spot_img
spot_img
25.2 C
City of Banjul
Sunday, February 23, 2025
spot_img
spot_img

AG Dawda Jallow and Madam Ida Persson’s insightful discourse on transitional justice in The Gambia

- Advertisement -

On 28 January 2025, I found the appearance of the Honourable Minister of Justice, Dawda Jallow, and his advisor, Madam Ida Persson, on the Coffee Time program of West Coast Radio to be highly commendable. Their discussion on the much-anticipated transitional justice dialogue was both insightful and intellectually enriching. It became crystal clear that the Gambia’s transitional justice program transcends the often reductive portrayal advanced by its critics, who narrowly define it as synonymous with the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) and the immediate implementation of its recommendations.

Minister Jallow and Madam Persson offered a sophisticated exposition of the broader corrective measures being undertaken by the state, illustrating that the TRRC is but one integral component of a multifaceted strategy aimed at addressing the systemic challenges that plagued the nation over a span of 22 years. For anyone seeking a nuanced understanding of the government’s legal and procedural efforts, I strongly recommend listening to the recorded program, which is readily accessible online. It provides an invaluable lens through which to appreciate the comprehensive nature of these initiatives.

Predictably, detractors—those whose primary engagement appears to be the uncritical disparagement of government policies—will likely revert to their habitual rhetoric of unfounded allegations. Nevertheless, from my perspective, the ministry of justice has performed admirably in elucidating the intricacies of transitional justice to an informed and rational audience.

- Advertisement -

For those clamouring for the immediate and wholesale implementation of the TRRC’s recommendations, this discussion should serve as a sobering reminder of an essential truth: the TRRC was not a judicial investigative body. Its findings, therefore, lack the evidentiary foundation required for prosecutorial purposes without further legal scrutiny. This fundamental limitation underscores the rationale behind the Ministry’s establishment of a specialized investigative team, led by an expert prosecutor, to evaluate individual cases based on their substantive merits and procedural integrity.

Moreover, consultations with legal authorities, both domestic and international, have yielded a consensus that many of the TRRC’s recommendations, in their current form, would not withstand rigorous legal scrutiny. Concerns have been raised about conflicts of interest involving certain commission members, as well as procedural deficiencies, including instances where witnesses were blatantly subjected to coercion or intimidation by the lead counsel. Such violations of due process would render these findings inadmissible in any credible judicial forum, whether national or international, thereby undermining the likelihood of securing convictions or imposing penalties on accused individuals.

In light of these realities, the ministry of justice’s methodical and deliberate approach deserves commendation for prioritizing legality, fairness, and procedural rigor in addressing the nation’s complex historical challenges.

- Advertisement -

In a notable development, the issues outlined here were first articulated in the 2019 petition submitted by the APRC to the ministry of justice in 2020. As a co-opted member of the APRC at the time, I had the distinct privilege of collaborating with the party’s executive in drafting that petition, a document that remains securely preserved in my personal archives. The petition identified significant procedural and legal irregularities, predating the APRC’s subsequent coalition with the NPP, thereby underscoring that these concerns were founded on substantive constitutional issues rather than political convenience.

In the petition, the APRC raised critical questions about the government’s disregard for the constitutional provisions outlined in the 1997 Constitution regarding the establishment of commissions of inquiry and the requisite qualifications for their members. Rather than adhering to these constitutional requirements, the government inexplicably introduced the “TRRC Act,” a National Assembly statute that itself was riddled with violations, particularly concerning the procedures for appointments and the commission’s operational mandates.

Of further concern was the glaring contradiction within the TRRC’s framework, which expressly prohibited its members from pursuing political ambitions. Despite this, the lead counsel—a figure who, in practice, eclipsed the constitutionally unqualified chairman—proceeded to launch a political campaign to unseat the government even before the commission had concluded its work. The government’s failure to address the apparent conflict of interest surrounding Lead Counsel Essa Faal raises serious questions about the integrity of the process. During a political debate with PDOIS presidential candidate Hon Halifa Sallah, Faal openly admitted to being a lifelong political enthusiast who had covertly invested significant resources in the United Democratic Party (UDP). At that time, the UDP was deeply entrenched in government but conspicuously refrained from questioning or challenging Faal’s admission, even as he claimed to be one of their “top financiers.” If Faal’s public assertion was untrue, the UDP had ample opportunity to refute it, yet their silence remains seriously troubling.

This lack of action and transparency has consistently fuelled my scepticism about the legitimacy of the TRRC’s processes and the credibility of its final report.

A recent development has added further complexity to this matter. During this morning’s interview on Coffee Time with Peter Gomez, the justice minister and his adviser announced the establishment of a new victims’ reparation commission to review all cases, including those of individuals who were not heard by the TRRC. This announcement offers me a renewed opportunity to present my victimhood—a right that was denied by the TRRC, which falsely accused me of complicity and unjustly recommended a five-year employment ban. Fortunately, the government, following a thorough and impartial review, rejected this recommendation in their white paper, effectively vindicating me.

I now look forward to explaining to the new commission that I, too, was a victim, much like my colleagues who were wrongfully incarcerated following the 1994 coup and later compensated. On July 27, 1994, I was arrested and imprisoned for ten months without charge or trial.

Moreover, I stand prepared to furnish compelling evidence, including my passport and corroborative testimony from witnesses who accompanied me at the time—namely Edward Singhateh, OG Sallah, Essa Khan, and Moses Jallow, all of whom were employees of the ministry of defense. This evidence will clearly establish my absence from The Gambia on the date when Essa Faal presented Balo Kantah, a Liberian child soldier, to levy spurious allegations of torture against me. Kanteh alleged that I tortured him on November 11, 1996, following his involvement in the heinous murder of six young soldiers at the Farafenni Military Barracks.

As the deputy commander of the army at the time, I was resolute in my intent to refute these baseless claims. However, Faal, in a clear display of bias and a deliberate effort to vilify me, denied me the opportunity to testify in my defense. His conduct underscores a lack of impartiality and a premeditated attempt to frame me as a perpetrator.

Hearing the statements made this morning by the team from the Ministry of Justice has provided a profound sense of relief and vindication. Their remarks reaffirm the position I have maintained throughout—that the proceedings of the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) were fundamentally flawed and that several people and I were unjustly targeted within its process.

Join The Conversation
- Advertisment -spot_img
- Advertisment -spot_img