Author: Sulayman Njie, Ph.D.–Dallas, Texas

When the ruling comes down, a great many people would either rejoice or be crestfallen, which would be expected, because, you see, the art of politics is a sport — anything for the home team. And, in a hyper-polarized political atmosphere, partisans tend to see their opponents as “enemies” and/or “haters” who should be shunned or banned from the discourse, all the while sanctifying and defending their teammates.

Be that as it may, the idea or practice of banning political parties or politicians from running for office is, in my view, antithetical to the very idea of democracy — government of, by, for the people — where the supreme authority should rest upon and represent the will and whims of the electorate.

I have said this in many think pieces that democracy is not a destination, it’s a process and, in this process, the electorate, case in point — the people of Busumbala — should be the ones deciding the viability of representatives, not bureaucrats, commissions, or even unelected judges. The idea that unelected officials can ban politicians from running for public office should scare the bejesus out of us all.

Granted, Momodou Sabally is a hugely polarizing figure. He has been since the Jammeh days when he was one of the staunchest defenders and effective enablers of the Jammeh administration. Lest we also forget his infamous speech threatening an entire ethnolinguistic group. In addition, he is one of the most vocal political and dissenting voices in The Gambia.

I have had my fair share of disagreements with Mr. Sabally; however, that doesn’t mean that I, or anyone with principle, should join the chorus of detractors trying to deny him his birthright as a Gambian — the right to run for public office. Sabally and all Gambians of age should have the right to run for office.

It’s very possible that the decision to deny him of his birthright — the right to run for office — is legal, but just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or even democratic. In such a case, we need to revisit such laws because laws that infringe upon, arguably, the most sacrosanct aspects of democracy — the right to vote and run for office — should be corrected — amended.

And, yes, I have read some well-grounded, articulated, and nuanced legal arguments as to why Sabally can and cannot run for office. I’m not delving into the legalese arguments, I will leave that to the legal scholars. However, as a political scientist, my arguments here are mostly anchored in the idea of the demos and the state and why we should not limit the rights of individuals related to running for office, and why the voice of the people of Busumbala should triumph over any recommendation by a commission and unelected officials.

I hope the courts will do the right thing and leave it up to the people of Busumbala — and come to the April election — if they don’t want him — they would vote for another candidate. However, banning political aspirants based on recommendations by a commission and bureaucrats is bad policy and sets an illiberal, anti-democratic, and — potentially — dangerous precedent. If this works, who would be next? I mean, the executive can and will create another commission to go after its political detractors.

It’s chilling to think that executive branch bureaucrats — whose ranks swell with the most corrupt of personnel — can decide who’s fit and who’s not fit to run for public office.

I hope that the court, in the name of democracy, would do the “democratic” thing and allow Sabally to exercise his birthright and take his message to the demos of Busumbala.

To that end, I studiously submit to you that the collective employment of a humanist approach to politics — as opposed to parading history for condemning, banning, or for our collective feel-goodism — is one we should try to emulate.

Because, my folks, we do not want to perpetuate an illiberal system where we give the executive unchecked powers to arbitrarily ban individuals from running for public office. That’s an affront to democracy. It creates more crises than it solves and to that, I say, the answer to a conundrum in democracy, in essence, is more democracy, not less.

Let the people of Busumbala decide, man

By: Amie Bojang-Sissoho: Director Press and Public Relations

Allow me to take a close look at DA.  Jawo’s article, “Meet The People Tour:  Another abuse of incumbency?” was published on Monday, 21st March 2022, in the Standard newspaper.

D.A started by doubting himself.   He questioned if the President’s Meet the People Tour is another abuse of incumbency?

From the onset, let us get this clear, the President is on a tour that takes him around the country, thus nationwide.  He meets people of all walks of life, which he does for different purposes.  The constitutionally sanctioned “Meet the People Tour” is fully funded by the State.  That should not be confused with this particular nationwide party-political tour the President undertook as Secretary-General of his party.

The press release on social media the author referred to was from a party official, thus distinguishing between Barrow the President and Barrow the Secretary-General this time around.  A press release on the President’s constitutionally sanctioned tour would come from his office as President and not his party official.

Regarding a said letter for institutions to provide vehicles for the tour, the author should ask if the Head of State is entitled to State protection and essential services when he is on any mission?  If so, providing vehicles for his security and immediate entourage is not an abuse of incumbency but a privilege he enjoys as President.  The author should not forget that wherever the Head of State is on The Gambian territory, the State apparatus has a responsibility towards him and deserves the services.  That is a privilege he has as President.  Just like when D.A Jawo was a State Minister, there were privileges he enjoyed which were not “abuse of incumbency”.

“President Barrow’s such outings are more political in nature and reality than discussing issues affecting the farming community.”  The author fails to acknowledge that the President is also a politician and would engage in political missions when necessary.   President Barrow’s nationwide tour this time is to thank the voters.  Gambians could recall that he canvassed for their votes, and about 90% of those who turned out voted for him.

Moreover, his party and his allies have put up candidates, and he would campaign for his party to win the majority in the National Assembly.  What is the abuse of incumbency in that?

To demonstrate that President Barrow is not an abuser of incumbency, he got the private vehicles that he would use for his purely political party dominated missions.  As Secretary-General, he ensures that he and his party take care of his party officials and militants during the tour.  That does not stop the State from taking its responsibility towards him as a sitting President.

On access to airtime, one would have expected the author to monitor and validate before assuming whether GRTS would give more airtime to the candidates of the President’s party or not.  Slanting a story to focus on the President is different from giving prominence to a candidate who happens to be where the President is present.  Teasing out news stories on the President’s mission is attractive to the media.  It depends on the angle they would take.  While some are interested in facts, some are interested in gossipy entertainment news, and others would keep informing and educating about what happens during the tour.

The biggest disappointment in the article is the comparison of the former President’s “notorious” use of “state resources for his own political activities…” to how President Barrow conducts his political activities.  Most Gambians and observers would note how President Barrow distinguishes state resources from his resources during political activities.

Additionally, if anyone is in Barrow’s position, would you undermine yourself to lose power when people have given you the mandate to rule the country?  The President has the legitimate right to consolidate power and convince citizens to support his development plan.

He is determined to focus on and not derail his development agenda.  Also, President Barrow is the Secretary-General of his party, and it is legitimate to campaign for its candidates.

Finally, I hope these observations will help the author answer the question mark he had over the President’s “Meet the People Tour and whether it is an abuse of his incumbency or not.

By: Lamin J. Darbo

He is a towering intellectual and first rate orator, served simultaneously as Secretary General and Minister of Presidential Affairs under His Excellency Sheikh Professor Alhagie Dr Yahya A. J. Jammeh (the Professor). In that role he met all stripes of leaders domestic and international and participated in the great public dramas of the day at the policy councils of the Gambian state.

Allowing for the authoritarian vagaries of the system installed by the Professor, Momodou Sabally (Sabally) was for a year the great supervisor of the Public Service, sounding board of the President, his preeminent confidant, and primus among the Ministers. Having presided, or somewhat participated over the hiring and firing of senior government figures, including some cabinet colleagues, he knows a thing or two about policy and its implementation.

After all, he is the Gambia’s Pen and vigorously expresses his enlightening and entertaining perspective on the burning public questions of the day. If his great and controversial mind was a source of joy and annoyance to the intellectual community, they were projected on a larger canvass when he joined the United Democratic Party (UDP) and campaigned vigorously for its agenda across the country, thus making himself a household name.

No surprise therefore that Sabally’s expression of interest in contesting the Busumbala Constituency for the UDP in the April National Assembly Elections captured public attention. The run-up to nomination day on 10 March was crowded with great excitement as Sabally has all the ingredients of a great parliamentary statesman: intelligent, outspoken, controversial entertaining. He may be among the few candidates capable of generating cross party support at the polls but for the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC) decision to reject his application for nomination under the UDP ticket.

According to the IEC, Sabally was adversely mentioned in THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC BODIES, ENTERPRISES AND OFFICES AS REGARDS THEIR DEALINGS WITH FORMER PRESIDENT YAHYA A.J.J. JAMMEH AND CONNECTED MATTERS

The Government’s White Paper on the matter as concerns Sabally states at paragraphs:

216:-    Mr. Momodou Sabally started at the Central Bank as an Economist from

1999 to 2009. He was Director of Budget at the Ministry of Finance from 2010 to

2013. He was appointed as Acting Secretary General in June 2013, and then

subsequently confirmed as Secretary General and Minister for Presidential Affairs

in the same year. His service was terminated in June 2014.

217:-    The Commission found, inter alia, that during his tenure as Secretary

General, Mr Momodou Sabally was signatory to various public accounts and was

involved in the withdrawal of large sums of public funds, some of which were not

accounted for, on the instructions of former President Jammeh. The Commission

found that Mr Momodou Sabally and former President Jammeh are jointly and

severally liable for the said amounts of money misappropriated by former President

Jammeh.

218. The Government notes that Mr Momodou Sabally’s many involvements in the

financial transactions of former President Jammeh, which was not part of his

official duties, especially as Secretary General, demonstrate the enthusiasm with

which he facilitated these transactions. His conduct fell far short of the standard of

professional conduct expected of the Head of the Civil Service at the time.

219. Consequently, the Government accepts the Commission’s recommendation

that Mr Momodou Sabally should not serve in any public office again or be

appointed as Director for any State Owned Enterprise for at least ten years. Mr

Momodou Sabally is hereby banned from holding public office for the remainder of

his life. He is also banned from holding any director positions in any State Owned

Enterprises in The Gambia for ten (10) years. Both bans are effective from the date

of publication of this White Paper. The monies shall be recovered from the assets of

former President Jammeh.

Clearly, a member of the National Assembly is not a public office holder (see section 166 (4) (a) of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia (the Constitution). Viewed in isolation, this provision would appear to suggest the IEC was wrong in rejecting Sabally’s application for nomination as a candidate in the upcoming National Assembly Elections.

However, the IEC specifically rejected Sabally’s application for nomination on the basis of section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution that “no person is qualified for election as a member of the national assembly if he or she has been found by a report of a commission or committee of inquiry (the proceedings of which are have been held and published in accordance with the relevant law) to be incompetent to hold public office by reason of having acquired assets unlawfully or defrauded the state or misused or abused his or her office, or wilfully acted in a manner pre-judicial to the interests of the state, and the findings have not been set aside on appeal or judicial review”.

It is common knowledge that Sabally lodged an appeal against the adverse mention, and the bans imposed on him, by the Janneh Commission, and the Government. Until they are “set aside on appeal or judicial review”, section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution continues to operate against him. A convicted prisoner remains a prisoner until his appeal is allowed. On the particular facts of Sabally’s case, his impediment remains pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.

As to whether the IEC has the competence to interpret section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution at its level, I merely state it is performing a legally permitted intermediate gate keeping function which can only be conclusively ratified by a competent court where its perspective is contested. However, the Janneh Commission Report and its accompanying White Paper are public documents available to the IEC and it can act upon them where deemed necessary.

Albeit on contested understandings, it is far from clear that the IEC operated outside the law when it rejected Sabally’s application for nomination as UDP candidate for Busumbala. With the clarity of section 90 (1) (e) of the Constitution, he appears not to have a snowball’s chance in hell in overturning the IEC decision.

Of course the cases of the current Chief of Protocol, and the likes of Mamburay Njie, were given lighter treatment by the Government, and these were picked on by observers. What is clear is that they and others similarly situated cannot contest in National Assembly elections under the law.

As to the protests that the law is differentially applied, I suggest the facts are distinguishable in that the Sabally saga was triggered by the National Assembly qualification regime.

On a lighter note, maybe we should proceed with Mr Bumble when confronted with the postulation that as between him and his wife he was “… the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
Mr Bumble protested that “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience”

I urge Sabally to deploy his immense talents in helping others this election season and to accept that on current facts, he cannot serve as a National Assembly Member until his appeal is allowed.

By: Madi Jobarteh

The violent actions of these citizens [as seen in a video carried by Kerr Fatou] should be investigated and those found stoning the police should be brought to book. Citizens must recognize and uphold the fact that they should always remain peaceful and nonviolent even in their strongest disagreements about anything.

Political parties, and in this case, UDP in particular should enlighten their members or supporters to exercise restraint and maintain peace at all times even if they disagree. It serves no party’s interest to have its supporters engage in violent acts. Even when provoked, citizens must seek the path of peace and human rights.

Above all, citizens must not violently vent out their grievances on law enforcement officers. Much as we condemn police brutality so also should citizens refrain from violently attacking the police, threatening lives and causing damage to property.

There exist the necessary mechanisms in this country through which citizens, politicians, communities, associations and political parties can employ to seek and obtain justice and accountability. We have seen these mechanisms being utilized to that effect from 2017 to date. This option should always be used.

At this juncture it is utterly necessary to highlight the urgent need for robust security sector reforms to empower and enable the police to better respond to public assemblies. Both the police and the public should be responsible enough not to provoke violence in anyway. Apparently, this was the case in Brikama on March 10, unfortunately.

Police officers must particularly be told that while they have a right to defend themselves from violent rioters. However, the moment a rioter is overpowered by officers, there’s no justification anymore to hit that rioter.

In the meantime, the authorities and all stakeholders should demand an investigation into the acts of police brutality and the violent actions of these citizens in this Kerr Fatou video.

I hereby call on the IGP to open investigations on the actions of his officers as well on the actions of violent protesters to ensure accountability.

No to police brutality. No to a culture of violence.

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By: Toney F Mendy 

The comments of Chebbo Cham on The Standard News Paper [March 3, 2022] that The Gambia should be an Islamic State are an expression of potent delusional wishes, but even beyond that, a futile agenda long pursued by a considerable lot of citizens devoid of the very basic essential understanding of the tenet of The Gambian nationhood.

Chebbo Cham, like Yahya Jammeh… like all others who stood for this ignoble agenda, is a threat to the very foundation of this nation. But what distinguished Chebbo Cham from a lot of brainwashed fellow citizens is his position as an imam, the timing of his comments (Christian- lent period), and manifested desire to embrace the open faults of a “former” despot of endless controversies, these, which highlight the epithets of the psyche of imam Cham, stand testimony of the reasons why he should not be left unanswered.

Regardless of his psyche, belief, or his wishes, the very essential point of schooling for Imam Cham, is that The Gambia is a secular state, and it shall remain so, even against his wishes. The above means every citizen and other persons living in The Gambia have a fundamental right to ascribe or quit whatever religion they so desire.

It means that one may decide to not even believe in God/Allah. It means that as a collective, we ought to be governed by our Constitution and not personal beliefs and principles. It means that Islamic or Christian principles shall not be the basis for constituting or governing the Gambian state. It means that we as a People would continue to be governed by “conscience”. Furthermore, it means that we are all nothing but human beings before the law Gambian citizens!

In part, I did note, that Imam Cham should not operate in metaphysical deduction of his belief. Instead, he should embrace reality, and I would welcome him politely to the reality of what the Gambia society is: A secular state.

Nothing captures the spirit of the secular status, and conductive cosmopolitan dwelling of Gambians than the peace, love, tolerance, and struggles historically shared. The catalogue of the threat to these unique characteristics of The Gambia is rooted in comments such as those of Chebbo Cham.

Cunningly, almost hypocritically, when posed as to what would happen to Christians and atheists in his dreamed Islamic Gambian State, he stated “they will be protected just like Muslims, including their rights. Nothing will happen to them”. What sort of sharia would permit “Christians and atheists” to live and operate in the dream Islamic Gambian State “by their rights”? “By their rights”!  Nothing could be more nonsensical and to even suggest that they (“Christians” and atheists) would be protected “LIKE MUSLIMS”. “Protected like Muslims”? What can be more condensing than that! Oh, imam! The author can’t wait, when thou shall grant him right (in the dream Gambian Islamic State) to drink whiskey and pure libation to his Ancestors!

Suffice it to say, I trust my imam more than Chebbo Cham, because he taught me genuinely what would become of the duo (Christians and atheists), and even African traditionalists under a theocratical Islamic-sharia state. Such thing as Christian and atheist’s “rights” exist only in the context of the very Islamic beliefs of Chebbo Cham, and nowhere else. Thus, respectfully, Ya-imam is not being honest or rather shy of laying bare what Islam degreed of Christians, atheists, and African traditionists in an Islamic State.

While the echoes of Imam Chebbo Cham do not explain, embody, or represent the true-genuine aspiration of the absolute majority of well-informed Gambians, it has the potential of inciting the less informed citizens to agitate for an ideal that is widely distant from their understanding and appreciation. 

Nevertheless, I remained persuaded that in the details of religious conversations, and tolerance, The Gambia remains a unique opportunity and culture above all nations to continue to manifest, that, diversity is indeed in and of itself a beauty.

There is, of course, more to discuss the deeper challenges that face all facets of our society, including the “killings” referred to by imam Chebbo. But for him to reason that “killing killers” (in his sharia state of mind) is a solution, highly contravenes the contemporary well informed, and progressive Gambian minds.

The future of The Gambia must be guided jealously against religious fanatism, tribalism, and against any activity that threatens our being as a People and nation. Both our actions, and utterance must be guided towards the course of OUR collective progress. With all due respect, those who seek to alter the foundation of the state, such as imam Chebbo must be treated as agents of cataclysm.

In the grand sphere of things, most of what emerged from public discussions and occupy public media should be of absolute concern to any leadership. Consequently, the decisiveness, and unequivocal position of those in charge of administering the day-to-day affairs of the state, should be stressed. I need not remind the imam of the sacred foundation of our State. The government needed to. State institutions such as the National Human Rights Commissions needed to. This way, and by any standard, the well-being of the State and its People of any orientation would be guaranteed.

I would like to conclude by urging all Gambians of goodwill to never permit decisive narratives to dominate our public discourses. It requires demonstrating unity by condemning the statements of Chebbo Cham which are every sense, against the spirit and letters of our founding instruments. 

By: Abdoulie Njie (Chairman KS Global Group)

Russia is the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas and one of the world’s largest oil-producing nations, exporting 197.2 billion cubic meters of pipeline gas in 2020.

Russia and Ukraine are also leading exporters of grains, metals, wood and plastics, all used worldwide in a range of products and by a multitude of industries from steelmakers to car manufacturers. Together both countries make up nearly 30% of global wheat exports.

Because of how much both countries produce their conflict will have a substantial impact on the global economy and financial markets, with significant spill over effect on other countries including The Gambia.

Effect on The Gambia

Unfortunately, the conflict comes at a moment when The Gambia like many other countries is on the verge of economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic.

As bad as things already are Gambians especially those struggling to feed their families will now get to experience a dramatic rise in the price of basic food commodities as a result of disruption in the global supply chain and economic sanctions on Russia.

The average Gambian is bound to be affected because goods such as eggs, cheese, chicken, sunflower oil and all other products made from wheat come mostly from Ukraine. It is important to emphasise that Ukraine and Russia collectively produce 30% of wheat the world uses.

Since they are a major exporter of crude oil the conflict (as we have already seen) will lead to a rise in price. The rise in fuel price will have a trickledown effect on all other goods. Fuel price increase means higher transport cost, which means higher price of commodities since transportation cost will factor into the price of the goods.

What Should The Gambia Government Do?

As a businessman with vast experience in the sector, I would encourage our government to be proactive in its effort to mitigate the potential effects associated with this crisis. Being proactive starts with wide consultations from stakeholders in the business sector, these include the business community, importers, traders, private and public financial institutions and international partners.

These consultations will bring about a unified solution and will go a long way in guaranteeing food security until things get to normal. The Government should also consider subsidies on essential commodities, cutting taxes on goods that are directly affected by the crisis can also go a long way to cushion the effects of the crisis.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that government must take a tough stand against businesspeople who might want to hike prices or hoard goods.

Appeal To Businessmen

We all know food shortage or price increases could stroke social unrest. Therefore, I wish to use this opportunity to appeal to fellow businessmen to show the highest form of compassion and humanity towards the Gambian people and not take this as an opportunity to rob the Gambian consumers when the anticipated effects intensify.

By: Madi Jobarteh

The press release from the Police about the Central Bank scandal should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, if not a whole plate of salt!

But first things first; The Alkamba Times story is not false, nor does it lack clarity. Therefore, the last point in the press release that the media should verify things with the Police PRO is nothing but an attempt to divert attention and to impugn the media.

The Alkamba Times or any media need not necessarily seek the opinion of the Police PRO for any and every story.

It is good that the press release said in Point 18 that they are working to expose the truth. The fact is this press release is not the whole truth.

For example, it is amazing that the press release cannot name any so-called scammer. If they had interrogated Ansumana Bah, surely, he must have told them one name among the scammers. Citizens have a right to know. Who would pay 11 million dalasi to an unidentified person? Am sure Ansumana is not so dumb to do that! So, this press release is very economical with the truth.

The press release has not even mentioned the letter from the lawyers of Ansumana. One would assume that an established law firm would not be so irresponsible as to write such a letter to the Central Bank of a country when those lawyers have not verified their client’s story.

We must recognize that what is alleged here is a very serious matter! It does not only touch the Central Bank, but it also directly impacts on the Gambia Government’s relationship with the World Bank and the IMF and all regional and international financial partners.

To claim fraud involving a central bank of any nation is a major economic, political and national security issue.

Therefore, for these lawyers to ignore the gravity of this allegation and write such a letter is indeed outrageous, unless they are zombies! But the Police did not even mention the law firm! Why?

Who is Ansumana Bah? Where does he live and work? What does he do for a living? When did the Police know of this so-called charity such that no action was taken against them since early 2021? Since the 2.5 million pounds emanated from the UK makes this case an international crime too. In that case, the British law enforcement and Interpol are legitimate stakeholders. But the press release did not say anything about that!

In fact, how come this letter was written to Abdou Ceesay and copied to the Governor on February 10 and the Governor did not find it necessary to inform the IGP immediately so that action was taken asap. Rather both the Central Bank and the Police had to wait until a newspaper had to break the story 7 days later only for them to do some ‘fat-fat’ investigation and then release open-ended press releases?

Who on earth will have 2.5 million pounds sterling only to change it into mutilated bank notes and then decide to take those militated bank notes to a country’s central bank to cleanse them into authentic new notes? It does not make sense. Why did the so-called scammers choose to take in mutilated bank notes in the first place, and then have the audacity to go to the Central Bank with those bad notes to turn them into new ones?

If I have 100 pounds and wish to change into dalasi, even if I go to Westfield, I will not accept mutilated notes. Why should I? So why did these so-called scammers accept mutilated notes when they could have easily taken their time to get the right notes without having to go to any bank? Were they in a hurry? Why, when the risk is greater with the Central Bank!?

Therefore, it is not enough for the Police and the Central Bank to release high sounding statements of denial. This matter requires the intervention of the National Assembly and the Financial Intelligence Unit.

There have been far too many scandals in this Government. Either these scandals are completely ignored or denied, or the Government said they are investigating but then no report comes out or the Police claim there was no case. This is unacceptable and there is a need for citizens to stand up to confront corruption by demanding the President to address it head on. The incidents of corruption are far too numerous that they cannot be counted by the fingers!

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By: Madi Jobarteh

It is with sadness and disappointment to notice the many voices seeking to impugn the ongoing constitutional amendment process aimed at catering for more seats for women and persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the National Assembly. Some have said that the mover of the bill, Hon. Touma Njai is on a self-serving agenda. Some even ridiculously question why she did not come up with this initiative five years ago but now.

Even more sadly, others have said that this initiative will only give opportunity to elitist women at the expense of the ordinary hard working yet suffering masses of our women in the farms, markets and homes. Others have dismissed the entire initiative on the basis that these elected women will never stand for their fellow women when they are in parliament.

Indeed, given history and politics in any society, one can raise so many doubts and questions, some of which can be indeed genuine and necessary. But to be utterly cynical because of the past and present prevailing circumstances will not serve any society. After all, governance is a process the quality of which depends on the quality of laws, strength of institutions, active citizen participation and effective leadership.

I can vouch that Hon. Touma Njai is not seeking selfish interest with this bill. She cannot use this bill to gain re-election. She genuinely believes in the need to enhance women’s quality participation in politics and increase their representation in decision making structures in the country. One may disagree with her on any issue or approach, but she has no ulterior motive with this bill other than to serve the best interest of women in particular, and the society at large. She has always been positive on women’s empowerment!

Those who critique this bill must ask themselves how we can bring about equal participation and representation of men and women in this society? Indeed, the Constitution has guaranteed the right to equality and participation in politics. There has been a Women’s Bureau since 1980. In 2010 the Women’s Act was created. In 2019, the Ministry of Gender, Social Welfare and Children was also created. Yet until today, after half a century of Independence, women continue to face marginalization, disempowerment, abuse, exclusion and inequalities in our homes, communities, workplaces, power and across the entire society. Why?

We know that since 1960 when Augusta Jawara became the first Gambian woman to stand for election, even though she did not win, to Nyimsata Sanneh Bojang who became the first woman to win an election in 1982, women continue to be hugely under-represented in the National Assembly. Currently there are only three women elected NAMs. The country has never had a woman president. Only two women ever vied for the presidency, Isatou Touray and Marie Sock Jobarteh. All political parties are led by men with few having women as deputy party leaders.

Therefore, those who ridicule this bill and Touma, should ask themselves how on earth could his country ever bring about power equality among its two largest population sectors – men and women, such that none is disadvantaged purely because of their sex. Meantime women form the majority in this society. Funnily, many of those who question this bill and Touma are in fact men, thus raising the question as to how much they know and feel about gender inequality as Touma who is indeed a woman! She who feels it, knows it.

A bill like this is not meant to magically and automatically at once change the status of girls and women in this country. There are huge social, economic, cultural and political beliefs, practices, and structures that stand in the way of women and equality. Thus, this bill, like the Constitution itself or the Women’s Act or the Women’s Bureau and the Ministry are part of the process of changing that long and deeply unjust narrative of a society to become more just and equal.

To achieve that is not the job of only Touma Njai or the 14 women and the two persons with disabilities who will be elected when this bill is passed into law. Rather it means the entire society – citizens, government, political parties and indeed every CSO, community, institution and organization will have to work hard to remove all of the structural and immediate barriers to equality, justice, empowerment and progress.

Thus, before one raises all sorts of innuendos, cynicism and outright condemnation, we should rather recognize that our country has not been on a just foundation since Independence in 1970. We are a sovereign republic in law, but we are yet to obtain sovereignty – i.e., equality and dignity – in practice for our all citizens. It is initiatives like this that will serve to facilitate the transformation of society. But that transformation does not lie only on the President or National Assembly or political parties or individual NAMs alone. Rather all citizens have a right and duty to achieve that transformation.

Therefore, if we condemn this bill and chastise Touma Njai for it, what is it that we wish to offer? Do not just raise questions and doubts and offer high-sounding intentions and hopes. In practice, how do we wish to really change this society, positively? Let us exercise our minds to that. Surely, it is not that every woman or PWD elected will become that ideal freedom fighter for women and persons with disabilities. There will surely be disappointments and betrayers among these elected women and PWDs. But there is also the opportunity for voters to remove such non-performing NAMs in the next election. That is also a duty of the voter.

I wish to therefore call on all citizens to support this bill to form part of the initiatives that any society will take in order to bring about equality, justice and freedom hence equal development to all. Everyone has a right and duty to make the Gambia a just and equal society. Let us critique this bill with a view to improving it or offering a better alternative. But let us not attack the bill and Touma just to satisfy one’s cynicism or dislike for Touma or one’s disdain for the political leadership in the country.

For The Gambia Our Homeland

The Gambia Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) Report has exposed how the Mile II detention facility was used by Former President Yahya Jammeh to inflict unfathomable pain through torture on prisoners, particularly those detained for political reasons.

The report states that the prison service was used as a tool for oppression and formed part of the tentacles of the State control over every aspect of life of Gambians.

“Detainees were incarcerated at Mile II Central Prison without due process, and they were not allowed family visits or access to their lawyers,” the TRRC Report states.

According to the report, the Former President Yahya A.J.J Jammeh used the prison system to punish his opponents by sending them to what he called a ‘five-star hotel’.

As at the time the commission was doing its work, a visit paid to the facility confirmed it was dark, dirty, damp and mosquito infested. Such conditions in the words of one of the witnesses during a public hearing are inhumane degrading and a violation of the prisoners basic, fundamental human rights.

The report also noticed that Ex-President Jammeh appointed a Director General who was not qualified for the job and therefore could be manipulated into carrying out his illegal orders.

It further noted that the eligibility criteria for recruitment into the prison force and subsequent promotion were based on ethnic and community consideration.

“From 1994 to 2016, a special category of prisoners not recognised by law under the classification ‘detainees’ were kept at the security wing of Mile II central prison pursuant to executive directives and on orders of Former President Yahya A.J.J Jammeh. They were subjected to all forms of ill-treatment, abuse and striped of all their fundamental human rights,” the report said.

Detainees, during the public hearing confirmed they were deprived of food, water, clothing, basic sanitation and health care among other facilities. The infamous group, the Junglers and the State Guards are accused of mock executions, torture and corporal punishment.

Ambassador Carl Paschall II arrived in The Gambia in March 2019, taking over the baton from Ambassador Pat Alsup, an equally amazing Ambassador who oversaw the first two years of the transition from dictatorship to democracy. At her departure, Alsup had worked on the building blocks for a transformative relationship between Banjul and Washington, but much of the work were still at their infancy stage, requiring a great deal of continued innovative and stronger leadership to move the needle through.

At the birth of the change in 2016, relations between The Gambia and United States were at all-time low. For years, Jammeh’s autocratic leadership, bad governance, and worst human rights record, had almost collapsed what remained of the ties between Washington and Banjul. The portfolio of bilateral programs between the two nations was too small compared to countries like China and others. While there were a few U.S. large interventions through third party organizations, direct assistance from the United States Embassy were through small grants such as Ambassador’s Self-Help Fund, Public Diplomacy funds, and Democracy and Human Rights Fund; funds designed to support smaller community-driven and civil society-focused projects.

Other direct supports focused on building the technical capacity and competencies of Gambians and her institutions. For example, through several exchange programs, the embassy offered opportunities in the US for Gambian youth and mid-level professionals through Mandela Washington Fellowship, Study of the U.S. Institutes, Pan-African Youth Leadership Program, International Visitor’s Leadership Program, and Humphrey Fellowship. These programs have Gambians attend some of the best universities in the U.S. for short-term institute programs. Additionally, U.S. technical assistance through the Fulbright program brought professors to promote curriculum development at The University of The Gambia.

While these programs were helping the country build its human resource cadre, major funding United States institutions like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) had no direct presence in The Gambia. Although USAID-Dakar funded cross-country projects like the Cashew Chain Value Project, there was no direct support to The Gambia Government under Jammeh. It was inconceivable for the U.S. to offer Gambia such projects given the country’s decayed human rights records. The United States’ assistance is tied to a country meeting certain benchmark, for example, making advancements in its annual Human Rights Report, Trafficking in Person (TIP) Report, and Fiscal Transparency Report.

The ties between the two nations were further deteriorated by Jammeh’s paranoia and ghost suspicions of “America’s efforts to undermine” his rule, especially after the events of December 30th, 2014, when he pointed fingers at “certain major powers behind” the botch attempt to end his decades of carnage and misrule.

Without digressing from the reasons for this tribute, the context is meant to offer understanding of the status quo at the time and the amount of worked needed to transform the ties between the two nations in a democracy.

Ambassador Paschall’s personal traits

Coming back to Ambassador Paschall, his smart, innovative, excellent communication, culturally sensitive, and negotiation skills breathed a new life into the relationship between Banjul and Washington. Even as he took over, The Gambia, despite the new democracy, was still a long way to meeting certain right and governance benchmarks of America. And with the tools, machinery, and lubricants of a dictatorial system intact, Ambassador Paschall had a huge task before him. The Ambassador was so ambitious to make a significant inroad in our ties, but he knew the new government must translate political will into tangible reforms that will improve the country’s scorecard. Paschall’s kind but bold diplomatic style, backed by a willing and committed embassy team, enabled him to make significant inroads. As I wrote this tribute, the National Assembly last week ratified a $25 million United States grant to support the country’s power and energy sector. That grant came through the MCC, which now has a direct base in The Gambia, headed by a director and support staff. Should the country continue to augment its democracy and governance scorecard, there is no limit as to what the MCC or the USAID could do for it.

Inspiring leadership

On his other traits, Paschall is an inspiring leader. Throughout my entire career, I have never worked with a more professional and inspiring leader like him. Ambassador also has a deep sense of compassion, strengthened by his sheer humility and sensitivity. The three years that we worked together; I saw this diplomat come down to the level of the last rank in line. He was the most approachable diplomat, a good listener who respected the concerns and viewpoints of his staff.

One of the most inspiring accomplishments of the Ambassador within the embassy community was the elimination of a deep-seated suspicion between American and Gambian staff. At the time of his takeover, relations between Americans and their Gambian colleagues were marked by “Us versus Them” atmosphere. No sooner had the Ambassador arrived than this ugly situation ceased to exist. The Ambassador promoted tolerance, mutual respect, equal opportunity, and professionalism among his staff. Leading by example, he oriented his staff to this new culture. As I left the embassy last year, the collegiality among the staff was exceptional with productivity outstanding. It takes great leadership to manage this kind of relationship.

The Ambassador was equally empowering. He made sure every member of his staff was allowed to do his or her job to the best of their ability. Because of such empowering nature, Ambassador hardly rejected a press engagement proposal from my supervisor and I. I also remember how he empowered the locally employed staff association to lead the development of an embassy-wide ethos statement as a corollary to the U.S. Department of State. He could have asked the American staff to lead on this, but he wanted to ensure the local staff influence this statement.

Throughout the two and half years we worked together, I had accompanied the Ambassador on several regional trips and other official functions. Each of those visits saw the Ambassador immersed himself deep within the local communities as he interacted freely and openly with community leaders, youth, ordinary villagers, volunteers, and local authorities.

My personal interactions with the Ambassador were gratifying, and each presented an opportunity to be inspired and challenge my own career ambitions. My most memorable moment with the Ambassador was when on a Friday evening in October 2020, he placed a call, informing me that I was the Africa Bureau’s Finalist for the U.S. State Department’s Global Employee of The Year Award (I was among six finalists each representing a region). And it wasn’t only me, the Ambassador had conveyed personal courtesies to his staff on numerous occasions, good or bad.

I can’t conclude this tribute without mentioning a few lines about the Ambassador’s deep and genuine love for The Gambia. If he had his way, he would have opted to extend another term in The Gambia. The Ambassador is a proud lover of The Smiling Coast, appreciating our rich cultural tapestry, local delicacies, socio-cultural interactions and relationships, and the local treasures and heritage. Paschall might have just wrapped up his tour, but his love for the country is ingrained in his heart, which he will take along.

Wishing you the best, Ambassador.

Disclaimer: This piece has not been influenced nor supported by any member of the current embassy staff. This is a personal tribute as an ex-staff, showing gratitude and appreciation to a diplomat who wraps up his tour with indelible marks on The Gambia-U.S. ties.

Hatab Fadera worked at the U.S. Embassy Banjul from 2015-2021, first as Cultural Affairs Assistance, and as Strategic Content and Media Coordinator. He is currently doing his Master’s in Emerging Media Design and Development at Ball State University in the U.S.

By: Alieu Bah

To eulogize a certain breed of men is both hard and easy. Hard because they defy the categories imposed on the living and their exploits. Easy because their life is itself a testimony that’s easy to remember owing to the richness it holds to illumine the living. Abdulai Jobe (I lovingly called him Uncle Aib) was one such man. His life bears witness to this in more ways than one. 

Some will sing his praise as a humanitarian, others as a wise elder in the community of the exiled and yet from others like me a glowing ode to a revolutionary and progressive African who stood fort right against the neocolonial state (he named the African state rightfully and it was one of the reasons I gravitated ever so deep towards him).

He aspired in his words when he eulogized his old comrade, Ousman Manjang “…the total transformation of the Gambia from a neocolony to a progressive, nation amongst nations. Where ignorance, injustice and poverty are eradicated.”

This was the dream from those heydays for him and his comrades in the 60s when he started a revolutionary struggle that will span the rest of his life.

The Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Foundation was founded by a group of them to further the cause of the African struggle and to usher in a continent that was united on the basis of the Nkrumahist ideological bent; that of a federated Africa under scientific socialism. The Foundation would give way to The Movement for Justice in Africa – Gambia (MOJA-G). 

This was to be the organization that would have a watershed influence on the progressive political trajectory of neocolonial Gambia. He was one of the founders of this organization and in latter years when the organization was banned by the Jawara government, his house in London would be the hub for it through the publication of their newsletter “Balangbaa.” It was in the context of these movements and their intersecting histories with our times that we met.

A bit of context as to how I came upon Uncle Aib and MOGA-G:

I came of age in the Pan Africanist movement. In my teens I was already reading the now classic works of Nkrumah, Cabral and Fanon; these were heady, intellectual and passionate times. But one thing kept nagging me. This nag had to do with the question: have there been any sort of Pan Africanist and leftist activism in that regard —Nkrumah, Fanon, Cabral—in this country? And oh boy are there great legacies! From men who lived with Nkrumah to those who built movements that reverberated throughout the motherland. 

I started digging and putting pieces together. It was fascinating to read and learn of people still alive by then who hatched liberation plots and held fierce grounds for our collective salvation. I read about MOJA-G and their controversial history in the annals of a nation beholden to backward reactionary politics.

This is an organization that always evoked the strongest feelings in all those who know of it. It was either bitter reminiscences about a wayward vanguard Marxist organization that set the country on fire at some point (this is not at all an accurate account of events) or its a romantic remembrance of a group of idealistic young folks who wanted to change things qualitatively for the masses of Gambian and African people (it was still more complex than this).

Fast forward I met Uncle Aib for the first time. He was elated as was I. He said he had heard of me and the movement we were then building. Said our struggle is righteous and that he admires it from afar and that it reminded him of the 70s and 80s when they were doing the same thing. 

I became very close to him in the subsequent remaining years of his life. He will regale me with stories of struggle and meeting people like Walter Rodney during their school days at SOAS, London. At how he caught a glimpse of Amilcar Cabral and Nkrumah and other such fabled leaders of an awakened Africa. I was insistent that he writes his accounts and exploits for the generations to come. He did say he was working on it and through it to set the record straight on the now-defunct MOJ-G, the 1981 coup and other such things that would define the narrative around him and his comrades.

Whenever he should visit the country from London, he would spend the first few days going across the country visiting farmers and workers alike and doing a thorough material and objective analysis of the land and her people. He would come back with bleak and amazing results. I would wonder at this old man and the stamina he has in going down those dusty roads to meet, greet and gather all this relevant information.

He had connects and contacts from Kartong to Koina since back in the days he was an agricultural worker who would criss cross this land helping poor farmers and their communities. It was in this context that he would solidify his revolutionary convictions.

By rubbing shoulders with those he loved: the farmer, the odds job man and the hustler, he concluded that only a complete overhaul of this neocolonial state will fix this land. He believed this deeply. I believe it too. 

But Uncle Aib wasn’t a runaway revolutionary who lived in nostalgia. He stood fast against Jammeh and he was a recognized face and voice in that struggle to end the 22-year-old terror we were held in. He was ever watchful for the tyrannical lifestyles of our leaders and that led him to again join in the struggle to cut down the excesses of Barrow’s government. He was a man at once vigilant and resilient in the face of so many odds. It’s amazing that when many have given up he charged ever on without burnout or fatigue. He was the true revolutionary model Rodney saw in CLR James. To be old but to never give up or turn sour by the tides of time.

He was a man from another time who have known other joys and pains. But he was also a man of our time. He was a man who was at home with us from the Occupy Westfield generation even as he was at home with the generation at the dawn of our nationhood.

He was an exiled man and exile is a painful condition of uprootedness and strangeness. But he would partly transcend that condition and turn his London home into a dwelling place for Gambians far and wide. He was at home in exile as he was back home in the Banjul he loved. Bless his heart. 

His dreams of a nation that is developed and progressive still holds true. We honour him accordingly in so far as we turn this dream into a material reality that in the fullness of time elevates our people into human beings worthy of the name. That we dismantle this afterlife of the colonial project and create a newness rooted in the ancient reality of this land. 

Rest well, Uncle Aib! Thank you for your long-suffering commitment to the bent back peasant and the toiling masses of Africa. May you dwell in the meadows of Heavens and to rest forever on and to watch over us. You’ve become an ancestor and a fitting one too! My beloved comrade from Kenya said in Kiswahili: Safiri salama uncle Aib. 

Condolences to Uncle Koro Sallah, his comrade and brother, and the progressive forces of the African Nation that must be.