By Yero Kani
I read a statement from the Gambia Police Force about the too many comments on social media about the arrest of protesters recently. In it they have urged critics to take recourse in the legal system and avoid venting on the media. While their willingness to engage is commendable, I still think that perhaps a different approach is needed to resolve the many issues being raised by members of the public.
Laws are the scaffolding of society —structures carefully assembled by human hands to foster order and stability. Yet, in their very design, they are vulnerable to the imperfections of human judgment. History reminds us that what is legal isn’t always just; sometimes, it is actively immoral.
Consider the ancient wisdom embedded in the maxim “An unjust law is no law at all.” Some philosophers have argued that a law must serve the common good, be within rightful authority, and apply equally to all to be legitimate. This reflection still resonates: legality alone cannot sanctify a law’s moral worth.
Legal positivists such have upheld a separation between law and morality, asserting that law is a system of rules created and recognised through social conventions—regardless of their moral content. In contrast, natural law theorists argue that morality is not a human construct but an intrinsic compass guiding justice, one that transcends any statute.
Practically, countless practices are legal yet morally troubling. Martin Luther King Jr and others championed this gap between law and ethics through the philosophy of civil disobedience—declaring that when laws violate fundamental human dignity, silence becomes complicity .
Human beings are by nature complex beings and regulating their actions and behaviours cannot but be complex. As beyond the realm of grand injustices, everyday life is laced with moral gray zones. Acts like cheating on taxes, withholding gratuity, or refusing to offer hospitality—though legal—nudge the conscience. Yet, enforcing every moral lapse through legislation would demand intrusive surveillance and erode personal autonomy.
So, just because something is allowed by the law and is therefore legal does not absolve us from asking whether it should be done .
Law and morality are distinct—but deeply intertwined—domains. Legality offers structure and predictability; but does not provide conscience and justice, morality does that. A law’s legitimacy derives not just from its form, but from its alignment with human dignity.
Even where laws permit, our conscience can—and should—ask: Is this right? In the spaces between statute and soul lies the heart of ethical living. When laws guide us into moral darkness, the quiet voice of conscience becomes our greatest light.
Thus, let us allow our conscience to ask the tough questions. Let us look at the other side of the argument and not dismiss everyone who differs with us. This goes both ways; where the police are urged to have an open mind about these calls, let the callers also search their conscience. Let them put themselves in the shoes of police officers and commanding officers. This will give them a glimpse of what the officers experience while trying to enforce the law.
In short, respect the other person’s point of view.
