By Madi Jobarteh
In the precarious dance between dictatorship and democracy, intellectuals wield the pen as a sword, crafting narratives that either entrench tyranny or illuminate paths to freedom. History has repeatedly shown that ideas, more than guns, shape political outcomes. It was with this responsibility in mind that I read Kebeli Demba Nyima’s article, ‘The biggest threat to Gambia’s democracy isn’t the president or the police – it is Madi Jobarteh’ recently published in both The Standard and the online medium LamToro News Plus which brands me a “speech regulator” and, astonishingly, “the biggest threat to Gambian democracy.”
My concern is not personal offense. My first instinct was to ignore the article, as opinions, however misguided, are part of democratic life. Upon reflection, however, I deemed it necessary to respond in the broader interest of protecting and strengthening democracy in our country. Failing to do so, I reckon that the danger lies in how such arguments distort core democratic principles, misrepresent political history, and normalize selective justice at a time when The Gambia’s democratic transition remains fragile and incomplete.
The vestiges of dictatorship are still present, and history teaches us that intellectuals and public commentators play a decisive role in either dismantling authoritarian legacies or entrenching them. Narratives matter. Ideas shape public consciousness. It is therefore essential to challenge misrepresentation, intellectual dishonesty, and selective analysis especially when they masquerade as democratic defence.
Kebeli chastises me for calling for accountability, including dismissal or prosecution, of individuals who engage in hate speech, incitement to violence, and tribal rhetoric. Ironically, he himself condemns the very statements I have challenged spoken by figures from both the ruling party and the opposition. Yet he pivots to portray President Barrow and the Inspector General of Police as tolerant custodians of democracy, while casting me as a censor. This framing is fundamentally flawed.
Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy. Nelson Mandela said as much, and I have defended this principle consistently and publicly often at personal cost. But no democratic system, anywhere in the world, treats freedom of expression as limitless. International human rights law, including Article 19 of the ICCPR, explicitly permits restrictions on speech that incites violence, promotes hatred, or undermines the rights and dignity of others. The 1997 Constitution aligns with this position, as does statutory law.
I have, in fact, criticized provisions of the Criminal Offences Act such as the offense of “giving false information to a public officer” because they exceed international standards and discourage legitimate petitioning and dissent. That record is public. To therefore accuse me of “speech regulation” is either careless or deliberately misleading.
Calling for accountability when speech crosses into incitement, hate, or tribalism is not censorship. Rather, it is a safeguard for democracy, peace, national unity, and human rights. Mandela himself repeatedly warned against hate speech as a corrosive force in democratic societies. To ignore it is not tolerance, it is negligence.
Perhaps the most egregious distortion in Kebeli’s article is the attempt to equate my condemnation of the July 22, 1994, military coup with my position on the December 30, 2014, armed attempt to overthrow Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship. This comparison is historically dishonest.
The 1994 coup occurred at a time when civic and political space in the Gambia was open. Despite excesses under the Jawara administration, citizens enjoyed freedom of association, political participation, an independent judiciary, and lawful avenues for redress. There was no justification, be it legal, moral, or political, for military intervention. Change was possible through democratic means.
The Jammeh regime was fundamentally different. For 22 years, it systematically closed every nonviolent and democratic avenue for change. Citizens were arrested for merely applying to protest. Journalists were jailed, tortured, or killed. Students were shot for demanding justice. Political opponents were disappeared or executed. Hundreds were murdered; thousands were tortured, imprisoned, or forced into exile for exercising basic rights.
By the time of the 2016 election, Gambians had exhausted every peaceful option. Even then, after losing the vote, Jammeh rejected the will of the people. Without ECOWAS intervention, the country faced either civil war or perpetual dictatorship. Therefore, December 30 did not emerge in a vacuum. It was part of a long, painful struggle by Gambians to rescue their country after all democratic routes had been violently foreclosed.
Political history and philosophy are clear on this point. The American Declaration of Independence (1776) affirms the right of a people to overthrow a regime that systematically violates their fundamental rights. Thinkers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu laid the intellectual foundation for the principle that when a government rules with impunity and denies peaceful reform, resistance becomes legitimate. Anyone equating July 22 with December 30 is either ignorant of Gambian political history or deliberately dishonest.
Where Kebeli’s argument collapses entirely is in its silence on selective enforcement of the law, the true specter haunting Gambian democracy. Since 2017, the IGP has enforced speech-related laws selectively and politically. Critics of the President and government are arrested, detained, and prosecuted, while ruling-party officials and supporters who insult, incite, promote tribalism, or spread hate are left untouched.
Why was UDP’s Borry Touray arrested while NPP’s Demba Sabally was not, despite comparable statements capable of incitement? Why are opposition voices criminalized while government figures enjoy impunity for worse rhetoric?
I have defended citizens across the political spectrum when their speech fell within lawful limits. For example, I defended one Fatou Badjie in 2018 when she was arrested and briefly arraigned for criticizing the President. In the same year, I also defended Dr. Ismaila Ceesay for his comments about the security sector which I found to be within the limits of protected expression. In 2024, I defended The Voice newspaper journalists when they were arrested and charged for a report about Barrow’s succession which was legitimate journalism. The list goes on.
At the same time, I have also condemned the inciting and abusive rhetoric of Baboucarr Bahoum, Demba Sabally, Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay, and Dr Ismaila Ceesay yet none were arrested. It is precisely for this reason that I condemned Borry Touray’s arrest as illegitimate and demanded his unconditional and immediate release. Where therefore is the inconsistency?
So, the real question is unavoidable: Who is the speech regulator in The Gambia? A civil society actor calling for equal application of the law or a police authority that decides who to arrest based on political affiliation? Selective justice is not tolerance, hence, to claim that Barrow and the IGP are tolerant when they can arrest critics and shield their allies is the height ignorance or dishonesty of both. Selective justice erodes trust, deepens polarization, and normalises lawlessness. The claim by Kebeli is therefore the echo of tyranny.
I do not know Kebeli personally, and I unequivocally defend his right to write and publish his views. But his article is incoherent, evasive, and intellectually dishonest. It shields power from scrutiny and normalizes double standards under the guise of defending free speech. If he is genuinely concerned about democracy, I challenge him to write another article; one that examines the enforcement of freedom of expression laws by the IGP since 2017, or whether these laws have been applied evenly, impartially, and justly, or where he stands on incitement, hate speech, and tribal politics and who he believes is responsible for spreading them today. I await those articles.
So, what kind of Gambia does Kebeli envision? One governed by equal accountability before the law, or one where power determines innocence? As Mandela reminded us, “No one is born hating another… People must learn to hate.” Division is learned and so is justice. Democracy is not defended by silence, deflection, or selective outrage. It is defended by truth, consistency, and the impartial rule of law.
The conversation Kebeli avoided, I extend here in good faith. He is welcome to join it.
For The Gambia, Our Homeland
