitutional “gifts” to those who profited from his regime.

In the words of political philosopher Hannah Arendt, reconciliation requires “facing reality, whatever it may be.” For Gambia, this means confronting not only the abuses of our authoritarian past but also their ongoing beneficiaries. It means creating a future where land rights and human dignity stand at the centre of our development vision.

The public conversation sparked by The Republic’s stellar journalism represents precisely the kind of reality-facing that Arendt envisioned – a collective reckoning that bridges domestic and emigrant and transnational communities in demanding protection of landed inheritance and a more just distribution of national resources. As that conversation continues in households, online forums, and community gatherings both in The Gambia and abroad, we must insist that it leads not to wringing arms in moral indignation as a collective sign of outrage but to concrete institutional reforms that finally deliver on the promise of democratic transition.

Authored by:
Dave Manneh – Research Lead
Securing Futures: Land Rights Action Collaborative
Kombo Gunjur
The Gambia

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.