Dear Editor,
The release of the commission report on Jammeh’s looted assets is not just another moment in the country’s legal or administrative history. It is a deeply political moment, one that goes to the very heart of governance, accountability and the credibility of the state. For years, Gambians have demanded answers on how the assets linked to former president Yahya Jammeh were handled. Now that the report is finally out, the findings are both revealing and politically explosive.
At the centre of the report is the recommendation that Abubacarr Marie Tambadou be prosecuted. This is no small matter. It is a serious call that immediately shifts the national conversation from suspicion to possible criminal responsibility. In a country still trying to rebuild public trust after the abuses of the Jammeh era, such a recommendation cannot be brushed aside or buried beneath political convenience. It places a burden on the government to prove that accountability in The Gambia is not selective and that justice is not reserved only for the weak or politically isolated.
The report also recommends that Attorney General Dawda Jallow be reprimanded for adopting the bad administrative practices of his predecessor. That finding should concern every citizen who believes in reform. One of the biggest failures in African governance is the habit of inheriting broken systems and then preserving them instead of changing them. The commission’s conclusion suggests that rather than breaking with the past, bad habits were allowed to survive under a new leadership. That is how institutions remain weak, and that is how public confidence continues to erode.
Equally troubling is the finding on Alhagie Mamadi Kurang, who the commission says acted incompetently and was not qualified to serve as secretary. This is not merely a personal indictment. It is an indictment of a system that too often rewards loyalty over competence and proximity over merit. When unqualified people are entrusted with matters as sensitive as the management of looted national assets, the result is not only administrative failure but political betrayal. Gambians did not struggle for democratic change simply to see incompetence dressed up as public service.
In sharp contrast, Counsel Amie Bensouda has been fully exonerated and cleared by the commission. That finding is significant because it shows that the commission was prepared to distinguish between those who bear responsibility and those who do not. In a politically charged environment where accusations are often shaped by factional interest, her complete vindication stands as an important reminder that truth must matter more than rumour and evidence must matter more than politics.
Taken together, the report presents a sobering picture of how a matter of immense national importance was handled. It exposes poor judgement, administrative weakness and serious questions about suitability for office. But beyond the individuals named, the report speaks to a broader political problem. It reveals the danger of a state that promises reform in public but tolerates disorder, carelessness and impunity behind closed doors.
This is why the report must be seen for what it really is. It is not only about Jammeh’s looted assets. It is about the soul of public accountability in The Gambia. It is about whether this government has the courage to act when the findings are inconvenient. It is about whether institutions exist to protect the public interest or to shield the politically connected. Most of all, it is about whether the slogan of good governance still means anything in practice.
Gambians are tired of commissions whose findings generate headlines but no lasting action. They are tired of official promises that fade once the political pressure eases. If this report is to mean anything, then the recommendations must be implemented with seriousness, fairness and urgency. Anything less will reinforce the belief that in The Gambia, accountability is often spoken about loudly but applied very carefully.
This is the political test now facing the Barrow administration. The country will be watching to see whether those recommended for action are dealt with according to the law, whether those criticised are held to account and whether the government will finally demonstrate that no one is above scrutiny. If that does not happen, then this report will become yet another symbol of a state that knows the truth but lacks the will to act on it.
The report is out. The findings are clear. What remains to be seen is whether the government has the political courage to do what justice demands.
MC Cham Jr
Business Councillor, KMC
