In Gambian politics, timing is never an innocent detail. And when a government publishes a politically explosive White Paper on local government just 35 days before a presidential election, the public is entitled to ask difficult questions.
On 30 October 2026, the Barrow administration published its White Paper on the Local Government Commission of Inquiry, placing findings concerning all eight local government councils firmly at the centre of national political debate.
The presidential election is scheduled for 5 December.
Coincidence? Constitutional responsibility? Or an extraordinarily convenient political moment?
Whatever the explanation, President Adama Barrow’s government has handed itself a potentially powerful electoral narrative. But it has also opened a Pandora’s box of questions about accountability, selective justice and its own record of governance.
Barrow’s political advantage: The opposition is now on the defensive
For the NPP, the White Paper presents an opportunity that could hardly be more politically convenient.
At a time when Gambians are demanding answers about the cost of living, unemployment, electricity, public services and the government’s development record, the administration can redirect national attention towards alleged financial irregularities within local government institutions.
Its political message is straightforward: those entrusted with public resources must account for them.
The findings concerning Banjul City Council and Kanifing Municipal Council are particularly consequential. Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe and KMC Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda are among the prominent political figures affected by the reported recommendations.
For the governing party, this creates an opportunity to challenge the opposition’s claims to administrative competence and political credibility. It can argue that those aspiring to national leadership must first demonstrate accountability in the institutions they already manage.
That is a legitimate political argument.
But there is a difference between an adverse finding, a recommendation for investigation and a criminal conviction. The government must not confuse these categories, and neither should its supporters.
The opposition’s nightmare: Talib Bensouda and the politics of credibility
The implications for Coalition 2026 presidential candidate Talib Bensouda could be particularly significant.
His political relevance extends beyond his position as Mayor of Kanifing. He represents a national political proposition, and any controversy surrounding his stewardship of KMC will inevitably become ammunition in the presidential campaign.
The government has accepted serious recommendations concerning Bensouda, including further investigation, potential financial recovery and proceedings relating to his continued fitness for public office.
The political consequences could be substantial. But the government must still respect due process.
If the proceedings are perceived as politically selective, the administration could unintentionally transform an accountability exercise into a rallying point for opposition supporters.
The opposition must also resist the temptation to dismiss every finding as political persecution. It should respond with documentary evidence, transparency and a credible defence of its record.
Nobody should be above accountability, but nobody should be condemned without due process.
The question barrow cannot escape: where was his government?
Here lies the greatest weakness in the administration’s political argument.
The Commission examined the period from May 2018 to January 2023. These councils operated within the same national governance architecture that included central government ministries, financial oversight institutions, auditors and procurement regulators.
Where were the supervisory institutions?
Were audit warnings ignored? Were irregularities reported? Were corrective measures taken? Did the Ministry responsible for local government adequately discharge its oversight responsibilities?
If councils were allegedly mismanaged for years, the government must explain why the relevant oversight mechanisms failed to prevent or promptly address the problems.
President Barrow cannot demand accountability from local authorities while exempting the central government institutions responsible for supervising them.
A government cannot claim credit for discovering institutional failure without answering questions about its responsibility for preventing that failure.
The 35-day question: why release it now?
The Commission was established in February 2023. This was not an investigation conceived during an election campaign. The government had indicated that the White Paper would be published earlier, including a previous commitment to August.
Its eventual publication on 30 October, barely five weeks before the election, inevitably invites political scrutiny.
There is no conclusive evidence that the publication was deliberately timed to manipulate the election. However, it would be politically naive to pretend that its timing carries no electoral consequences.
The NPP gains a fresh campaign argument. The opposition faces uncomfortable questions. The media receives a politically combustible subject. And voters are presented with another test of the credibility of those seeking their mandate.
The government may call this accountability. The opposition may call it political persecution. But Gambians should demand something more important than either political slogan: evidence, fairness and results.
What happens next?
I anticipate three developments.
First, intensified legal and administrative proceedings involving affected council officials, including investigations and possible recovery of public funds.
Second, an aggressive opposition response, with affected political figures likely to challenge the findings and question the government’s motives.
Third, an increasingly difficult accountability debate for the Barrow administration itself, as citizens demand to know whether the same standards will apply to central government institutions.
The NPP could gain politically from the publication, but it must not mistake damaging an opposition figure’s reputation for winning the confidence of his supporters.
Equally, the opposition cannot expect Gambians to defend questionable financial practices simply because the individuals concerned belong to their political camp.
The ballot box will judge everyone
My position is simple: The White Paper is necessary, but its implementation must be impartial. Public resources belong to Gambians, not politicians, mayors, ministers or political parties.
The Gambia needs accountable councils, competent public institutions, transparent procurement and genuine decentralisation. It also needs a government willing to subject itself to the same standards it demands of others.
President Barrow may have gained a powerful political instrument 35 days before the ballot. But he has also created an obligation to demonstrate that accountability is not selective, seasonal or politically convenient.
On 5 December, Gambians will not simply be voting on the controversies surrounding their mayors. They will be judging the entire national leadership proposition: its record, credibility, consistency and capacity to govern.
If accountability is Barrow’s strongest argument against the opposition today, is his administration prepared to submit its own record to precisely the same standard tomorrow?
Because the greatest test of democratic leadership is not how aggressively a government investigates its opponents. It is whether it has the courage to hold everyone accountable, including itself.
The ballot box will deliver its verdict. History will deliver another.
By Mohammed Jallow
