Dear Editor,
The tragedy near Jinack’s shores demands our compassion, but not our credulity. The Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights and Justice (EFSCRJ), in its latest statement on the Backway disaster, deploys an emotional appeal that is noble in spirit yet flawed in substance. Grief, when expressed without evidentiary discipline, risks descending into misdiagnosis, and advocacy, when severed from empiricism, may mislead those it intends to protect.
Irregular migration is not a barometer of foreclosed opportunity, but a mirror reflecting discontent, misinformation, and social contagion. The decision to depart on the Backway is less a rational audit of prospects and more a cognitive drift shaped by perception, peer diffusion, and diaspora mythmaking. Migration theorists such as De Haas (2010) and Carling and Schewel (2018) demonstrate that mobility decisions are driven not simply by structural deficits, but by aspirational framing, expectation gaps, and informational ecosystems.
In The Gambia, opportunities exist in plain sight. Migrants from Senegal, Mali, and Guinea arrive with little capital yet succeed through enterprise and perseverance. The problem lies not in the environment but in the narrative that distorts it.
Migration is a human right, but the Backway is not migration. It is smuggling, a risk economy, a gamble with life rather than livelihood. No credible human rights institution should confuse clandestine voyages with the legitimate exercise of rights. Europe, often romanticised as a land of guaranteed employment, is in reality a competitive marketplace governed by legal thresholds and economic precarity. Research confirms that irregular migrants frequently face unstable work, psychological strain, exclusion from legal protections, and downward mobility (Triandafyllidou, 2016; Crawley et al., 2018).
EFSCRJ’s assertion that remittances exceed 30% of GDP is frequently echoed in Gambian discourse, yet it remains irrelevant to the subject of illegal youth migration. Remittances are the product of regulated diaspora labour, not irregular migration. Even if the statistic were accurate, it would underscore lawful mobility, not validate perilous exodus. Policy analysis must distinguish between migration systems that create economic contribution and trafficking systems that produce funerals.
The EFSCRJ statement also fails to confront the central actors who sustain the Backway enterprise: parents who finance the boats, smugglers who recruit the youth, and young people who absorb false promises of guaranteed prosperity abroad. Europe is not the Olympus of opportunity; it is the coliseum of competition. Jobs are not handed out like pamphlets at an NGO symposium. They are earned through skill, compliance, documentation, and market value. To portray Europe as a guarantor of employment is to replace truth with fable and evidence with elegy.
The Gambia itself has jobs and pathways for success that do not require gambling with death. Youths must resist the false narratives promoted by opposition voices and certain civil actors who habitually place every blame on government for not providing opportunities while ignoring the deeper issues of misinformation, impatience, and misplaced aspirations. President Adama Barrow’s own life story is a testament to the fact that success is possible through perseverance and resilience. He left The Gambia for Europe, believing that all that glitters was gold, but soon discovered the challenges and hardships faced by many immigrants. Upon his return home, he worked diligently, established a successful real estate business, and later ventured into politics to become president. His trajectory illustrates that prosperity can be achieved through discipline and determination. Thousands of Gambians who have never crossed a border have built prosperous lives, proving that opportunity exists within the nation’s own boundaries.
Human rights organisations must protect the public not only from abusive power but also from abusive narratives. To issue emotionally heavy statements laced with speculative economics is to risk complicity in public misguidance. Institutions such as EFSCRJ carry a higher obligation: to illuminate truth, not embellish tragedy.
If EFSCRJ and other vocal politicians are genuinely interested in fostering a national conversation, it must begin with facts, not fallacies. Illegal migration is not a referendum on government performance; it is a symptom of weak information ecosystems, distorted aspirations, and the failure of civic actors to anchor discourse in evidence. A responsible policy debate must therefore prioritise skills development, accountable governance, and regulated mobility pathways. Strengthening state capacity requires not only economic reform but also civic vigilance. Citizens must be encouraged to treat misinformation and trafficking networks as threats to national security, supporting law enforcement institutions in dismantling smuggling enterprises.
Kebeli Demba Nyima
USA
