Since the ouster of Yahya Jammeh, our homeland has entered a new dawn, sparking extensive conversations about justice, liberty, democracy, representation, accountability, the state, and the demos. These are interesting times. I particularly enjoy our ongoing debates and efforts to petition the state for lists of Jammeh’s assets and their buyers. These questions are valid, and any serious administration must address them.
The President’s Response. It was encouraging to see the president’s response related to Jammeh’s stolen assets. However, this action alone will not suffice. We face challenges beyond simple accounting issues, including conflicts of interest, the challenge of state auditing, legal frameworks for the auctioning of assets, and the reasons behind the delay in auctioning some assets.
The Need for a Special Counsel
We advocate for a special counsel. This issue demands a thorough performance audit that goes beyond mere accounting. We must account for the assets and evaluate the involved ministries and departments regarding their efficiency, effectiveness, and stewardship in auctioning these assets.
Objectives of the Audit. The audit should examine the processes involved in asset auctioning to determine how effectively resources are utiliSed and if objectives are met in a timely manner. Specifically, the audit would assess:
· Where, when, and how were the assets auctioned?
· Who purchased the assets?
· What processes were involved in auctioning the assets?
· Did the auctioneers comply with the law?
· What challenges, if any, were faced during the auctioning process?
Capability of the National Audit Office
The National Audit Office (NAO) is one of our country’s most robust institutions. However, their limited resources and the small number of performance auditors, inspectors, evaluators, and investigators may hinder their ability to address this issue comprehensively. Therefore, I implore the state to appoint a special counsel who can assemble an all encompassing team to examine the auctioning of these assets. This team would significantly aid Parliament in its investigative and oversight responsibilities regarding this contentious national issue.
Clear Criteria for the Audit
The criteria for this project should be straightforward, as the recommendations of the Janneh Commission were largely accepted and implemented by the executive branch, particularly the Ministry of Justice. These recommendations will serve as the foundation of the performance audit.
A Limited Scope for Success
To avoid mission creep, this audit should operate within a limited scope, with a timeline of four to six months from initiation to report issuance. This timeframe will allow the special counsel’s team to request documents, conduct stakeholder interviews, analyze information, and compile a comprehensive report.
Assembling the Right Team
The team should consist of seasoned performance auditors, evaluators, inspectors, lawyers, and analysts dedicated to thorough investigations.
Conclusion
The country deserves clear answers regarding Jammeh’s assets, and we must conduct this process comprehensively. A special counsel equipped with the appropriate experts will be better positioned to tackle this issue. The nation is watching, and our leaders must take this seriously. This situation extends beyond a simple accounting issue or legal framework; it encompasses deep accountability and transparency, necessitating the appointment of a special counsel to address it effectively.
Malick Senghore and Sulayman Njie
You Don’t sack diplomats over gossip—this is a republic, not a rumour court
In defense of Ambassador Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay
Dear Madi,
Your call, through the EFSCRJ, for President Barrow to summarily dismiss Ambassador Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay (FJC) over a leaked private WhatsApp audio is not only legally untenable but also deeply troubling for its implications on civil liberties, due process, and the integrity of our democratic discourse.
Let us begin with the basics: FJC was not speaking in her official capacity as Ambassador, nor was the statement made in a formal diplomatic setting. The audio, reportedly recorded in a private space and shared without her consent, represents her personal opinions, however unpalatable they may be to some political sensibilities. In law, context matters, and so does the right to private expression. What you are advocating for is state action based on unlawfully obtained private communication—a dangerous precedent that weaponises surveillance against free speech.
1. Constitutional and Legal Considerations
The Gambian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression (Section 25(1)(a)), including the right to hold opinions without interference. While public officials are rightly held to high standards, the bar for dismissal—especially on grounds of misconduct—requires more than leaked, non-public utterances. There must be:
A clear breach of official duty.
Evidence of impact on the discharge of public functions
An established standard of diplomatic code violated in an official setting.
None of these thresholds have been legally met. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which governs conduct in international service, does not extend to regulating private political speech unless it disrupts the host country’s relations or violates diplomatic protocol—neither of which is evident here.
2. Moralism versus Legality
You and your organisation have equated political rudeness with legal wrongdoing. This is a slippery slope. There is no codified law against being “uncultured” or “provocative” in private speech. Democracy is precisely about tolerating differences, even when expressed impolitely. To demand dismissal over a WhatsApp voice note is to substitute legality for morality, and governance must never be based on feelings over facts.
3. The Doctrine of Proportionality
Even assuming FJC’s comments were distasteful, state response must be proportional. A reprimand or private caution may be appropriate—but dismissal? That is executive overreach and politicisation of discipline. Would we equally support the dismissal of every ambassador or minister who privately insulted APRC, NPP, PDOIS, or PPP leaders? Consistency is the lifeblood of justice.
4. Selective Outrage and Political Convenience
It is curious that EFSCRJ, an organisation that claims to champion civil liberties, would demand the sacking of a woman for exercising her right to speak, albeit provocatively, in her private space. Where was this righteous indignation when public officials and party surrogates from other parties issued far worse invective in open press conferences and rallies?
5. Political Elitism Disguised as Ethical Outrage
This episode speaks less to ethics and more to the emotional fragility of the Gambian political class, which now seeks to immunise itself from criticism by calling any offensive remark “a threat to national unity.” Unity is not built by silencing dissent but by confronting it in public forums with better arguments—not executive sackings.
Conclusion
Ambassador Jahumpa Ceesay may well deserve public criticism, and political parties are within their rights to censure their own. But President Barrow has no constitutional, legal, or diplomatic basis to dismiss her over this audio, and to do so would be an act of executive tyranny masked as ethical correction.
Let us not confuse indignation with justice, or private speech with public wrongdoing.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Red Pen
Public Policy Analyst | Political Ethicist
