Press release
In a letter dated 5th November and addressed to the Secretary General of UNITE, Dembo B. Kanteh, President Adama Barrow acknowledged receipt of a letter dated 2 November 2026, received at State House on 3 November 2026.
The letter responds to the concerns raised as follows:
1. Publication within the constitutional period.
The Commission submitted its report to the president on 11 May 2026. Section 203(a) of the Constitution required the president, within six months of receipt, to publish the report and his comments on it, together with a statement of any action taken.
That period expires on 11 November 2026. The Government White paper and the report of the Commission were published as a supplement to The Gambia Gazette No. 58 of 29 October 2026 (G.N. No. 211/2026). Publication took place within, and was required by, the constitutional period.
Whether the electronic files reached the Gambia Printing and Publishing Corporation on 29 or 30 October 2026, publication was completed well before the deadline.
The Government could not lawfully have deferred publication beyond that period by reference to the nomination programme of any intending candidate, including the president
2. Availability of the Report.
Publication in the Gazette is the official publication of the Report required by section 203(a). The electronic copies in circulation are copies of that publication. Certified copies of the Report and the White Paper may be obtained from the Gambia Printing and Publishing Corporation. Requests for access to the records of the Commission should be addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and will be dealt with in accordance with the law.
3. The adverse finding is before the Court of Appeal.
On 24 June 2026 Mr Bensouda, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal under Section 204 of the Constitution against the adverse finding communicated to him on 12 May 2026 (Talib Ahmed Bensouda v Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. GCA 063/2026).
The appeal seeks to have that finding set aside. Its grounds include that the Commission did not specify the expenditure concerned, did not set out the legal basis of the finding, and gave no reasons as required by Section 204(1). These are the matters on which your letter asks His Excellency to pronounce. Under section 204(2), and as the Supreme Court confirmed in Attorney General v M.A. Kharafi & Sons Ltd (SC CA No. 006/2020, 27 July 2021), the Report is, for the purposes of that appeal, to be treated as if it were a judgment of the High Court. The validity, scope and effect of the finding are therefore before the Court. It would be improper for the president to comment further on them, or to “correct” or “clarify” the record concerning them, while the appeal is pending.
4. Nature of the White Paper.
The Government agrees that a White paper is neither a judgment of a court nor a finding of the Commission. As the Supreme Court held in Feryale Ghanem v Attorney General (SC 001/2018), and affirmed in Kharafi, a Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body which makes findings and recommendations that are subject to the approval of the Government. The White Paper is the instrument through which the Government states that position. It contains the comments on the Report and the statement of action which section 203(a) expressly requires the President to publish. The passage to which you refer appears under the heading “Government Position” and states the Government’s view. It follows that the White Paper is not, and does not purport to be, a finding of the Commission or a determination of any person’s qualification under section 62 of the Constitution.
5. The White Paper and the pending appeal.
The Government stands by its comments and sees no basis for withdrawing or amending them. The duty in Section 203(a) is mandatory and is not suspended by an appeal under Section 204. The White Paper states the Government’s position on the Report as submitted. It does not determine the appeal, and it remains subject to the outcome of that appeal.
6. The authority you cite.
The passage you quote from M.A. Kharafi & Sons Ltd v Attorney General (GCA 046/2019) comes from a Court of Appeal ruling of 1 June 2020 on an application for stay of execution. On appeal, the Supreme Court set that ruling aside. It held that the issues the Court of Appeal had raised of its own motion, including the legal status of a Government White Paper, were not relevant to the application before it; it declined to determine them; and it directed that the substantive appeal be heard by a newly constituted panel. The passage therefore does not represent a decision on the status of a White Paper.
7. Eligibility.
Qualification for election as president is governed by Section 62 of the Constitution and falls to be determined by the Independent Electoral Commission, subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. The Government has made no submission on the eligibility of any intending candidate and will not do so. It would be inappropriate for His Excellency, as Head of State and as an intending candidate, to make a public declaration on the eligibility of another candidate.
8. The measures in the White paper.
The White Paper recommends further criminal investigation, a forensic audit, referral to the appropriate authorities, and action concerning Mr Bensouda’s office as Mayor. These are recommendations for action by the competent authorities. None of them is a determination of personal liability. They are consistent with sections 11.12 and 12.1 of the Report, which provide for verification, notice and an opportunity to respond before any final assessment, demand or enforcement action.
No surcharge, demand or enforcement action has been taken against Mr Bensouda. Any such step, including any step concerning his office, will be taken only in accordance with the applicable law, after notice and an opportunity to respond, and with due regard to the pending appeal.
9. Elections Act 2025.
As your letter acknowledges, the election campaign period has not commenced. Discharging a mandatory constitutional duty within its prescribed period is not a use of State resources for political propaganda. Any complaint under the Elections Act is a matter for the Independent Electoral Commission, to which the Government will respond if invited.
10. The record.
For accuracy, your letter refers to a notice dated “12th May 2006” and to “section 60(2)(3)” of the Constitution. We take these to mean 12 May 2026 and section 62(3).
His Excellency remains committed to free, fair and peaceful elections, to the independence of the Independent Electoral Commission and of the courts, and to the equal treatment of all candidates under the law.
