By Basidia M Drammeh

When former President Yahya Jammeh surprisingly conceded to Barrow before he made his infamous U-turn, Jammeh implored his successor to prioritize national security, insisting that without peace, Barrow would achieve nothing.

Four years down the line, Jammeh’s prophecy came true with a country once known as a bastion of peace and security entangled in unprecedented insecurity. In his traditional Eid message, President acknowledged the issue, warning that the crimes taking place in the country pose a threat to peace and stability.

The gruesome killing of a 36-year-old lady in Mandinaring, the stabbing of a Senegalese vendor in Westfield and the robbing of a Lebanese businessman at gunpoint add to a catalogue of serious criminal activities that have raised eyebrows in the country, with no end in sight. Though the Gambian police and other security agencies have launched what they have dubbed as Zero Crime campaign in recent times, the crime rate has been on the rise and shows no sign of abating.

Apart from logistical challenges, the security apparatus lacks visible leadership. Despite recurrent security incidents, the Minister of Interior, who is ultimately charged with internal security, has never held a press conference or issue a press release outlining his plans to deal with the dire security situation in the country. Though President Barrow expressed concern over the mounting insecurity in the country in his Eid message to the nation, he fell short of spelling out concrete and tangible measures to combat crime and criminality in the country. Criminals should hear a tougher tone and stricter action.

The insecurity that has rocked the nation in recent times has serious socio-economic consequences for the country. The people of a country that has branded itself as the smiling coast of Africa are fearful of their lives and properties. An economy that heavily relies on tourism stands to suffer as tourists will get scared to be in a country where armed and professional criminal gangs could attack them. Insecurity will equally scare potential investors away. Foreign business people could be mulling over moving out to more peaceful countries.

This is a crucial year for the Gambia as the nation gears up for presidential elections; hence the government needs to ensure that security is maintained to conduct free, fair and transparent elections.

President Barrow and his top security brass must draw up a comprehensive plan to institute law and order. The alarming insecurity is a cause of great concern that needs to be handled with the highest sense of urgency and emergency before the situation spirals out of hand. Inaction in the face of this National security threat stands to scupper the President’s development agenda and plunge the country into the unknown!

By Madi Jobarteh

The President’s Koriteh address and his statement with Banjul Muslim elders falls far short of what is expected of a leader. It is high time that his advisors and speech writers drive the President towards unity, reconciliation and accountability. That is what will serve him as a successful leader whom history will judge kindly.

Engaging in vindictive, divisive and half truth statements can only undermine his own credibility hence weaken his ability to govern this country in such a way that will earn him the trust and confidence of citizens. Good leaders do not divide and speculate about their citizens! They bring their people together.

For example, in his Koriteh speech he talked about the Sanyang riots but only to caste aspersions on the youth and condemn the violence! Yes, violence must be condemned but good leaders go beyond condemning violence, they also seek to understand how and why riots happen and take measures to prevent a recurrence!

But the President did not mention the very cause of that riot. Yet he knows why there was a riot because it was he who set up the Faraba Commission in 2018 when a riot erupted in that community. That Commission brought out all the issues in the coastal areas which are potential causes of conflicts. These are related to mining and the fishmeal factories. Hence the eruption of another riot directed at fishmeal factories should not surprise anyone, more so the President because this issue was raised two years ago in the Faraba Commission Report which was presented to him!

Furthermore the President raised the issue of freedom of expression, but with a threat. To claim that citizens are abusing democracy by expressing themselves is indeed a huge threat to democracy. The President must understand that democracy and good governance are sustained by the free expression of opinions.

Some of these opinions can be pleasant or unpleasant. But regardless of how unpleasant expressions are, so long as they are not hate speech or incitement to violence, we should not perceive them as abuse of democracy. Otherwise who should determine what is pleasant or unpleasant speech; who should determine what is acceptable or unacceptable speech! If we get to claim that there’s abuse of democracy because of speech then the next step is to limit free speech hence close down democracy!

Hence the President should only encourage citizens to express their opinions in decorum and dignity. But he must not speak as if he will close down democracy because he thinks citizens are making unpleasant remarks. Such statements by him are what could also embolden some other citizens, who may be his supporters or opponents to take advantage by attacking other citizens with whom they disagree with.

Thus it would appear that the President is indeed the one undermining national security. We have seen the impact of such remarks in America when President Trump used to ridicule and threaten citizens and media simply because he did not like the opinions and media reportage about his leadership.

Another conspicuous absence in his speech is accountability, especially for the police. While it was good that he recognized the good work of the police and called citizens to support our law enforcement officers, the President failed to also call on the police to respect and protect human rights.

Over the past four years, there have been several instances of police brutality. This needs to be addressed because bad cops are a threat to law enforcement and combating crime. We know that since 2018 a number investigations were opened on issues involving the police yet until today there has been no report and no action.

Furthermore, the President totally ignored the issue of corruption, inefficiency and abuse of office inside his Government. Rather the President spoke as if his Government is perfect with no shortcomings.

But indeed there is lot of corruption and abuse in his Government. There are a number of investigations for these things but no reports or actions are taken to ensure accountability. For example the Faraba Commission Report points to instances of corruption in issuing licenses to mining companies and police misconduct in riots yet his Government never took measures to correct things.

We know that there was an audit report on 7 state owned enterprises in 2018 that exposed massive corruption yet nothing was done to address that. The recent petition by GTBoard staffs against his Minister Hamat Bah and the GTBoard management is another case in point. There are uncountable cases of similar incidents of corruption across his Government!

Therefore it is not enough to emphasize that citizens to be law abiding, yet as the President he failed to also admonish public officers to be also honest and hardworking and shun corruption and abuse.

The height of the President’s show of poor and dangerous leadership is to engage in innuendos and underhand tactics just to dance to the gallery. For example, when the President told Muslim elders that he knew of political leaders who were selling ministerial positions, what was the objective?

Clearly that occasion and the audience are not the appropriate place to report such an incident. If true, that act by those political leaders was criminal and unethical! Therefore, how come the President would notice a criminal act by his colleagues only for him to keep quiet about it for so long and then go to a totally unrelated event and audience to disclose such misconduct?

Gambians should demand that Pres. Barrow discloses the names of those political leaders. He should open an investigation on the matter so that we know who sold the positions and to who and how much did they sell and buy the positions?

Furthermore, citizens need to know which individuals actually ended up obtaining a ministerial position in that manner! I hope the political parties will spare no effort to pressure the President to disclose his claims as he has attempted to soil the reputation of political leaders!

Indeed for the President to make such remarks further reinforce his divisiveness and poor leadership which is, by all intents and purposes a clear and direct threat to national security and unity! I hereby urge the President to withdraw those remarks and apologize to Gambians otherwise let him disclose the truth!

For The Gambia Our Homeland

By Pata Saidykhan

I’ve read the Draft for the Proposed Constitutional Amendment that seeks to add and Reserve SIXTEEN (16) seats for Women in the National Assembly by the next General Elections. In their OBJECTIVE it is stated that:

“… the commitments enshrined in both the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Maputo Protocol, to ensure that women enjoy genuine de facto equality with men at all level of decision making, including representation in the National Assembly… and providing for reservation of specific seats for women. This is to ensure that women enjoy genuine de facto equality on an equal basis with men.”

I have no problem with this. As a matter of fact, I acknowledged and agreed that we should have more female participation and representation in and at ALL decision making tables, eliminating EVERY form of DISCRIMINATION especially where exist in our LAWS. Our point of divergence is at the HOW.

In their BACKGROUND arguing the need for this amendment, the draft validated my insistence yesterday, that this is more a Tokenism than it is Affirmative Action for latter seeks to correct Discrimination. They wrote:

“The CONSTITUTION of the Republic of the Gambia 1997 and OTHER RELEVANT LAWS of The Gambia, including the WOMEN’S ’s ACT 2010, HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PROVISIONS to ENSURE that WOMEN are ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL LIFE of The Gambia, INCLUDING CONTESTING ELECTION for the National Assembly, AND REPRESENTATION AT ALL LEVELS OF DECISIONS MAKING. However, these laws FAILED to take cognizance of the socio-cultural context in The Gambia, which is deeply rooted in the CULTURE OF PATRIARCHY, thus giving rise to de facto LIMITATIONS and CONSTRAINT.”

They continued:

“The 1997 CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES WOMEN EQUAL TREATMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, which effectively means that women have the SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES as their MALE COUNTERPARTS with regards representation at the National Assembly. This right guaranteed under section 28, however does not reflect the realities on the ground, vis a vis women’s representation in the National Assembly.”

I’ve never seen a more disjointed contradiction between what obtains and what they seek to correct. Whoever came up with this idea and the drafters need to go back with this bill to either come back with a more reasonable, convincing argument OR SHELVE IT for GOOD. They acknowledge and admit that the Constitution and other relevant laws AND Women’s Act provides and guarantees women eligibility, participation and representation in both Politics and Decision making levels. The problem that they believe to be the hindrance is SOCIOCULTURAL – ‘PATRIARCHY’. How then do you correct a sociocultural deficit with Tokenism in the National Assembly? I am going on a limb to charge fraud and conning attempt by an educated few who want to be served a platter they do not want to work for, notwithstanding the any good intentions.

The Gambia does NOT have Discriminatory Laws that favor Lamin but inhibit or prohibit Fatou from political participation and representation. Dr. Isatou Touray DID NOT fail to secure Coalition nomination in 2016 because she’s a female. Honorables TOUMA NJIE & FATOUMATTA JAWARA did NOT earn their way into the Assembly because they’re women. Conversely, Honorables SANNA JAWARA and Omar Ceesay were not elected because they’re men. 

The remedy or best measures to ensure more women representation in our Nation’s political house is through political parties or sponsoring independent candidates. Political parties should encourage and be encouraged to recruit, sponsor and sell eligible, qualified women into roles and elected positions. What we’re understanding to be patriarchal constraints in our politics can be eliminated by both men and women by genuinely fighting to shed instead of glossing over them. We talk about insults, disrespect, belittling and unfair judgement. Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe fought through and BROKE barriers to defeat her male counterparts to the mayoral seat. So Laws CANNOT fix these. And certainly picking and sending 16 women in the Assembly will not either, because Hon. Mariam Denton does not understand, appreciate and defend the plight of women in the house any more than Hon. Sidia Jatta.

Let Women and Youth join political parties or be sponsored as Independent candidates to earn a right to represent. I’d hate for my daughters to grow up believing they cannot earn a deserved position in a competitive environment because they’re any less capable than my sons. This is not right and it’s an attempt at plastering over a nonexistent issue by creating problems. We wanted to move away from having the President nominate lawmakers to give representation its true meaning. How do we have certain people in the house whose main goal will be to represent a particular group? Matter of fact, how are these going to be selected and elected? Through political parties, Independent groups, community or self-sponsored? I hope Political Parties and the National Assembly members seriously scrutinize this bill devoid of any unreasonable emotions or pressure. You cannot shortcut your way in Democracy in hopes that you’d cure any deficiencies. What are we doing next? Do same for Youth, Farmers, Teachers, Ethnicities?

By Dabakh Malick

Let’s start this piece with a quote by former leader of Burkina Faso Capt Thomas Sankara: “Our REVOLUTION is not a PUBLIC SPEAKING tournament. Our REVOLUTION is not a BATTLE of FINE PHRASES. Our REVOLUTION is not SIMPLY for SPOUTING SLOGANS that are NO more than SIGNALS used by MANIPULATORS trying to use them as CATCHWORDS, as a FOIL for their OWN display. Our REVOLUTION is, and SHOULD continue to be, the COLLECTIVE effort of REVOLUTIONARIES to TRANSFORM REALITY, to IMPROVE the CONCRETE SITUATION of the MASSES of our people.” It’s a statement that’s worth pondering over since it’s pertinent to our reality as a nation.

December 4th will be another important date in the political life of The Gambia. Certainly for various reasons but the most obvious is that it is the date upon which presidential elections will be held for the first time post-Jammeh era.

Elections are integral part of a democratic process. Yet, the December election is a massive event. For the first time in our nation’s history, we are having political pluralism of this magnitude – where you have 18 registered political parties and a number of aspiring independent candidates. And so this election is going to be a litmus test for the many political parties and independent candidates we have. It’s their political viability that stands to be tested.

The million dollars question in the minds of most Gambians is: who is going to go home with the bragging rights? Your guess is as good as mine. But one can safely say the election will be a two-horse race, a race between NPP and UDP. You will have President Adama Barrow on the one hand and Lawyer Ousainou A.N.M Darboe on the other.

But still, any wise person would say a day is too much to risk in politics. A lot could happen or change between now and December, events that could redefine the race. And so until then, your guess is as good as mine.

PDOIS faces a massive challenge in terms of winning but it’s my view the party would make significant gains due to the roles the party played in building the coalition in the 2016 election, the political impasse but also the party’s consistent record in standing up for the interest of the ordinary man when it mattered most. For a very long time, I began seeing the party’s message resonating with not only the educated class but also the common Joe of the everyday Gambian.

And then you have CA. Being a new party with a former political science lecturer at the University of the Gambia as leader, the party can only use 2021 to experiment and gather experience in preparation for 2026.

If you ask me about NRP, NCP, PPP and GPDP, these parties are most likely throwing their weight behind NPP/Barrow. And having at the back of their minds that the political careers of their leaders are almost over including the issue of age on the part of these leaders, their best shot is to form an Alliance to be able to save face.

Let’s then turn to GMC. This is a party that’s a one-man party. Its leader Mai Fatty is more active on social media than his party activities. Will the party put up a candidate  for 2021 at all? I believe they will form Alliance and that is way better for them than putting up a candidate who will end up losing the deposit because they can’t score 5% of the votes cast.

For GDC and its flag bearer Mama Kandeh, I think they’re in trouble. They impressed in 2016 but it’s my prediction they will not be able to replicate their performance in 2016. GDC was able to do so well in 2016 for various reasons. For example, the party was new and many APRC and NRP supporters lost hope in their parties and voted for Mama. These are voters who could not vote for the Coalition’s candidate. A lot has happened in the past four years that continue to change the political fortunes of GDC. GDC is no longer the 2016 power party it once was and I doubt if they will play second fiddle to any candidate. I believe it will be hard for GDC to have a Coalition agreement in which Mama isn’t the flag bearer. Their best shot is for them to try get APRC since GDC is more like the prodigal son coming home.

With the Independent Candidates, for the first time I am seeing these many people who plan to run on an independent ticket but the truth is I think many are just playing to the hype of election year but even if they finally made it on the list, all of them will lose their deposit for not being able to pull 5% and I would be surprised if the performance of all of them combined isn’t up to that mark.

To close, this election will define the future of our nation. The best we can do is to register those who attain the right age, get involved by making sure the right person is chosen.

Do it for The Gambia And VOTE for your FUTURE!

By Madi Jobarteh

It is not only insulting to the citizens but also threatening to national security for Pres. Adama Barrow to allow none other than a leading Dictatorship Denier and Enabler to come to State House to vouch for none other than Tyrant Yaya Jammeh. It is like Pres. Joe Biden of the US inviting an imbecile like Rudy Giuliani to the White House to speak for Donald Trump as a unifier for Americans. I am sure Joe Biden will not spend that night in peace in the White House.

This is simply because, according to their own history there has been no US President ever that has threatened the unity, survival and stability of their republic and democracy more than Donald Trump. In the Gambian context, Yaya Jammeh is worse than Donald Trump because of the blatant and gross human rights violations Jammeh meted out to scores of Gambians with impunity for 22 years. In 2016, just like Trump, Jammeh refused to concede defeat until he was forced out by a foreign military force. It was people like Sam Sarr who defended Jammeh to refuse the verdict of the people and continues to defend Jammeh until today!

But here we are with a President who does not seem to have a basic understanding of history, his role as President and the state of affairs of his country such that he could act in the most insensitive, irresponsible and dangerous manner by inviting Sam Sarr to the State House! This begs the question, what must be going on in the head of Adama Barrow and his technocrats to have the audacity to allow an unapologetic, unconscionable and unpatriotic dictator lover like Samsudeen Sarr to walk into State House to talk about according Yaya Jammeh the status of a former head of state and as a unifier?

Is it that Adama Barrow, as an adult human being, is ignorant of the true history and experience of his own people between 22nd July 1994 and 19th January 2017? Is Pres. Barrow unaware of the fact that until today, Yaya Jammeh remains the greatest threat to our country as he and his desperate supporters continue to deny their crimes, mock their victims and seek to destabilise the Gambia? Has Pres. Barrow forgotten that it was people like Samsudeen Sarr who had vigorously and deliberately aided and abetted Yaya Jammeh to damage every right of our citizens and every rule of our Constitution just to perpetuate one-man rule in this republic? Otherwise, could Adama Barrow ask himself why he still keeps ECOMIG in our country, if not for his fear of Yaya Jammeh and his loyalists!

Clearly Adama Barrow is not unaware of the crimes of Yaya Jammeh and the exceptional role enablers like Sam Sarr played in that national calamity. Why then is Pres. Barrow willing and ready to betray the Gambia by hobnobbing with Yaya Jammeh and his party and enablers in broad daylight? What is Adama Barrow looking for? What does he want to gain such that he would want to lose his soul and destroy the Gambia? For anyone to entertain even slightly the idea that Yaya Jammeh is a unifier of Gambians is indeed insulting and dishonest.

I think all Gambians must now see that the single most dangerous threat to the peace and stability of the Gambia is none other than President Adama Barrow himself. Experts have shown that societies that underwent autocratic rule or violent conflict should engage in a robust transitional justice process if they are to avoid future recurrences of those crimes. The examples of a lack of a robust transitional justice process leading to another round of autocratic rule and conflict are all too many such as the 1994 Rwanda Genocide.

That the Gambia underwent an authoritarian rule for decades is an open secret. In fact, it was precisely because of that, that Mr. Adama Barrow himself and his Government launched a transitional justice program in 2017. Yet even before the TRRC concluded its truth-seeking hearings, we witness how Barrow is so eager to ignore this country’s atrocious past by keeping key Enablers of that regime into his Cabinet and in his party and in strategic positions across his Government.

As if that is just the tip of the iceberg, it is all too clear that Barrow now wants to jump into bed with APRC while seeking to celebrate the Tyrant himself just for power! No wonder he orchestrated the killing of the draft constitution just to perpetuate himself in power indefinitely! If there is anything undeniably and evidently characteristic of Adama Barrow is that he is indeed power hungry. Extremely power hungry for that matter. In his quest to cling onto power, it appears Barrow is ready to continue to betray, sell, undermine and disrespect this republic as he wishes!

That Sam Sarr is a nonentity is clear like the sun at 2pm. He has no value to offer anything to this republic as he has never done so. His life of vanity has been spent only to harm the sovereignty of the Gambia and ridicule the dignity of the people. He has lived only as a parasite to suck the blood of Gambians but never to give anything back to his society. Indeed, Sam Sarr is the epitome of an ingrate and a prodigal son of the land!

But let Sam Sarr be whatever he wishes to be. What is unacceptable is for the President of the Republic to transform that historic and sacred mandate of the people into a weapon to harm the people by engaging with ignoble people like Sam Sarr to undermine the Republic. I consider the meeting between Adama Barrow and Sam Sarr as treasonable for which the President must be held accountable. Like Yaya Jammeh, Sam Sarr is an enemy of the Gambia for the treasonable crimes they committed and then to continue to deny those crimes and mock victims.

One would have expected that Pres. Adama Barrow would tell Sam Sarr in no uncertain terms that Yaya Jammeh bears primary responsibility for the 22 years of gross human rights violations in this country for which he will be held accountable. An honest, bold and patriotic President would have put it to Sam Sarr that the Gambia Government will not reconcile with a tinpot dictator until and unless there is first, truth, justice and accountability. Pres. Barrow, if he were decent, honest and a true leader should have told Sam Sarr that Yaya Jammeh does not deserve the status of a former Head of State for he misruled this country and subjected it to international ridicule and pariah status. Yaya Jammeh deserves nothing other than to be prosecuted and sent to jail for good!

But alas! Once again, as consistently as ever, Mr. Adama Barrow has distinguished himself as the leading betrayer and traitor of the Republic of the Gambia never seen before in the history of this country! This is the most infamous meeting and the most disrespectful act to have taken place inside the House of the Republic, the people’s house. It is as unforgivable as it is disappointing, insulting and nonsensical!

For The Gambia Our Homeland.

This comment is a verbatim quote of Pres. Adama Barrow published in the Standard newspaper today. He is said to make this comment in his speech to former NAMs and governors who came to lodge their support to him at State House.

“NPP is not taking the December presidential election lightly. We are ready for anything as far as the elections are concern and when you are about to start a war, there are two things to bear in mind – death or shame. You either take death or shame and we the NPP will rather take death than shame.”

If indeed this is what the President said then both the IEC and the National Assembly and indeed all relevant stakeholders and citizens must demand that the President withdraws the comment immediately. They must pressure the President to declare his commitment to democracy and to free, fair, transparent and peaceful elections  on December 4.

This comment by the President undermines the very concept and purpose of elections in a democracy. Elections are indispensable tools that enable citizens to choose candidates to hold public office. Election is also an accountability mechanism that makes citizens to return or reject an incumbent in holding public office.  Hence election is a major decision making exercise that empowers citizens to form a government based on their opinion.

In light of this, no politician or citizen should perceive election in terms of war, death or shame, even figuratively! Rather every politician and citizen should perceive election as only a tool and a process that manifest the power of the people. Every politician, more so the incumbent President must speak of election only in terms of peace and a celebration of democracy and encourage popular participation and guarantee fair play in the process. No amounting of campaigning warrants a candidate to use the language of war in elections.

The comment by Pres. Barrow goes against everything that an election in a democracy represents. His language has set the stage for violence and malpractices for which everyone must be concerned. His comment is therefore irresponsible and undemocratic and poses a clear and present danger to the peace and stability of the country.

What the President is indicating is that same Trump-like mentality that he has to win by all means. That if he does not win he will not accept the results. The President is essentially saying that he and his party will do anything it takes to win the election because to him, his victory in the election is a matter of death or shame. Since no one will accept death or shame from enemies then it means Pres. Barrow is saying that he will have to win by any means.

To perceive an election in terms of war is to see the opposition as enemies. In war there are enemies. But in a democracy there are only opponents and no enemies. Political parties are not enemies. Their candidates and supporters are not enemies; only opponents. Hence it is utterly concerning that the President only sees opponents as enemies as he sees election as war!

I know the IEC, political parties, CSOs and indeed most of our citizens are not bothered by these dangerous comments. This is because Gambians are notorious for taking things for granted. We will all claim that this is an empty rhetoric of a desperate President. Therefore we will all ignore this grossly irresponsible statement that has all the hallmarks of electoral malpractices and violence.

But let us remember that it is our continued lethargy, apathy, indifference and silence that we are such a hapless state today after five decades of independence. It is this lethargy that made it possible for tyranny to germinate in our country for 22 years! It is our indifference which is why the nation is betrayed once again in 2017. Because of our failure to be alert and vigilant, this country continues to wallow in bad governance and poor leadership.

Therefore, for how long shall we continue to fail ourselves? For how long shall we continue to allow elected and appointed public officials to continue to bastardize our sovereignty and dignity just to secure their selfish interests? The statement by the President is uncalled for; it’s a provocation and a attempt to undermine free, fair and transparent elections!

For The Gambia Our Homeland

The philosophy of one man is that one should protest a bad act. For a moment, it looked to me Mama Fatima Singhateh appreciated this philosophy coming to the TRRC.

Thursday’s showdown between Mama Fatima Singhateh and Haddy Dandeh Jabbie was probably the biggest battle of two women since the TRRC was set up. What do you think?

Somehow, Mama knew she was going into the trenches and opted to wear all her arms. But she found an equally battle-ready lawyer in front of her.

One thing I did not see coming though is her rejection of almost every claim. I’d at least expected her to own up to certain things. She disappointed me, just as Amie Bensouda, who confidently said the bad decrees she created for Jammeh were in fact good. If she lied? I will leave that to the TRRC.

While Mama wouldn’t hesitate to bellow ‘that’s totally false’ into the microphone, it was her battle mate Haddy who would not stop either. In two instances, Haddy was cruel as she was savage.

‘We know the law as much as you do,” Haddy blasted her in one instance. Another savage put-down that would have seen the two women exchange blows if it were not for the cameras was when Haddy sarcastically told Mama she for a minute thought it was Jammeh himself speaking when Mama said she found it concerning foreigners were preaching human rights to Gambia. Those actually were Jammeh’s exact words.

Something that one may not forget about this war is Mama’s claim she did not know about the human rights violations. I dare say she must be living under a rock to not know the human rights violations that occurred while she served in Jammeh’s government. Again I will leave that to the TRRC.

Gambians have since discovered new terms such as ‘legal jungler’ referring to Mama and her ilk. The ruthlessness of Gambians laid bare once more. Pretty much.

By Basidia M Drammeh

The fuss and the row over President Barrow stepping out of the red carpet at the Freetown Airport are implausible and unjustifiable. In my humble opinion, the President’s deviation from protocol etiquette was spontaneous to get closer to his excited compatriots who converged on the airport to greet him and get a glimpse of him. After all, the protocol etiquette is not sacred, nor is it unalterable.

The Head of State represents an entire nation. Therefore, the hounding of the President during his overseas trips to pick on him is not only demeaning to him as a person, but it also degrades the solemnity of the Office of the President and the country, by extension, in the eyes of the world!

It’s high time that we focused on issues of substance, not persons. Instead of discussing means of leveraging the historic bilateral ties between the two nations for our mutual benefit, attention was entirely focused on this minor, and probably trivial issue.

I don’t want to say it but I have to: President Adama Barrow will win the December election.

UDP folks will assemble here now and say I have been bought, that it’s ‘Covid money’ that is talking. I am in trouble.

“I know I have what it takes to defeat President Adama Barrow,” the party’s leader Darboe told me shortly after the party returned him as flagbearer earlier this month. I don’t think so.

The December election will surely make for the most vigorously contested election in Gambia’s history. For some, it’s about revenge. For others, it’s about saving their skin. APRC comes to mind with the latter.

One thing cannot be disputed: UDP has been the most pragmatic party on the ground since 2018. Officials of the party have gone everywhere in a bid to get the buy-in of voters. That’s actually a smart tactic.

Yet, the power of incumbency is dangerously working against them. A once unpopular president is getting more and more popular, something I bravely put down to money. These NPP folks have money and they are not ashamed of splashing it.

Another thing that is bringing trouble to UDP is the party’s belligerent supporters. All they do is bully people. While they think that’s a way to bring people to the party, they’re unconsciously sending them away.

I will hate it to see President Barrow win this election. Five years is more than enough for me to know he is incompetent at this job. I wish someone else was president in December.

I voted for President Barrow in 2016 not just because I disliked Jammeh but also because I found him to be honest. He said he was going to serve for only three years and I believed him. When he wrote off that pledge, I felt he duped me and I have since not been able to forgive him. What is a man if he can’t stay true to his word?

But it’s further disintegration that awaits UDP if the party fails in December. The likes of Momodou Sabally are certainly not people minted to stay in opposition forever. There is every likelihood they will swift ground if it ever occurred to them the party can never take power.

My dad is 100% UDP and I hope this article is not read to him.

Lamin Njie is the editor-in-chief of The Fatu Network. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Fatu Network. You can follow him on Facebook @ Lamin Njie official

On September 2, 2020, the Trump administration announced that the United States had designated the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and the head of the Office of the Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division (JCCD), Phakiso Mochochoko, for sanctions. These actions are a backlash from the ICC’s investigations in Afghanistan and Palestine. President Biden on April 2, 2021, ended the sanctions and the visa restrictions, thereby rescinding Trump’s orders.

My reflection will focus on the pitfalls of such sanctions on individuals from ‘less-powerful’ states given the countries of origin of both Prosecutor Bensouda from The Gambia and Mr. Mochochoko from Lesotho. Bensouda was the main target of the sanctions given that she was granted approval in March 2020 by the Appeals Chamber of the ICC to investigate possible crimes committed in Afghanistan since May 2003. US forces are alleged to have ‘committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, rape and sexual violence’ in Afghanistan.

The Woman from The Gambia

I must confess that I have a shared history with Bensouda who was born in The Gambia like me. As a girl growing up in The Gambia, which is a male-dominated society, I had stood up against bullying in the community, fought against injustice in my school, and gave myself a voice on family matters to the extreme annoyance of the male members. As a result, from an early age, I wanted to be an advocate for women’s rights like Bensouda. I find myself, like the majority of women in Africa, in spaces where I continuously have to contend with gender challenges, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. ‘A woman’s place is the home’ and ‘women cannot be leaders’ are two discriminatory statements, which pervaded my environment and which I had continually challenged. Our society and its gender system are deeply patriarchal illustrating how embedded restrictive gender norms define who gets into leadership positions. We share a mutual detestation for injustice, and love and belief in supranational organs and human rights bodies to ensure justice for victims of atrocities. She is a feminist and lawyer and an awe-inspiring role model for African women and girls. Bensouda’s leadership of the ICC is also premised and informed by her position as a woman from a small West African country. This insight is essential to how her commitment to ensuring justice for women can be seen in the strategic direction of the Court in challenging impunity for rape and sexual exploitation of women and children in war and conflict.

Business as Usual

Through Executive Order 13928 on ‘Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court’, U.S. officials added both Fatou Bensouda, and Phakiso Mochochoko to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDNs). The assets of persons on the list are generally blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. These sanctions came in the wake of the 2019 policy on visa restrictions for them and their immediate family members. The orders against these staff of the Court are an attack on the international justice system. Bensouda was acutely aware of the potential challenges, including political pressure, on her path as the prosecutor of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In 2012, in responding to what kind of ICC she hoped to pass on at the end of her term, she stated: ‘We’ll prove that [the Court] is a truly independent judicial body. It won’t happen overnight. Our legal institution is going to continue to operate in a difficult political environment and attacks against it won’t subside.’

During the period when the sanctions were imposed on Bensouda, we saw the deafening silence of the African Union due in part to its turbulent relations with the Court. This is partly due to the primary focus of the Court on African conflicts and State-sponsored violence, which had angered African leaders who have accused the Court of bias against the continent. Despite earlier support by Africa of Bensouda’s election and the hope that it would have led to better relationships between the continent and the Court, Bensouda has been accused of being anti-African as the primary person responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes. This criticism and hostility were spearheaded by her own country, where then-President Yayha Jammeh, in 2016, withdrew from the Rome Statute and left the ICC labeling it as the ‘International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of colour, especially Africans’. The country has since reversed its decision to withdraw from the ICC under President Barrow’s administration.

When the sanctions were announced, the Gambian Government under President Barrow expressed dismay noting that it constitutes ‘gross interference in the mandate, independence and impartiality of the Court in the fight against impunity for perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern’. While the Gambian civil society has generally been supportive of her, it has accused her of turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by Jammeh and lack of investigation to bring #JammehtoJustice. In 2020, Bensouda noted that she directed ‘ICC prosecutors to examine Jammeh’s record, but his actions were deemed to fall short of war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity that constitute an ICC case’. The operation of the Jammeh’s death squad, the ‘Junglers’, was only recently known. There has been a general curiosity as to whether she would be asked to testify before The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission, given her experience as Jammeh’s Deputy Director of Prosecution in 1995 and former Minister of Justice from 1998-2000, and that she was adversely mentioned for corruption of justice.

Bullying Tactics

Trump’s administration tried to force the Court into submission by bullying Bensouda and Mochochoko with hegemonic tactics including sanctions. It is opined that these are bullying tactics on the Court’s staff who are from less powerful nations. As she has noted, ‘some believed that I should just stop there and let it go because it concerns a very powerful [state],’ but for her ‘it’s about the law. It’s not about power’. These sanctions also mean that in the future, nationals of less powerful States may not get the top and most strategic positions in the ICC for fear that more powerful nations could deny them necessary support or place obstacles before them in the execution of their mandate. Such effect can only further alienate less powerful nations from the international justice system and hence turn the ICC either into a moribund institution or place it completely in the hands of more powerful nations, or both. However, The Gambia’s recent campaign to protect the Rohingya from genocide, which led to provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Myanmar must take immediate action to protect the Rohingya group, is a reminder that small countries matter. Despite their size, small countries like The Gambia and their nationals can play a major role in the international justice system.

At the heart of Trump’s actions against Bensouda is a rejection of the ‘international liberal order’. This was in line with his ‘America First’ agenda that placed national interests and values at the core of all his policies. His actions bolster the argument that the imperial nature of American foreign policy forms a part of it, illustrating the contradictory nature of their accountability stance. Starting from the Nuremberg trials, the American concept of accountability seems to revolve around victor’s justice without any genuine interest to submit themselves to the same standards they require of others. Besides, there are also contradictions in the USA’s dealings with the Court. For instance, the U.S. has voted in the Security Council to refer situations such as those in Libya to the ICC but does not want the ICC to investigate international crimes allegedly committed in states like Afghanistan that have exercised their sovereign right or prerogative to become parties to the Rome Statute. What this practically means is that the U.S. is de facto above international law and community.

Conclusion

That the complicated relationship between the U.S. and the ICC further deteriorated under the Trump administration, which was epitomized by open hostilities against the Prosecutor, is an example of how convenient it is for a powerful country to cast such nationals from less powerful states as ‘thorn-in-the-flesh’. The sanctions send one message to the rest of the world: the U.S. cares only about itself and its special interests. Moreover, the sanctions are a direct threat to international human rights and to the individuals who are tirelessly working to end impunity. The U.S. betrayed its legal and moral duty of holding perpetrators accountable. Consequently, Bensouda should not be faulted for picking a legitimate and necessary fight. The defiance of Bensouda to continue with the investigations sums up the temerity of a woman who detests injustice, bullying, arbitrariness and impunity. The commitment to justice, and accountability is what drives her.

The writer, Satang Nabaneh, is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, and the Founder and Executive Director of Law Hub Gambia. She currently pursues research interests including international human rights law and monitoring mechanisms, democratization in Africa, and Gambian constitutional law. The article was first published on the blog OpinioJuris.

By Momodou Ndow

After rejecting the Junta’s offer to be their Attorney General a few times, Fafa Mbye finally accepted their offer to serve with the persuasion of some elders yukor sopa toropp! But his acceptance came with some conditions, which he outlined in two MOU’s he wrote. They were between himself and the AFPRC. He wrote them after his meeting with the Junta, because he deemed it necessary to have an agreement with them to be signed by all parties. Goloh signed on behalf of the Junta.

In both MOUs, Fafa focused on five major things; his commitment to restore democracy, the settlement payment due to his client from a lawsuit suit he won against the previous government, funding of the full education of his three sons in the UK, his personal security and that of his family and associates, and redress for his grievances against the previous government, which he believed were perpetrated against him by corrupt elements. In the five conditions Fafa Mbay laid, four of them were for his direct personal gain. The common good seemed secondary.

Once Fafa entered Goloh’s cabinet, his office went to work, cranking out decree upon decree. Twenty four decrees in six to seven months. That’s about four decrees a month. Decree happy if you ask me! The goal was to legitimize a criminal government, and Fafa Mbye was there to guide them. Under his watch, draconian laws were passed, and the Junta was on its brutal way! In his MOU with the Junta, Fafa’s fifth condition was for them to address some of the injustices he suffered from the previous government, and the decrees did just that. The decrees went after a particular category of people with a vengeance, who were part of the previous government. Could it be that some of those were the corrupt elements Fafa believed to have perpetrated injustices against him? He had an axe  to grind, and the decrees were busy chopping down anything in their path.

According to Fafa, bad laws properly executed, are better than good laws improperly executed. That left me scratching my head. If good laws can be improperly executed by corrupt judges, then what about bad laws, especially in a military regime? Fafa became the Junta’s ferocious defender, and wasn’t shy to defend them anytime the opportunity arose. On the cassette tape of his interview with BBC which he proudly shared, he could be heard promoting the Junta. And when asked about the mess the Junta had created in The Gambia, he responded that there was no mess, and that the Junta came to power to clean up the mess left by Jawara’s government. A couple of months later, those same decrees he defended and tried to justify, came back to bite him mercilessly. Now Fafa the AG was no more, and he immediately became a member of the Victim’s Club, crying foul over his victimization. Ironically, Fafa is still unable to recognize the impact of his actions that had left him and the Gambian people at the mercy of young hooligans.

The degrees passed during his time in office are his shadow, and no amount of running will separate him from his shadow. Fafa Mbye testimony was meant to set light on some of the decrees the Junta used to subjugate the people, but it ended up being a deflection session. Instead, he made it all about Fafa Mbye; his intellectual prowess, his degrees, his clients, his chambers, his trials, his accolades, his admirers, his “uncle human rights defender” title, and his house in Pipeline (with every item listed, baku ak chunuwarr rek la fateh). Smh. To say that Fafa Mbye was oblivious to the plight of Gambians is an understatement. He was indifferent, and it was crystal clear all through out his testimony. It was all about Fafa Mbye the lawyer, not Fafa Mbye the witness. Fundamentally, Fafa Mbye left me with more questions than answers, and I hope that doesn’t extend to the TRRC. And here is the killer for me! When Lead Counsel Faal expressed the high regard in which he held Mr. Fafa Mbye, instead of appreciating it with some level of humility, he responded that he wasn’t surprised by Faal’s admiration of him. What a narcissist! I wonder at what point was it about the country, and not Fafa Mbye? I might have missed it.

By Zakaria Kemo Konteh, ZKK

When the Myanmar military and extremists Buddhist allies went on ethnic cleansing rampage against the minority Rohingya Muslims, the world watched in horror and outrage. The bloody crackdown also created one of the worst humanitarian crisis as the battered and injured Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh and elsewhere to escape the coordinated persecution. But like the 1994 Rwandan genocide,  reaction to Rohingya massacre was largely mute as there was very little or no practical effort to protect them.

Thus, Gambia was instantly recognized and hailed domestically and globally and our then Justice Minister, Baa Tambedou, became an international icon when our country championed the Rohingya cause and led groundwork to hold Myanmar government accountable at the International Criminal Court for its direct participation and supporting roles in the extermination campaign of the Rohingya Muslims. It was a bold,  courageous and moral decision. Gambia took the mantle of leadership among nations to prosecute horrific crimes against humanity and protect the vulnerable in one of the world’s most volatile countries  – Myanmar.

But the emergence of the so-called honorarium – about $200,000 fees paid by OIC  to and shared among then Justice Minister Ba Tambedou, then Solicitor General Cherno Marenah and current Justice Minister Dawda Jallow for heir legal services – is quite shocking, duplicitous and dirty. If there was to be any payment for Gambia’s involvement in the Rohingya case, it should have been made directly to the Gambia government because Ba and his team were not acting as private legal practitioners but working for the government and people of the Gambia. They were using state resources and public funds to carry out their responsibilities in the case and, therefore, any personal monetary compensation to the named officials reeks of nothing short of corruption!

It is equally bizarre, shameful and concerning for Gambia government to defend such corrupt practices by former and current serving  senior officials. The press release issued by government smacks of a blanket legal justification for official corruption and highlights the Barrow administration spineless to stand up to major infractions within the government establishment that erodes public confidence and undermines our country’s international reputation. We cannot let our public officials get away with brazenly elicit conducts but even more so, we can’t allow our government to give them the legal and moral cover to do so.

By Ousman Sidibeh

It’s almost impossible to have a conversation with those who wear feminism to even light chats, as they seem perpetually set for combats, misunderstanding even obvious jokes. My own version of feminism, while advocating dignity of the woman, isn’t combative.

Feminism of the irrationally angry is a mere stereotype campaign against the male. Absolute bullshit. That you were raised by an abusive father, or lived with an abusive husband or boyfriend, is not an excuse to demonise other people’s father, brothers, uncles and nephews.

Not every man is like your father or husband or your boyfriend. Some are responsible family men. Not every man is an idiot. You don’t promote sexism in your campaign to stop sexism.

The society may be unfairly built to have the woman subjugated, but any form of militant ideology with which every man is demonised isn’t right. You need to fight patriarchy, ally with the sane men to grant the women vehicles for a drive into desired liberation. No man will ever respect you if all you have as a woman is your anger. A childlike combative approach to everything.

You can dismantle people’s line of thinking or argument with a superior position without resorting to an infantile name-calling. Your inability to do so only reveals your emptiness, and it’s hard to tell how such is different from mainstream violent extremism.

By Madi Jobarteh

It is 21 years today, yet there is no justice and accountability for that infamous day when 14 young Gambians were brutally shot to death by the country’s own security forces under the orders of its elected and appointed public officials led by Dictator Yaya Jammeh. Section 17 of the Constitution imposes an obligation on all of these public officials to respect and protect the human rights of Gambians. Yet, in total contravention of the Constitution, they decided to deliberately damage the sovereign rights of citizens. Twenty-one years later, impunity continues to prevail as the law that was created to cover up that heinous crime and protect its perpetrators, the Indemnity At 2001 still remains firmly rooted in our statutes!

When will there be justice and accountability for April 10 and 11?

Yes, the new Government of Adama Barrow launched a transitional justice program since 2017 and key among its objectives is to establish the truth about the human rights violations committed in the 22 years of tyranny. As we await the TRRC to conclude and provide recommendations, we recognise that the Gambia Government has provided an initial 50 million dalasi to TRRC to serve the needs of all victims of these bloody 22 years. I understand at least two April 10/11 survivors have obtained medical support in Turkey, thanks to that money.

Clearly this is a very small amount of money, which actually came out of the proceeds of the sale of Yaya Jammeh’s ill-gotten assets which amounted to 1.4 billion dalasi. Where is the rest of that money? The President, the Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance must tell Gambians where these monies are? Furthermore, my understanding is that Senegal had also donated another 50 million dalasi to the Government for victims, but which was neither given to the Victims Centre nor TRRC. So where is that money too?

While we need transparency and accountability on these issues from the Government, it is sad to note that Pres. Barrow however continues to stab victims in the chest by maintaining many of the decision makers and actors in the April 10/11 massacre and the APRC regime as a whole in his Government. Top police officer Gorgui Mboob is one example. Defence Minister Sheikh Omar Faye with his Cabinet colleagues Mamadou Tangara, Mamburay Njie, and Yankuba Sonko are the others, not to mention Seedy Njie and a host of other enablers in the police and military!

By this decision, it means Pres. Barrow is the very one who is undermining his own Government’s transitional justice agenda. By keeping these enablers, it means there will be no system change as we have witnessed no qualitative change since 2017. Rather what we see is how these enablers have now become notorious for downplaying the true history and experience of our people by seeking to generalise, minimalize, deny, distort, and falsely rewrite that gruesome history of the AFPRC/APRC Dictatorship. By so doing, it means Barrow and these enablers have now become the greatest threats to the freedoms and rights of citizens and the democratisation of the Gambia, contrary to the objectives of transitional justice.

The evidence of their notoriety and stance against victims and the Gambian lies in their failure to conduct any system change through constitutional, legal, and institutional reforms. Until today, there are immunity provisions in the 1997 Constitution which this Government failed to remove. This is why Junta member Yankuba Touray, without fear or shame, tried to rely on that illegal provision to refuse to testify before the TRRC. If not for the progressive stance by our lawyers – Gaye Sowe, Neneh Cham, Salieu Taal and Abdoulie Fatty – to submit to the Supreme Court that those provisions cannot provide immunity for heinous crimes, and the Supreme Court agreeing with them, one could safely say that justice and accountable are dead and buried in the Gambia.

That notwithstanding, until today the Indemnity Act is still alive and kicking. Until today the Public Order Act is also alive and kicking. Until today there has been no security sector reform such that up to today, security forces shoot and kill Gambians as we saw in Faraba in June 2018. Until today Gambians are subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention and imposed with trumped up charges as we saw in Sanyang, or the illegal closure of media houses, not to forget the illegal re-arrest of Three Years Jotna members after they were actually bailed by the courts! It appears the only security sector reforms taking place is the unending series of promotions and mounting of more checkpoints! But the same mentality and modus operandi persists within the security forces without change!

Thus, as we mark yet another April 10/11 anniversary, it is necessary that Gambians rise up to demand full system change that will bring about durable justice and effective accountability. This country has not still transformed, qualitatively from dictatorship to democracy even after four years of booting out the tyrant. What we are witnessing is only a passive change and a semblance of democracy. But the fact that the same personnel, institutions and mindset that kidnapped this country for 22 years are still in place means the current democratic space is only cosmetic and therefore will not last.

Having been in suffering for so long, a little reprieve can make one feel like there is positive change. The fact however is that the current political dispensation is indeed fragile and moving more towards dictatorship than toward actual democracy and good governance. The evidence of this lies in the widespread prevalence of corruption, insecurity, weak institutions and poor service delivery, increasingly high cost of living and low public trust and confidence in the government. These are the hallmarks of a weak state in which the government and its leaders are neither transparent nor accountable. Hence the tendency for the use of force and violence by such a government is always high hence the return to dictatorship. Wake up, Gambians!

For The Gambia Our Homeland