Mr Martin Hackett,
Permit me, at the outset, to extend to you a respectful welcome as you assume your responsibilities in The Gambia at what is undeniably a defining moment in our nation’s post-authoritarian journey. I write in my capacity as a concerned Gambian senior citizen, former commander of the Gambia National Army, and former deputy permanent representative of The Gambia to the United Nations.
Your appointment by the government of The Gambia to lead prosecutions arising from the findings of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) reflects both the seriousness of the task ahead and the confidence placed in your professional expertise. Your experience in international criminal law is well acknowledged and, indeed, highly valued.
However, it is in that same spirit of respect that I write to you not to question the necessity of accountability, but to raise concerns about the foundation upon which this accountability is now being constructed.
The Government has already moved to compile a list of approximately 70 individuals recommended for prosecution, largely on the basis of findings and testimonies emerging from the TRRC process. While this may appear to be a logical progression from truth-telling to judicial action, it is precisely here that, I believe, caution becomes imperative.
The TRRC, by its very design, was never intended to function as a judicial body. It was a platform for narrative truth where victims could speak, alleged perpetrators could respond, and where the nation could begin to confront a painful past. It was not bound by the strict evidentiary rules, procedural safeguards, or adversarial rigor that define criminal proceedings.
This distinction is not merely technical but foundational.
Accounts that emerge in a truth commission, however compelling, do not automatically translate into admissible or reliable evidence in a court of law.
While I do not claim to possess formal legal training, my understanding of criminal law, developed through sustained engagement with legal scholarship and judicial proceedings, necessitates the observation that testimonies elicited in the absence of full legal representation, statements made under emotionally charged or ambiguous conditions, and allegations not subjected to rigorous cross-examination may justifiably raise concerns when evaluated within the framework of criminal prosecution.
In articulating this position, I am, in essence, paraphrasing the remarks attributed to Ms Ida Pearson, principal legal adviser at the Ministry of Justice, as expressed during an interview on a prominent radio station in The Gambia.
The risk, therefore, is not hypothetical.
There exists a real possibility that cases built predominantly on TRRC-derived material may encounter serious legal challenges. Such challenges may arise not because the underlying allegations lack merit, but because the processes through which evidence was gathered fall short of the stringent standards required for conviction.
In such circumstances, the consequences could be profound. Failed prosecutions, particularly in cases of national significance, may not only deny justice to victims but also inadvertently confer a sense of vindication upon the accused. Worse still, they may erode public confidence in the very institutions tasked with delivering justice.
Beyond the courtroom lies the equal delicate terrain of perception.
Justice, if it is to serve its highest purpose, must not only be done but must be seen to be done. A process perceived as selective, procedurally weak, or politically influenced risks being interpreted as victor’s justice rather than impartial accountability. In a society still navigating the fragile path of reconciliation, such perceptions can deepen divisions rather than heal them.
It is for this reason, Mr Hackett, that your role assumes a significance that extends far beyond the mechanics of prosecution. You are not merely tasked with presenting cases but, in effect, a steward of legal credibility in a process that will shape The Gambia’s historical narrative for generations to come.
The path forward, therefore, demands both rigor and restraint.
It calls for a careful, independent reassessment of all evidence intended for prosecution that must be lawfully obtained, properly corroborated, and capable of withstanding the highest standards of judicial scrutiny. It requires a willingness, where necessary, to depart from or even disregard findings that cannot meet these standards, regardless of their prominence in the TRRC record.
This is not a call for leniency but a call for discipline.
Accountability that is grounded in weak or contested processes risks substituting one form of injustice for another. Conversely, a prosecution strategy anchored firmly in due process, fairness, and legal integrity will not only strengthen individual cases but also enhance the legitimacy of the entire transitional justice project.
The Gambia stands today at a crossroads. The decisions made in the coming months will determine whether our pursuit of justice becomes a unifying force or a source of renewed contention.
You, Mr Hackett, now occupy a central place in that determination.
It is my sincere hope that, as you undertake this responsibility, you will do so with an acute awareness of both the legal and moral weight of your mandate, and with a steadfast commitment to ensuring that the justice pursued is not only effective, but beyond reproach.
For in the final analysis, justice that is contested, compromised, or perceived as unfair may secure convictions but will struggle to secure the nation.
Yours sincerely,
Lt Colonel Samsudeen Sarr (Rtd)
Former Commander of The Gambia National Army
Former Deputy Permanent Representative of The Gambia at the United Nations Organisation.
