Yobba Baldeh
The nomination of Abubacarr Marie Tambadou to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an affront to justice and a blatant endorsement of corruption. His selection is not only an insult to victims of injustice but also undermines the credibility of international legal institutions. More disturbingly, it highlights the extent to which corruption can penetrate global governance structures, where individuals with questionable records can be elevated to positions meant to uphold justice. Even more shameful is the endorsement of Tambadou by the Edward Francis Small Centre for Rights & Justice (EFSCRJ) an institution that claims to stand for justice and anti-corruption. EFSCRJ has now muddied its reputation by aligning itself with a candidate whose nomination embodies everything it once opposed.
The ICJ was established with the crucial role to adjudicate in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinion on legal questions. This institution should be led and operated by individuals with unblemished records in justice and corruption. Unfortunately, Mr Tambadou’s track record suggests that he is not the ideal candidate to oversee matters of justice, and cooruption.
Moreover, the most shocking aspect of this nomination is the endorsement by EFSCRJ, an organisation that has prided itself on standing for justice, accountability, and transparency. This is a direct contradiction to its stated mission and values. While EFSCRJ has been vocal in advocating for the rule of law and has, in the past, opposed corruption and political favouritism in judicial nominations, however, by supporting Tambadou, the institution has tainted its credibility and exposed itself as an organisation willing to compromise on justice for political convenience.Whatever their reason is, the hypocrisy of their decision cannot be ignored. Moves like that by EFSCRJ will not only weaken global efforts to fight corruption, but also send a dangerous message that even organisations meant to safeguard justice can be compromised.
A critical look at Tambadou’s past actions raises serious concerns about his fitness for a position at the ICJ. Particularly for those who valued justice, accountability and transparency, they have been quite frankly outraged by his nomination. For these individuals, this nomination is not just a matter of political patronage; it is an emblem of corruption, an insult to accountability, and a dangerous precedent that threatens the very essence of justice and good governance.
For instance, Mr Tambadou’s nomination is deeply problematic, particularly in light of the glaring controversies surrounding his tenure in government. His involvement in the dubious sale of the former president, Yahya Jammeh’s assets and the reckless issuance of diplomatic passports to his relatives expose a pattern of corruption, abuse of office, and blatant disregard for the ethical responsibilities of public service. Rather than being rewarded with a nomination to one of the world’s most prestigious judicial institutions, he should be scrutinised and held accountable for actions that have severely undermined national interest and the principles of justice.
The sale of Jammeh’s assets under Mr Tambadou’s oversight raises serious ethical and legal concerns. It was under Mr Tambedou’s watch that Jammeh’s assets were disposed of under suspicious circumstances, leading to widespread speculation about embezzlement, favouritism, and financial mismanagement. The lack of transparency in the transaction suggests a deliberate attempt to enrich certain individuals at the expense of the Gambian people. The proceeds from such sales should have served the interests of the Gambian population, not line the pockets of a privileged few. Yet, instead of facing legal consequences of being subject to an investigation, Mr Tambadou has been put forward for a prestigious international role, effectively legitimising and rewarding corruption.
If those who manipulate public assets for private gain are rewarded with positions at the ICJ, what message does that send to the world about our commitment to justice? The ICJ is an institution meant to uphold accountability and human rights. Allowing an individual associated with financial misconduct to represent The Gambia at such a high level not only damages our national reputation but also undermines the credibility of international justice itself.
Equally troubling is Mr Tambadou’s involvement in the irregular issuance of diplomatic passports, a practice that has long been linked to corruption and abuse of power. Diplomatic passports are meant for individuals who genuinely serve the state in official capacities. However, under his watch, they have reportedly been handed out as political favours, or worse, sold to unqualified individuals, some of whom may have engaged in illicit activities.
This reckless distribution of diplomatic privileges has severe consequences. It compromises national security, facilitates transnational crime, and damages the credibility of The Gambia in the international arena. The scandal involving diplomatic passports has already tainted our nation’s image, and yet the person who presided over this disgraceful practice is being nominated for a role at the ICJ — an institution tasked with upholding justice.
Such an appointment is not only ironic but also deeply troubling. If Mr Tambadou is entrusted with enforcing international justice while having engaged in conduct that undermines the integrity of our national institutions, how can we expect him to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability? This nomination is not just a poor decision; it is a glaring indictment of how corruption is normalised and even celebrated in our political system.
The ICJ is meant to be an institution of the highest moral and legal standards, where only those with unimpeachable integrity serve. Allowing a nominee tainted by financial misconduct and administrative corruption to join its ranks makes a mockery of its very mission.
While The Gambia has been a strong advocate for justice in the international arena, particularly in its case against Myanmar for the Rohingya genocide, however, how can we, as a nation, claim to champion justice abroad when we fail to uphold it at home? The nomination of Mr Tambadou reveals the double standards in our governance, where individuals who should be answering for their actions are instead being elevated to prestigious positions.
By endorsing this nomination, the Gambian government is sending a clear message: corruption does not hinder one’s career prospects, but rather enhances them. This is a dangerous precedent that will embolden others to engage in financial misconduct and abuse of power, knowing that they will not only escape accountability but may even be rewarded with international recognition.
The citizens of The Gambia deserve leaders who prioritise integrity over self-interest, accountability over impunity, and justice over corruption. The nomination of Mr Tambadou is a betrayal of the principles that the Gambian people have fought for, especially in the post-Jammeh era, where transparency and good governance were supposed to be the pillars of our new democracy.
If the government is serious about fighting corruption, it must withdraw this nomination immediately and instead focus on investigating the financial misdeeds linked to Mr Tambadou. The ICJ, as an institution of global justice, must also scrutinise the background of candidates it considers, ensuring that those implicated in corruption and unethical practices do not find a home within its ranks.
Justice cannot be selective, nor can it be for sale. If we truly believe in accountability, we must oppose this nomination and demand better leadership for our nation. The world is watching, and history will judge whether The Gambia chose to stand for justice or allowed corruption to dictate its future.
