As a retired Assistant Inspector General of Police, I write this as a gentle reminder to my former colleagues currently serving in the Gambia Police Force, particularly those engaged in policing within our young democracy. We are all familiar with our recent history, and I do not need to rehearse it here, but it remains directly relevant to how every action taken by the Force in the coming months will be judged, both by the Gambian public and by the international community.
Policing in a democracy differs fundamentally from policing under an authoritarian order. In a democratic society, the police must hold in balance the rights of citizens, such as the right to lawful assembly and freedom of expression, against the duty to protect life and property, particularly in decisions on the use of force. Not all rights are absolute, though some, such as freedom of movement or assembly, may be lawfully and proportionately restricted in the interest of public order, while others, such as the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, admit no exception whatsoever. Officers must understand this distinction clearly if they are to police within the law during a period as sensitive as an election.
A fundamental principle that must guide the Force through this period is the strict neutrality of the Gambia Police Force towards all competing political parties and candidates. The Force is a Republican institution, and its members owe their loyalty to the Constitution and the law, not to any individual, party or personality, and it should act only on lawful instructions and lawful policy. Ideally, the political leadership of the day should reinforce this neutrality rather than undermine it, but where that support is absent or where pressure is applied, it falls to the police leadership itself to resist any attempt to turn the Force into an instrument of partisan advantage.
The role of the police in an election period extends well beyond the maintenance of public order on polling day itself. It begins with the protection of voter registration exercises and the display of provisional voters’ lists, continues through the safe conduct of campaign rallies, processions and public meetings by all parties without favour, and extends to the security of the Independent Electoral Commission’s officials, polling materials and collation centres before, during and after the vote. It requires close and professional coordination with the Independent Electoral Commission and with sister security agencies, including the Gambia Armed Forces, the State Intelligence Services and the Gambia Immigration Department, under a clear and lawful chain of command. It also requires the Force to protect the physical safety of candidates and their supporters across the political divide, since violence or intimidation directed at any one party, whether by state actors or by other citizens, undermines the credibility of the process. Officers deployed to these duties must be seen to apply the same standard of professionalism and restraint whether the crowd before them supports the party in government or the opposition.
This particular election deserves special mention because of the context in which it falls. It will be only the third presidential election held since the end of more than two decades of authoritarian rule in 2017, and it comes at a time when the political field has grown noticeably more crowded and fluid, with established parties, independents and newly formed movements all competing for space. Questions arising from the transitional justice process recommended by the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission remain unresolved, and the cost of living continues to be a significant concern for ordinary Gambians, both of which add to public tension ahead of the polls. The Force will also recall that public demonstrations in Banjul in September 2026, triggered by prolonged power outages, led to a requirement for approved permits for protests and gatherings. That episode is a reminder that public frustration can develop quickly and that the Force’s handling of assembly and protest, whether connected to the campaign or not, will attract close public attention in the months ahead. In an environment as closely contested and as attentively followed by the public as this one, any perception of bias or excessive force by the police can do lasting damage, not only to public confidence in the Force but to confidence in the electoral process itself.
I can offer two examples from our own service in the First Republic that illustrate what this neutrality looks like in practice. During elections in the Tumana constituency, an independent candidate stood against a Member of Parliament from the ruling party, and supporters of the ruling party caused disturbances. We, the police, stood our ground and arrested those responsible in accordance with the law. The officer in charge at the time was a young cadet named Musa Mboob, who would later rise to become Inspector General of Police, and I gave him my full backing and support in that decision. The Vice President of the day was in the area at the time, and we made it clear to all present that the police were apolitical and would apply the law without regard to political affiliation. It is only fair to credit our political leadership of the time as well, since no officer was threatened or pressured over that decision. A similar incident occurred in Niamina, involving supporters of an independent candidate and of the party in power, and we responded in exactly the same manner.
Policing today also operates under a degree of scrutiny that did not exist in our time. In the era of the smartphone, almost anyone present at an incident can record and broadcast it as it happens, and footage can be replayed repeatedly by those looking to identify fault or unlawful conduct. This is not, in itself, a threat to the police. Officers who act within the law and within their training have nothing to fear from a camera. It does mean, however, that every action taken in public, and particularly every use of force, must be capable of withstanding scrutiny after the fact, and commanders should prepare their officers accordingly, through briefings, clear standing orders and, where necessary, refresher training before the campaign period intensifies.
Policing in a democratic context depends on public consent, and I urge my currently serving colleagues to bear this constantly in mind. Force should be used only when necessary, and always in proportion to the threat faced, with the required protocols observed beforehand, such as clear warnings issued before the use of force in a riotous situation. Officers should also continue to invest in proactive, community-based policing, gathering criminal intelligence at the local level and passing it up the chain of command so that senior management can act to prevent disorder before it occurs rather than simply respond once it has broken out. Prevention, wherever it is possible, is always preferable to a forceful response, both for public safety and for the reputation of the Force.
It is my firm view that, under the current police leadership, the Force is capable of delivering a peaceful, professional and well organised election. I offer these reflections not as criticism but in the spirit in which they are intended, as encouragement from one who has worn the uniform and who continues to wish the Force, and the country, well.
The author is a retired AIGP – GPF and holds LLB Hons, LLM, International Law and BL Middle Temple.
By Ebrima Ismaila Chongan
