It is against this background that the disagreement between the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) over the 2026 supplementary voter registration exercise deserves careful attention.
At the centre of the dispute is a difference between the registration total announced by the IEC and the number of records contained in the dataset supplied to the opposition party.
The UDP has called for a comprehensive explanation and access to the relevant information, while the IEC maintains that the figures reflect different stages of the registration and verification process.
The disagreement has now entered a more consequential phase. During an interview with Peter Gomez on West Coast Radio on 9th October 2026, UDP representative Lamin Manneh said that the party intended to approach the courts next week to compel the IEC to provide the requested data.
If pursued as described, the proposed legal action would move the dispute beyond correspondence and public statements towards judicial scrutiny of the parties’ respective obligations and claims.
The question facing The Gambia is not simply which institution will prevail in this disagreement. It is how the outstanding questions can be resolved fairly, transparently and in sufficient time to strengthen confidence in the electoral process before 5 December 2026.
The figures at the centre of the controversy
In its public statement of 4th October 2026, the UDP said the IEC had announced that 212,095 people registered during the supplementary registration exercise.
However, the dataset supplied to the UDP contained 183,163 records, leaving a difference of 28,932.
The UDP has argued that the gap requires a documented explanation. It has requested registration figures before and after the removal of duplicate records, information about records deleted during verification, details of the methodology used to identify duplicates, and datasets that would allow independent examination of the process.
The UDP has also called for relevant breakdowns by administrative area, constituency and registration centre, alongside other available statistics, subject to applicable legal and data-protection requirements.
Importantly, The Gambia’s main opposition party has stated that the numerical difference should not automatically be treated as proof of electoral malpractice.
Its stated concern is that the figures should be reconciled in a manner that enables political parties and other stakeholders to understand how the final register is established.
That distinction is essential. A difference between two datasets raises a legitimate question, but it does not, on its own, establish that eligible voters have been excluded, that fraudulent registrations have occurred or that the electoral process has been compromised.
Those conclusions require evidence. The appropriate starting point is therefore to establish precisely what each figure represents, how the datasets were compiled, and what adjustments were made between the initial collection of registration information and subsequent verification.
The IEC’s explanation
The IEC has rejected the assertion that the difference demonstrates a discrepancy in its registration information.
In an interview published by The Standard newspaper on 6th October 2026, IEC Vice Chairman Cherno Mamadou Jallow explained that the figure of 212,095 represented raw data collected from registration centres.
According to IEC Vice Chairman Cherno Jallow, the total included replacements, reprints and spoiled or damaged voter cards, as well as records subsequently subjected to cross-matching and verification.
Vice Chairman Cherno Jallow said the verification process identified duplicate registrations and other records requiring correction or removal.
He also explained that the number of people involved in double registration was different from the larger number of duplicate records initially identified, because some individuals had registered more than twice.
This distinction is relevant. One person registering multiple times can generate more than one duplicate record, meaning that the number of records removed need not equal the number of individuals involved.
The IEC’s explanation therefore provides a possible administrative basis for differences between figures produced at different stages of registration.
However, an explanation of the general process is not necessarily the same as a complete reconciliation of the specific figures under dispute.
The published report did not establish the final number of verified registrations that remained after the relevant adjustments.
That is a material information gap because it leaves the public unable to trace the movement from the announced total to the final verified figure.
Cherno Jallow also acknowledged that the IEC had received two letters from the UDP requesting information and said the commission should have responded.
He attributed the delay to the demands of its ongoing work and stated that the commission intended to respond.
IEC Vice Chairman Jallow’s acknowledgement is significant. Even where an electoral commission believes it has already explained an issue at stakeholder meetings, formal requests for clarification deserve a timely and substantive response.
The IEC has a legitimate responsibility to protect the integrity of the registration process.
Equally, its independence should coexist with reasonable transparency and accountability to political parties and the electorate.
The proposed court action: a new phase in the dispute
The UDP’s reported intention to approach the courts marks a potentially important development.
During the 9th October interview on West Coast Radio’s Coffee Time with veteran Gambian broadcaster Peter Gomez, Lamin Manneh stated that the party would go to court next week to compel the IEC to provide the requested data.
On the account of the radio interview available below via YouTube, the proposed application is specifically concerned with obtaining the information the UDP says it needs to examine the registration figures.
This should be distinguished from existing objections to individual voter registrations before the revising courts.
Challenges to particular entries on the register and an application seeking disclosure of registration data raise different questions, even though both concern electoral integrity.
The proposed action also needs to be described accurately. As of today 10 October 2026, the available information establishes the UDP’s reported intention to seek judicial intervention, not that a new application has already been filed, that the IEC has been served, or that a court has issued an order.
Those details should be confirmed through subsequent announcements or court records.
If the UDP files the application, the court will need to consider the applicable legal provisions, the nature of the information requested, the IEC’s obligations, and the specific remedy sought.
Depending on the application and the law, the UDP could seek an order requiring disclosure of relevant records or information needed to explain the figures.
The outcome cannot be assumed in advance. Nevertheless, seeking judicial clarification is a lawful avenue through which a dispute over institutional obligations may be resolved.
The IEC should have the opportunity to present its legal and factual position, and any decision should be respected by the parties.
The court process should not be portrayed as evidence of wrongdoing by either institution.
Rather, it offers a potential mechanism for resolving a disagreement that has not yet been satisfactorily settled in the public domain.
Yet, transparency is not an admission of wrongdoing. One of the dangers in an increasingly polarised political environment is the tendency to interpret every unanswered question as proof of misconduct or every demand for information as an attack on an institution.
Neither interpretation is justified without evidence. The UDP is entitled to seek clarification of figures that it says do not reconcile.
As a political party preparing to participate in a presidential election, the UDP has a legitimate interest in understanding the register and scrutinising the processes that determine who is eligible to vote.
At the same time, the IEC is entitled to have its explanations assessed fairly rather than having its procedures declared defective simply because different figures have been reported.
The IEC may be correct that the difference reflects the transition from raw registration data to verified records.
If so, a detailed reconciliation should help demonstrate that.
Conversely, if the information already supplied is incomplete or insufficient to establish how the figures relate to one another, the IEC should address that shortcoming.
Transparency should not be understood as a concession to political pressure. It is an important element of sound electoral administration.
Nor should scrutiny be treated as hostility towards an independent institution. Properly conducted scrutiny can strengthen an institution by making its decisions more understandable and its procedures more defensible.
The guiding principle should be simple: legitimate questions deserve evidence-based answers, and allegations should be assessed against verifiable facts.
Which begs the question: What would a meaningful reconciliation look like?
The most constructive way forward would be for the IEC to publish a clear, accessible and technically coherent reconciliation of the supplementary registration figures.
That reconciliation should distinguish between the different stages of the process rather than treating all reported numbers as if they represented the same category.
At a minimum, it should explain:
1. The initial registration total: What exactly does the figure of 212,095 represent? How many applications, registration transactions, card-related transactions or individual applicants does it include?
2. The dataset supplied to the UDP: What does the figure of 183,163 represent, and what was the scope and status of that dataset when it was provided?
3. The treatment of duplicates: How many individuals were identified as having registered more than once, how many duplicate records were identified, and how many records were ultimately removed?
4. Other adjustments: Were records excluded or amended for reasons other than duplication? If so, how many were affected and on what basis?
5. The final verified total: What number remains after cross-matching, adjudication and other relevant adjustments, subject to the completion of any outstanding legal proceedings?
6. The methodology: What procedures were used to identify duplicates, resolve ambiguous matches and prevent eligible voters from being wrongly excluded?
7. The timing of each stage: When was the data collected, when was the initial dataset produced, when were corrections made, and what information remains provisional?
These questions are not an assumption that the IEC has acted improperly.
They are the ordinary questions that arise when figures from different stages of a complex administrative process appear inconsistent.
The objective should be to make the arithmetic and the methodology understandable to both technical and non-technical audiences.
Where necessary, the IEC could provide anonymised or aggregated information rather than disclose personal details that are protected by law. The need for transparency does not eliminate the obligation to protect voters’ personal information.
The UDP also has a responsibility. While the IEC bears responsibility for explaining its figures and responding appropriately to legitimate requests, the UDP also has a role in ensuring that public discussion remains accurate and evidence-based.
The UDP should identify precisely which data it has received, which data it believes is missing, and how the requested information would resolve the questions it has raised.
If it proceeds to court, its case should focus on the applicable legal obligations, the documented correspondence, the specific information requested and the remedy it seeks.
It should also distinguish between an unresolved administrative question and evidence of deliberate manipulation.
The same standard should apply to every political party.
Electoral scrutiny is most credible when it is based on consistent principles rather than conclusions determined by partisan affiliation.
The UDP’s demand for information should be assessed on its merits, just as the IEC’s explanation should be assessed against the available records.
Neither institution benefits in the long term from language that goes beyond what the evidence can support.
Which begs the question: Why does the timing matter?
The presidential election is scheduled for 5 December 2026, leaving a limited period in which outstanding questions about registration can be clarified.
The timetable makes prompt action important. A protracted disagreement could leave political parties and voters uncertain about the status of the register, while a timely and well-documented resolution could help reduce speculation.
However, it would be premature to claim that the dispute will delay the election or compromise its outcome.
Such conclusions would require evidence about the legal proceedings, the status of the register and the practical consequences of any unresolved issues.
The priority should be to address the matter early enough for any necessary corrections, explanations or judicial decisions to be incorporated into the electoral process in accordance with the law.
The IEC should communicate clearly about what remains outstanding and when relevant information can reasonably be provided.
The UDP should pursue its concerns through established legal and institutional channels. Other political parties should be given appropriate opportunities to examine information that is lawfully available to them.
Civil society organisations, journalists and election observers can contribute by asking precise questions, examining documents and reporting developments without turning unresolved allegations into established facts.
The public, meanwhile, deserves information that is clear enough to distinguish between what is known, what is disputed and what remains to be established.
Words of wisdom: the best way forward
There is a lesson here for every institution and political actor involved in The Gambia’s democratic process.
When figures do not appear to reconcile, the answer is neither immediate accusation nor unquestioning acceptance. The answer is verification.
The IEC should recognise that confidence is strengthened when it explains not only its conclusions but also the processes and evidence that support them.
A clear response to a legitimate request for information can often achieve more than repeated assurances that there is nothing to hide.
The UDP, for its part, should continue to insist on accountability while allowing evidence and the legal process to determine what conclusions are justified.
Firm scrutiny is compatible with restraint, and public concern need not become a premature allegation of wrongdoing.
If the matter reaches court, both sides should respect the proceedings and avoid presenting their preferred interpretation as though it were already a judicial finding.
There is also a wider responsibility shared by all Gambians. The credibility of an election is a national interest, not the exclusive property of the governing party, the opposition or the electoral commission.
A reliable voters’ register protects eligible citizens regardless of their political preferences.
The best outcome would be one in which the disputed figures are fully reconciled, the legal obligations of the IEC are clarified where necessary, eligible voters are protected from wrongful exclusion, and the public receives a credible explanation before election day.
If the figures are correct, transparent documentation should help demonstrate that. If errors are found, they should be corrected promptly and lawfully. If the parties disagree over the IEC’s legal obligations, the courts should resolve that question through due process.
The measure of success should not be whether the UDP or the IEC wins a public relations contest. It should be whether the Gambia emerges with a more transparent and reliable electoral process.
In conclusion, confidence must be demonstrated. The disagreement over the 28,932-record difference is an important issue requiring clarification, but it should be approached with proportionality and care.
The UDP has presented a specific numerical concern and requested the information needed to investigate it.
The IEC has offered an explanation based on raw data, duplicate registration and subsequent verification, while acknowledging delays in responding to the UDP’s correspondence.
The UDP’s reported intention to seek a court order for disclosure introduces a further avenue for resolving the dispute.
At this stage, the available information does not establish that the difference represents 28,932 missing eligible voters, nor does it conclusively demonstrate that the IEC has fully reconciled the figures.
That uncertainty is precisely why clear documentation and timely engagement matter.
As The Gambia approaches the 5 December 2026 presidential election, all stakeholders should remember that public confidence cannot be secured by assertion alone.
It is built through transparent procedures, verifiable information, lawful remedies and a willingness to answer legitimate questions.
Democracy is strengthened when institutions are open to scrutiny, political parties are disciplined in their claims, and the truth is allowed to emerge from evidence rather than assumption.
The immediate task is therefore straightforward: reconcile the figures, clarify the obligations, respect the law and give Gambian voters the information they need to have confidence in the process that will determine their next president.
By Dr Ebrima Ceesay
Dr Ebrima Ceesay is a former Gambian journalist now academic based in the UK.
