Watching Wednesday’s session of the Local Government Commission, it looks like the apparent rancour that seems to have existed between the Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez and the mayor of KMC Talib Ahmed Bensouda appears to have largely dissipated.
It was quite evident that from the very beginning of Mayor Bensouda’s marathon appearance before the commission that there was constant tension between the two men. This was apparently because of the type of attitude and tough questioning that Counsel Gomez had been directing at Mayor Bensouda, while he (Bensouda) also seems to have adopted a belligerent attitude, attempting to deflect many of the questions rather than give appropriate answers.
Of course, like almost everything else in this country nowadays, the situation appears to have had some political connotation. Some opposition supporters and sympathisers of Mayor Bensouda accused Counsel Gomez of doing the government’s bidding of trying to deliberately humiliate him. They said he had been treating Mayor Bensouda more harshly than all those who had earlier appeared before the commission.
However, on their part, supporters of the ruling National People’s Party (NPP) and the government accused Mayor Bensouda of being arrogant and not willing to cooperate with the Commission.
While there could have been some other ulterior motives, but it appears that the two gentlemen were simply sparring each other in order to test their strengths and resilience and the situation now seems to have stabilised after they had apparently both realised that they could not make much progress with such belligerent attitude towards each other.
The Commission chairperson, Ms Jainaba Bah on her part seems to have played quite a positive role by always interjecting to calm down the situation every time the tension arose between the two gentlemen.
Therefore, now that they have started treating each other with respect and reverence, they are quite likely to make more positive progress.
D A Jawo
Kanifing
When defense becomes deflection: A response to Mai Ahmad Fatty
Dear Editor,
In moments of constitutional crisis, words from seasoned lawyers and politicians matter. But when those words blur the line between defending legality and excusing excess, they become dangerous to the Republic. Mai Ahmad Fatty’s recent defence of President Barrow’s decision on the auditor general is a prime example.
1. Law is not loyalty
Mr Fatty argues that the President acted within constitutional bounds. But where does the 1997 Constitution allow the removal of an Auditor General without a tribunal? Section 158 is explicit. By insisting the President was right, Mr Fatty bends the law into loyalty. And when law becomes loyalty, democracy becomes theatre.
2. Administrative convenience is not a constitutional principle
Fatty suggests that the President’s action was justified for “governance efficiency.” But constitutions are not designed for convenience; they are designed for restraint. The Constitution is meant to slow down presidential impulses, to ensure that no leader, however popular, rules without limits.
3. False equivalence weakens the argument
In his statement, Fatty draws comparisons with other constitutional offices, suggesting that presidential discretion is routine. But no, the Auditor General’s office is insulated precisely because it audits the government. It is the shield against executive abuse. To treat it like any other political appointment is to disarm that shield.
4. Defending power at the cost of principle
Fatty defends the “constitutional order,” yet his defence conveniently aligns with executive overreach. Gambians must ask: Is he protecting the law or protecting the President? A trustworthy lawyer serves the Constitution first. Anything less is partisan advocacy dressed as legal wisdom.
5. The real constitutional test
This is bigger than Mr Modou Ceesay, bigger than Mai Fatty, and even bigger than President Barrow. The question is simple: Do we want institutions strong enough to outlive presidents, or presidents strong enough to outlive institutions? Fatty’s reasoning, if accepted, paves the way for the latter.
Conclusion: The danger of polished justifications
The Constitution does not bend to “political reality.” It is the other way around. Mr Fatty’s eloquent defence is clever, yes, but cleverness in the service of power is not wisdom. It is complicity.
As citizens, we must be wary of polished words that sound lawful but strip the law of its teeth. If the Constitution can be explained away today, it can be erased tomorrow.
History will not remember those who eloquently defended illegality. It will remember those who stood, even when standing was costly.
Modou Jallow
USA
