Open letter to his lawyer Ousainu Darboe,
Secretary General and Party Leader, UDP
I write this letter with the utmost respect and humility, guided only by a sincere heart and enduring loyalty and admiration  to both you and the leadership of the United Democratic Party. My intention is not to provoke, but to express and seek understanding especially in light of your recent comments on Kerr Fatou where I was singularly mentioned.
You stated that I was the only party member to openly call for a reconsideration of the UDP’s endorsement of Mr. Ba Tambadou. You further suggested that my open letter was ill-directed, as it was not addressed to you directly, and that I should have instead submitted a petition.
Sir, I am grateful to be acknowledged perhaps for the very first time in my long and committed association with the UDP. Yet I must admit, the context of that recognition came as both surprising and disappointing. Over the years, I have stood firmly and publicly in your defence, often at great personal cost.
I have endured public persecution, ridicule, and character assassination because of my unapologetic loyalty to you and to the principles I believed the UDP stood for. Through all of it, I have never once received public affirmation from the party’s leadership. That was never my expectation, but it makes your reaction to my dissent all the more difficult to reconcile.
My open letter was neither disrespectful nor malicious. It was a principled disagreement, couched in civility and anchored in my belief that the endorsement in question risked undermining the very moral high ground that the UDP has long claimed.
What I find perplexing, Your Excellency, is your objection to the use of an open letter when the UDP itself has, over the years, issued countless open press statements, public declarations, and social media releases addressed to:
The President of the Republic, various government ministries and officials; the National Assembly, the Judiciary; the international community and development partners, and civil society and advocacy groups.
Each of those statements was intended to influence public opinion, call for reversals of decisions, or pressure the government into action. Why, then, is it considered inappropriate when a loyal supporter, in full respect, seeks to express concern through similar channels?
To cite a few instances: The UDP’s public call for the rejection of the draft constitution’s abandonment was made through open statements and not through confidential letters to President Barrow.
Numerous reactions to corruption scandals and judicial appointments were made via Facebook posts and pressers.
The party’s position on the 3 Years Jotna movement was made known through press statements, not private communications.
The call for the resignation of certain ministers was also delivered openly and on social media not direct letters sent to the President or Cabinet. There were no petitions either.
In none of these cases did the party first attempt to deliver a private letter, file a petition, or meet discreetly with the President or his cabinet. So why is my method, mirroring yours, being portrayed as improper?
Moreover, had I organised a petition as you suggested, would it have been received with less offence? Would you have responded more favourably if I had quietly gathered names and signatures behind closed doors? I find that difficult to believe, respectfully.
Your Excellency, I have never wavered in my admiration of your courage, legacy, and immense contribution to our nation’s democratic journey. I remain one of those who credit you for changing the course of history in The Gambia. My disagreements, few though they may be, do not diminish that admiration. They are an extension of it.
True loyalty does not mean silence. It means the courage to speak when something feels fundamentally wrong even when it hurts to do so. That is what I did. And if the party I have stood by all my life can only see me when I dissent, then I accept that reality, but with a heavy heart.
May I reiterate that my respect and admiration for you, will only be diminished in death.
With deepest respect,
Melville Robertson Roberts
Loyal admirer
