Essa Faal - For Better Gambia Diaspora Movement

The State Must End the Abuse of Prosecutorial Authority

For Immediate Release:
What is unfolding in the aftermath of the Ousainou and Amie Bojang case raises a fundamental question about the limits of prosecutorial power in The Gambia.

For nearly two years, the full weight of the State was brought to bear against two citizens. Evidence was gathered, presented, tested, and challenged before a court of competent jurisdiction. At the end of that process, the court reached its conclusion. That outcome, whether welcomed or not, was the lawful product of due process.

In any constitutional system, that is where the authority of the prosecution ends, unless properly engaged through established appellate procedures.

What cannot be accepted is the transformation of prosecutorial discretion into a tool for indefinite pursuit. The power vested in the prosecuting authority is not a licence to revisit, repackage, or prolong proceedings in search of a different outcome once the evidentiary case has failed. When prosecution continues beyond the point justified by evidence and judicial determination, it ceases to be a function of justice and becomes an abuse of process.

This is where the Ministry of Justice must be held to account.
Under our constitutional framework, the authority to initiate and discontinue criminal proceedings is a high public trust. It is exercised not to secure convictions at all costs, but to uphold fairness, objectivity, and the integrity of the legal system. Any action that undermines the finality of judicial decisions; outside of clearly defined appellate mechanisms, erodes that trust.

There is a critical legal distinction that must not be blurred. The State has the right to appeal where grounds exist in law. That right is structured, time-bound, and subject to judicial oversight. It is not a backdoor for relitigation, nor a mechanism to cure evidentiary deficiencies after the fact. To use it otherwise is to stretch the law beyond its purpose.

The doctrine of finality in criminal proceedings is not technical, it is protective. It shields citizens from repeated exposure to the coercive power of the State and affirms that once a matter has been conclusively determined, the individual is entitled to move on with their life. Undermining that principle introduces uncertainty into the justice system and weakens public confidence in its independence. If prosecutorial authority is exercised without restraint, the risk is not theoretical. It creates a precedent where acquittal does not equate to closure, and where the process itself becomes punitive.

The State must also be reminded that citizens retain the constitutional right to express dissent, including through peaceful protest. This right is not a concession from the government; it is a protected constitutional freedom that must be respected and facilitated within the bounds of the law. Our nation has paid a heavy price in the past when this right was mishandled.

The tragic events of April 10–11, 2001 student protests remain a solemn reminder of the consequences of excessive force and the failure to properly manage civic expression. That moment in our history should continue to guide the conduct of the security services today, toward restraint, professionalism, and an unwavering respect for the rights and dignity of every Gambian. In this context we condemn all efforts of the state security apparatus aimed at stifling the exercise of the right to protest, in particular the use of excessive force.

At the same time, we call on all citizens who may choose to exercise this right to do so peacefully, responsibly, and within the confines of the law. The legitimacy of any protest lies in its discipline and its respect for life and property. Acts of violence, destruction, or disorder only weaken the moral force of legitimate grievances and risk diverting attention from the core issues at stake. We therefore urge all participants to remain calm, organised, and law-abiding, ensuring that no life is endangered and no property is damaged. The strength of civic action is measured not by disruption, but by its ability to uphold the very principles of justice and order it seeks to defend.
APP-Sobeyaa therefore calls on the Ministry of Justice to act with the discipline the Constitution demands. Respect for judicial outcomes is not optional. It is the cornerstone of the rule of law.

This moment requires clarity, not manoeuvre. The integrity of our justice system depends on it.

APP-Sobeyaa (April 1, 2026)

State of the Nation or State of Denial?

President Adama Barrow’s 2026 State of the Nation Address presents a government confident in its record, supported by an extensive catalogue of projects, expenditures, and policy initiatives. It is detailed, structured, and, on its face, reassuring. But when examined against the standard that ultimately matters; the lived reality of Gambians, it leaves a critical gap between narration and verification.

The address is anchored in inputs: kilometres of roads constructed, growth rates recorded, revenues projected, and reforms announced. What is largely absent is a systematic account of outcomes. The speech cites real GDP growth of 5.9% and a decline in inflation to 6.6%, alongside a projected revenue envelope of over GMD 50 billion and a debt ratio of 68.8% of GDP. These figures, taken in isolation, suggest stability. But macroeconomic indicators are not, in themselves, evidence of improved welfare. The relevant question is whether these trends have translated into sustained improvements in household income, employment, and price stability. On that question, the address offers no measurable proof.

The omission is not a matter of presentation; it is a matter of accountability. Public policy must be evaluated not by what is spent, but by what is achieved. There is no reference to independent impact assessments of major infrastructure programmes, no data on job creation attributable to public investment, and no clear linkage between fiscal outlays and poverty reduction. Without such evaluation, it becomes difficult to distinguish between activity and progress.

This concern becomes more pronounced when considered alongside the country’s fiscal position. The government projects stability in public debt, with a gradual decline in the debt-to-GDP ratio. That claim, while technically defensible, does not fully engage with the structural implications of sustained borrowing in a small, import-dependent economy. Debt sustainability is not simply a ratio; it is a function of repayment capacity, currency stability, and the productivity of borrowed funds. The continued pressure on the Dalasi reflects underlying vulnerabilities that cannot be explained away by headline ratios. Currency depreciation, even
when gradual, transmits directly into higher living costs, particularly in a country where essential goods are largely imported. For ordinary Gambians, the issue is not whether debt is “manageable” in aggregate terms, but whether it is making life more affordable. The available
evidence suggests the opposite.

The role of remittances illustrates this contradiction with particular clarity. The President acknowledges that remittance inflows reached approximately US$872 million, representing 34% of GDP. This is a striking figure. It indicates that a significant share of national stability
is being sustained not by domestic production, but by private transfers from Gambians abroad. Paradoxically, despite acting as the nation's economic lifeline, the diaspora has long been politically and institutionally neglected by the government. Their voting rights remain actively suppressed, and the state has failed to create viable avenues to channel these massive inflows beyond immediate family consumption into productive investment opportunities for citizens both at home and abroad. That reality raises a fundamental policy question: is the current economic model generating internal resilience, or is it increasingly dependent on external support to maintain equilibrium? The address recognises the scale of remittances, but stops short of engaging with their structural implications conveniently praising the capital while continuing to marginalise the very citizens who provide it.

On governance, the gap between disclosure and consequence is even more difficult to reconcile. Findings from the National Audit Office and reviews by the National Assembly
Select Committees have consistently pointed to financial irregularities across public institutions. These are not speculative claims; they are formal oversight outputs within the constitutional framework. The issue, therefore, is no longer detection but enforcement. The near absence of successful prosecutions, despite repeated audit findings, raises legitimate concerns about the credibility of the accountability system. In any functioning governance
structure, audit exposure should trigger investigation, and investigation should lead, where warranted, to prosecution. The break in that chain has tangible costs. It weakens deterrence, distorts resource allocation, and erodes public trust.

The same pattern of partial disclosure is evident in the discussion of civil service reform. The acknowledgement that thousands of ghost workers were identified should have marked a turning point in administrative accountability. Instead, the address provides no detail on the duration of the fraud, the financial losses incurred, or the disciplinary and legal actions taken in response. Without that information, the announcement reads less as a reform milestone and more as an incomplete disclosure. In public administration, transparency is not achieved by revelation alone, but by full accounting.

Even where progress is acknowledged, important structural questions remain unaddressed. The
acquisition of a new ferry is a positive development in a critical sector. But the absence of a clear strategy for domestic participation raises broader concerns about the direction of economic policy. The increasing reliance on foreign private operators, including Turkish companies, invites scrutiny not on the basis of nationality, but on the basis of policy coherence. A development strategy that does not deliberately cultivate domestic enterprise risks entrenching dependency rather than reducing it. The question is not whether foreign investment is necessary; it is, but whether it is being balanced with a deliberate effort to build Gambian
ownership in key sectors.

Taken together, these issues point to a deeper problem of governance methodology. The address reflects a government that is active, but not sufficiently self-evaluative; productive in narrative, but less rigorous in measurement. After nearly a decade in office, the standard of assessment
cannot remain whether policies have been initiated. It must be whether they have delivered results that are visible, measurable, and widely felt.

This is not an argument against progress. It is an argument for verifiable progress. A State of the Nation Address should withstand scrutiny not only for what it reports, but for what it demonstrates. It should provide a clear line of sight from policy decisions to citizen outcomes. Without that, even the most detailed account risks sounding complete while remaining inconclusive.

The central issue, therefore, is not whether the government has acted, but whether it has proven the impact of its actions. Until that standard is met consistently and transparently, the distance between official narratives and everyday experience will continue to define the national
conversation.

Essa Mbye Faal
Party Leader and Secretary General
APP-Sobeyaa