Dear Editor,
On 24 April 1970, our people finally shed the remaining vestiges of colonial domination and became a fully sovereign republic. On this day, the British monarch ceased to be the Head of State of the Gambia.
Executive authority ceased to be vested in a Governor-General appointed by the British Crown. The Gambia ceased to be a dominion under the British Empire.
April 24, 1970, therefore marked the true transfer of sovereignty to the Gambian people. From that day, executive power was vested in a Gambian President, while legislative power was vested in the House of Representatives as the elected institution of the people. It was the day the Gambia became fully independent in substance, authority, and constitutional identity.
EFSCRJ therefore recognizes 24 April 1970 as the true date of Gambian independence, arising from a long struggle pioneered more than a century ago by Edward Francis Small and other patriotic citizens. On this basis, EFSCRJ calls on the Government and citizens to take urgent steps to correct our national history by recognizing and adopting 24 April 1970 as Independence Day.
We hold the view, supported by historical and constitutional evidence, that the perennial misgovernance, underdevelopment, and lack of state accountability in our country are rooted partly in the nature of our independence process, which weakened citizen ownership and participation. By embracing a British-orchestrated independence process that culminated on 18 February 1965, Gambian citizens and leaders have not fully internalised the meaning of sovereignty, republicanism, and citizen power.
For the past six decades, February 18 has been observed largely as a ceremonial holiday, while April 24 has been ignored and erased from national consciousness. Consequently, the ideals that underpin independence, sovereignty and republicanism remain weakly understood. This has contributed to a nation-state in which many citizens prioritize family, ethnic, religious, party, and other sectarian interests above the national interest.
Against this background, and compounded by patriarchy and weak civic education, the Gambia continues to suffer from a weak citizenry on one hand, and a predatory and parasitic state system on the other. The country has failed to build a robust democratic republic rooted in the will and power of the citizenry, committed to freedom, justice, equality, unity, and shared prosperity for all.
On this 56th anniversary of republican independence, EFSCRJ calls on the Government to submit an Independence Bill before the National Assembly to recognize, adopt and institute 24 April 1970 as the sole Independence Day of the Gambia.
We further urge the Government, civil society, political parties, educational institutions, the media, traditional and religious leaders, and all citizens to engage in urgent, open, and nationwide conversations on citizen sovereignty, democracy, and republicanism. Such national reflection is necessary to strengthen civic awareness, deepen citizen participation, build a lawful state, and cultivate a democratic culture rooted in the ideals of sovereignty and republicanism.
April 24 must be restored to its rightful place in Gambian History.
2026: The Year of Empowerment – Empowered Citizens. Accountable Leadership
Joseph Colley misled the nation!
Dear Editor,
Listening to the Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), Joseph Colley babbling about the activities of unregistered political groups was indeed troubling! Firstly, Mr Colley said that the activities of some of these actors constitute “a clear violation of section 105 of the 1997 constitution and sections 105 to110 of the Elections Act 2025”. However, section 105 of the 1997 constitution only relates to language in the National Assembly. It states “The business of the National Assembly shall be conducted in the English language or any other language prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly”. To correct Mr Colley, it is section 60, not section 105 of the 1997 constitution that talks about sponsoring of candidates. It states “No association, other than a political party registered under or pursuant to an Act of the National Assembly, shall sponsor candidates for public elections”.
I am not a lawyer but the simple interpretation of this section is that only political parties can sponsor candidates for public elections. Clearly, those who wish to contest outside the banner of a political party can only do so as Independent Candidates as catered for in the Elections Act. So, I do not know why Mr Colley made reference to section 105 instead of section 60. Was it deliberate or he did not know at the time? Even with section 60, none of the unregistered political groups have sponsored a candidate for elections, not even the Unite Movement for Change (UMC) that many believes, including myself that Mr Colley was referring to. In fact, should the UMC as an unregistered political entity attempt to sponsor a candidate for public elections, it is the responsibility of the IEC to reject such a candidate, that the person can only contest as an Independent Candidate. That will be the correct application of section 60. On records, the UMC is yet to sponsor a candidate for elections as sponsoring a candidate under the law requires acceptance of nomination by the IEC. So, it is not for the IEC to start pointing fingers at entities, accusing them of violating a section of the constitution when they are not yet even registered or attempting to sponsor a candidate for elections.
Back to sections 105 to 110, which Mr Colley made reference to. It is important to note that these sections apply to political parties but not entities yet to register. Again, the interpretations of these sections are that it is political parties that are affected. How can a law apply to me when I am not bound by the provisions of that law? Say if there is a section of the constitution which states that members of parliament can engage in public conversations on the media but shall not divulge secrets of parliament. And then Essa Njie divulges secrets of parliament in the media, only for the state to hold me to account of violating that particular section, which prohibits parliamentarians from engaging in such an act. How does this section/law apply to me when I am not a member of parliament. The state can only accuse me of violating another law but not this particular section. The IEC must be seen to protect the integrity of the December polls and not to target certain political entities. Joe could and should do better!
Essa Njie
USA
