By Kebeli Demba Nyima,
Atlanta, GA
Everyone who follows my writings knows two things about me. I care deeply about good grammar and I insist on empirical facts. When any writer makes a claim that lacks either, I normally do not bother to engage them. Most of the people I take on in public discourse either hold a PhD or a master’s degree, or at the very least demonstrate the intellectual maturity expected of an undergraduate degree holder, because I expect anyone participating in a public discourse to understand the basic rubrics of reasoning; how to make a claim, how to support it, and how to distinguish opinion from evidence. These are not advanced philosophical principles; they are the simple foundations of clear thinking that every serious writer should know.
In this case, however, I will make an exception to respond to Ensa AB Ceesay’s rejoinder, not because the argument against my piece is strong, but because its weakness illustrates why our national debate must grow up and why the discipline of language, which George Orwell called “the great instrument of thought,” must be defended whenever it is abused or neglected. As Orwell warned in Politics and the English Language, sloppy writing is never an accident; it is the outward symptom of sloppy thinking. And the habit of using language carelessly leads inevitably to the habit of reasoning carelessly. Christopher Hitchens often reminded us that an argument collapses the moment its author stops respecting the precision of the words he uses. This leads us directly to Mr Ceesay’s text.
Mr Ensa AB Ceesay declares that my article on IGP Seedy Touray is “tragic, laughable, sickening, and ill-informed.” He further claims that under “my friend Seedy Muctarr Touray,” the Gambia Police Force has “the worst record in every aspect.” These are heavy accusations. But an accusation, no matter how passionately expressed, does not become evidence simply because the writer feels strongly about it.
Mr Ceesay insists that his position is “evidence-based,” yet he does not provide a single date, figure, case citation, or document. Instead, he offers phrases such as “astronomical numbers,” “more division than ever,” and “low morals within the ranks and files.” The last phrase unintentionally captures the central problem. He writes “morals” when he means morale, refers to “selective justices” instead of selective justice, and mentions “fake trajectories” without the faintest attempt to define or support the term. When a writer’s grammar is this imprecise, it becomes difficult to trust his statistics, which in this case never arrive.
This is not about language snobbery; it is about clarity. If someone cannot distinguish between morals and morale, or between justice and “justices,” one must reasonably question whether they have distinguished between fact and feeling. When a writer claims to be presenting an “evidence-based” argument, the minimum expectation is that he will actually show evidence, not rely on adjectives.
Since he has not provided any empirical foundation for his claims, let me demonstrate what verifiable, documented evidence actually looks like.
Under IGP Touray, the Gambia Police Force undertook the largest single recruitment exercise in its history, graduating more than 1,300 new officers after months of structured training. This is independently verified by The Standard (2025), which reports that 1,336 new recruits of the GPF officially graduated on 6 August 2025, in what was described as a historic milestone in Gambian policing. The significance of this expansion is straightforward. No modern police organisation can function effectively with chronic understaffing. An intake of this magnitude directly addresses a long-standing national security weakness. To suggest the institution is “at its worst” during the period when its manpower is being strengthened more than at any other time is an analytical contradiction that cannot survive empirical scrutiny.
Beyond recruitment, the GPF conducted one of the most extensive promotion exercises on record, elevating more than 600 officers across various ranks. Block TV Gambia (2025) reports that promotions occurred in every region and operational arm of the Force and were align with the institutional need for leadership renewal.
Likewise, Gambiaj (2025) confirms that this nationwide merit-based exercise opened long-blocked pathways for junior officers who had waited years for advancement.
Touray’s leadership has also seen significant modernisation of training. As Voice Out Digital (2025) documents, new recruits were trained in evidence handling, police administration, crime procedures, traffic management and community engagement. Additionally, GIZ (2024) outlines ongoing support to the GPF on HR deployment, accountability mechanisms and rule-of-law policing, initiatives implemented during the current IGP’s tenure.
LamToro News (2025) further reports that the European Union, DCAF and the GPF successfully completed a one-year Gender Promotion Initiative to train twenty female officers in leadership development, professional capacity and administrative excellence. According to LamToro News (2025), the European Union, the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF) and the GPF jointly hosted a celebration ceremony marking the completion of a year-long capacity-building programme for female officers (LamToro News, 2025). Twenty female officers participated in this programme, covering leadership development, policing skills and personal improvement plans, and by the end of it fifteen of those twenty had already received promotions. The initiative explicitly aligns with the GPF’s National Policing Strategy 2024-2028 under Touray’s direction, which emphasises gender-responsive policing and capacity development (LamToro News, 2025). A leader who empowers women is not simply promoting diversity; particularly in societies where women have traditionally been excluded from key roles, that leader is strengthening the institution at its base, building new pathways and expanding trust across the community. Under Touray more women are now advancing into senior ranks within GPF high command and visible operational roles. This matters not just symbolically, but institutionally.
The fact that international partners such as the EU and DCAF are directly involved confirms that these are not domestic window-dressing efforts; they satisfy peer-review standards and can be monitored by diplomats, international missions and law-enforcement networks alike
Furthermore, the Gambia Police Force has expanded its investment in high-level human capital development under IGP Touray’s leadership. Poliso Magazine reported that Deputy Commissioner Malang Jarju successfully completed the 295th Session of the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, graduating on September 4, 2025 Poliso Magazine, 2025. The twelve-week programme brought together 254 senior law enforcement leaders, including officers from forty-four U.S. states, six military organisations and several international institutions. It is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious leadership programmes in global policing. According to the GPF Public Relations Office, this milestone reflects the institution’s deliberate commitment to preparing Gambian officers for international-standard policing. In development economics, such elite human-capital investment is understood as a multiplier asset. One officer trained at an institution like the FBI Academy transmits new competencies, culture and leadership practices throughout the Force, raising institutional capacity far beyond the cost of individual training. This is the model of reform that modern police organisations pursue, and it is the model that has taken root under IGP Seedy Touray.
Crime statistics further weaken Mr Ceesay’s sweeping assertions. Police comparative data documented by Fatu Network (2024) show that major offences and road accidents declined in key quarters between 2023 and 2024, following targeted enforcement strategies. While these numbers do not eliminate the country’s challenges, they indicate tangible progress, not institutional collapse.
These are dated facts, publicly documented and independently reported. If Mr Ceesay wishes to contest them, the proper method is simple. Provide stronger data, cite alternative sources or demonstrate methodological flaws. He does none of these.
My original article never claimed that the Gambia Police Force has become perfect, nor that IGP Touray is beyond criticism. I acknowledged ongoing problems, including resource limitations, allegations of misconduct and areas requiring deeper reform. My argument, and it still stands, is that under Touray the institution has undergone measurable, documented improvement in recruitment, promotions, training and crime-response capacity.
A serious rebuttal must therefore confront these facts directly. But Mr Ceesay does not. He substitutes adjectives for analysis, speculation for documentation and frustration for methodology. His allegation that media houses were bribed, without a single receipt, communication log or formal complaint, is the clearest example of his disregard for evidentiary standards.
I do not question his right to critique me. I question only the quality of his critique. If we are to elevate national debate on security sector reform, we must build our arguments on what can be verified, not what can be shouted.
Until Mr Ceesay can produce dates, statistics, documents or confirmed reports, the distinction remains clear. I have presented evidence. He has presented emotion. The public can decide which one leads to credible analysis.
Who is really Ensa AB Ceesay?
Ensa AB Ceesay is a former officer of the Gambia Immigration Department. He was enlisted in 2004 as part of Intake 9 and spent his entire career inside Immigration Headquarters in Banjul. His duties were limited to routine administrative work such as processing files, drafting internal paperwork, and handling clerical correspondence. He was never posted to a border post, never involved in field operations, and never required to make operational decisions under real security conditions. His professional experience therefore reflects an administrative background, not an operational or strategic one.
Security institutions everywhere recognise the difference between field exposure and desk exposure. Officers who work in the field over many years acquire a depth of understanding that is impossible to gain from behind a desk. Field experience teaches how communities behave under stress, how criminal patterns evolve, how risk escalates, and how real-world situations consistently challenge the neat assumptions of office routines. Operational exposure builds judgment, intuition, and expertise that come only from practice, not theory.
Officers who spend their careers indoors do not develop these capabilities. They have limited contact with tactical operations, intelligence work, emergency response, command pressures, or the complexities of border vulnerabilities. This is not a criticism of clerical work; it is simply a recognition that administrative routines do not create operational expertise. When someone with an entirely administrative background presents himself as a national-security analyst, a policing expert, a political commentator, and a public-policy critic all at once, it raises legitimate questions about the foundations of his knowledge.
This is the central difficulty in Mr Ceesay’s commentary. He does not possess the operational experience, formal training, or academic grounding normally associated with expertise in modern policing, law enforcement, or national security. As a result, his commentary often substitutes personal conviction for factual analysis and emotional reaction for evidence. His critiques rely heavily on attacking individuals and institutions rather than presenting verifiable data. In professional discourse, this pattern is recognised as a methodological weakness: when a writer lacks empirical grounding, the easiest option becomes attacking personalities instead of examining policies.
In academic reasoning, an argument must stand on evidence, not on the intensity of the author’s dislike for its subject. When commentary focuses on attacking people rather than analysing facts, the writer signals that he lacks both the data and the methodological discipline required to engage the issue. This has been a consistent feature of Mr Ceesay’s writing. Instead of discussing recruitment figures, promotion trends, crime statistics, or institutional reforms, he directs his energy toward personal criticism.
Institutions are assessed by measurable achievements, not by subjective personal opinion. Whether or not he approves of IGP Seedy Touray receiving a global award has no bearing on external evaluations, which focus on documented reforms, operational improvements and empirical performance indicators. I submit this thesis that the IGP more than deserves a global award based on the scope, speed and substance of the reforms implemented under his leadership. I will therefore personally support and advocate for his nomination to major international law enforcement bodies such as Interpol, Afripol, UNODC and regional policing forums because a meritorious service award for IGP Touray is not only a recognition of institutional excellence but also a powerful form of national visibility that enhances The Gambia’s reputation and promotes confidence in its security sector.
